I get what he means...with the way money flows in current F1 there's no point in trying to reach the social networks more than they are doing now. IMO when something you do has to be aimed at pleasing the social media crowd first you are f**ked.

Is it that you think he is wrong ? Or is it that what he said shouldn't be said like kids are poor and bahrain didn't exist before us?

Always entertaining to spend 30 minutes in a GT2/GT3 car then jump in the LaFerrari or similar supercar. Going through Eau Rouge yeaaaah so much power up the hill then you get to Les Combes and the car just... won't stop. Oops.

Why not Lotus ?

The gap had been constant for the last 3 laps before.

I get what you are both saying and it's 100% his fault I just think people are being too harsh on him. A dive bomb happens under braking. To me it's a move to prevent a dive bomb but holy shit the car is already alongside before they even start braking.

Something is off. When they make contact they have not started braking yet. Heidfeld is almost 2 car lengths back when Prost looks behind for the last time. How did Heidfled gain almost 3 car lengths in less than 50 meters??? Tow ? Don't think so. It's like he magically unlocked 70 hp...

If I'm Prost I don't expect Heidfeld to be there...at all.

Quote from amp88 :

Either you're moving or you're not. I have no idea how the system failed to detect this, but it's pretty clear.

edit: Anyone know what the converging shift lights are on Kvyat's wheel here are? Looks like it might be some kind of braking point aid?

Absolute zero movement does not exist for a car on a starting grid. Do you want the sensor to go off when there's a gust of wind? A detection system has to have a certain tolerance to it. He was in it....very lucky to be in it but still he was in it. AFAIK it was a car problem, it never went into "race start" mode, the whole start procedure went out the window and the clutch was probably all over the place.

Quote from amp88 :

Hamilton's jump start: http://makeagif.com/i/aUKPDd

Just drop it and relax mate...there's a proximity switch in the tarmac, he didn't move enough to trip it. That's all...it has happened before and will happen again, if the switch doesn't go off it's not a jump start.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

http://jalopnik.com/the-inside ... hat-would-have-1601207940

Nice read

Quote from CarlLefrancois :

other sims are happy to yaw the car as a result of the steering angle directly.

That's a massive shortcut isn't it? I doubt any serious sim uses that kind of simplification.

LOL. Nico's performance is a masterpiece compared to that. Holy crap that was awful.

Nico made that look much more convincing than Schumi was able to

Your understanding is not that bad...You only need to do one last step. You have to separate in your head torque at the wheels from torque at the engine. Once you do that and you understand the role of gearing in between them you'll get it. You really are not that far IMO.

I think this guy explains it very well.

http://www.onpointdyno.com/?p=3306

Quote from Anthoop :

Yes...I did the reading thing...and the practical thing...a few years ago now it must be said.
Please explain where I went wrong?...I am not being funny at all...just I am not understanding what you are getting at...honestly.

Allright I'll try but really there are tons of people better at explaining this than I am.


Power is the rate at which the wheel can turn
Rate ? As in Rotational speed ? I'm not sure what your rate here means. Power is simply torque x rpm. Engine torque alone means nothing without the rpm at which it is produced. Put the two together and you have power. DaveWS is spot on, two engines can output any amount of torque you want, if the power output is the same, your gearing will compensate and they will accelerate the same.


torque is the force behind the wheel
True. But the torque at the engine still means nothing. Torque at the wheels is the force accelerating the car but it is not linked to engine torque, it is linked to engine power. An engine that spins faster will have shorter gears that will multiply torque more than longer gears would. If your engine spins fast, you only very little torque, the gearbox will take care of multiplicating it for you.


If the wheel has a lot of torque then it will get to maximum speed quicker than a wheel with less...if a wheel has more power then it will get to a higher maximum speed than with less...
I'm not even sure where to start. Let's just say the biggest amount of torque at the wheels will make you accelerate faster and reach a higher top speed as well. They are not exclusive things like torque does one thing and hp does another. Doesn't work that way.


A modern(pre-2014) F1 engine that was not fuel limited or heavily limited in rpm was outputting the same amount of torque a big family sedan does. Why did they chose to design them that way? Because engine torque is irrelevant. All you need is HP to produce torque at the wheels.


2014 engines output more torque. Cool. At what rpm are they running? 10000. Oops. No more 18000 rpms ? No. Crap. Gearing now has to be longer. All that extra torque is gone at the exit of the gearbox. You end up with the same amount of peak torque at the wheels than you had in 2013.


What has changed is how wide the power band is(only due to fuel flow limit curve btw). Whenever someone is saying "wow this engine has a lot of torque", what he really should be saying is "wow this engine outputs a big % of its peak power even at low-mid rpms".


In 2013, you step on it out of a corner your are maybe 1000-3000 rpms below the peak hp rpm. The powerband is so thin that at that rpm you are at least 100 hp down from peak, that is a lot of hp missing. Kind of easy to drive.


In 2014, the power curve is almost flat over the whole used rpm range.
step on it at 9500 rpm: close to peak hp
step on it at 10500 rpm: close to peak hp
step on it at 11500 rpm: close to peak hp.
Always. Boom. "Woah soooo much engine torque!". NO. Big amount of power, anywhere, anytime, instantly.

Quote from Anthoop :

Yes...I think you are...either in my mind or yours?
Power is the rate at which the wheel can turn and torque is the force behind the wheel.
If the wheel has a lot of torque then it will get to maximum speed quicker than a wheel with less...if a wheel has more power then it will get to a higher maximum speed than with less...

The subject is 100% clear in my mind.
The can of worm comment was more about people usually refusing to accept they have been wrong about this their
whole life. Trying to properly explain the hp/torque relation on internet forums most of the time leads to nowhere because of that.

Most of what you have just said is wrong. Do your own reading if you like, everything is on the internet.

Quote from lamerr :

1: Less power output(hp) but more torque(nm) with an overall heavier engine(powerunit) compared the V8s of recent years.
2: Higher top speeds due to less downforce(drag) and perhaps also due to more top end torque, slower lap times due to less overall downforce compared to recent years.
Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm opening a can of worms but whatever. This is the biggest misunderstanding about car acceleration.

Engine torque really means nothing. At all.

Engine power is the only thing that matters. If you want to know how much a car can accelerate all you need to know is how much power on average it outputs over the rpm range it is running. That's it.

2014 engines : much less peak power, but likely more average power over the range used. The power curve peaks around 11000 rpm and is almost flat from 10000 rpm to 13000 rpm. Basically whenever they step on it, out of every corner all they way to the next, they are outputting close to peak power.

Cars 90 lbs heavier if I remember correctly.

Less drag, less downforce : more top speed, slower laptimes

Quote from sinbad :

Adaptation isn't a skill in itself as much as it is the ability to refine the very high level skills which make the best drivers the best. Adaptation is what keeps the best drivers at the very front of each class, in each tier of motorsport that they find themselves in on the way to the top.

Not every driver will adjust what they're doing with the same ease, not every driver will get to the same competitive level in the next tier up, these things aren't uniform andI maintain that if one driver can handle the changes better than another, then regardless of what those changes are, he's the better of the two.

Yah well...I think I'll never agree to that. I'm pretty sure when you hear people say it's important for a driver to adapt quickly while climbing up the ladder they are mostly talking about the environment, the people, the information available etc...the "driving on the limit" itself doesn't change THAT much IMO.

All of that falls apart when you get into modern F1 where the operating window of everything becomes so thin. It's only in that environment that the driver sometimes has to massively change the way he drives to suit the material. Given enough time the order always resettles though, most of the time the same order that existed in the lower classes.

Quote from sinbad :

I do understand, completely. All that is completely obvious to anybody, but you're not explaining why a driver who can't hack it when the rules change is still at the level of drivers that continue to be competitive. A good driver might take time to adapt, but a better driver will adapt more quickly, and the best will adapt with ease.

Perhaps the only point of confusion is over your definition of "best". For example, you wouldn't suggest that Kimi is still on a par with Alonso (if he ever was) if his results throughout the season follow what we have seen so far, right?

Adapdation is only one skill amongst others. Best at adapdation doesn't mean absolute best. I tend to undervalue adaptation, you seem to overvalue it.

If the cars change and you are still competitive right off the bat it only means the change didn't affect how you are able to use the specific skills you were able to use before. It was said Vettel was better at using the blown diffuser compared to Webber. EBD gone. That would hurt more Vettel than it would have hurt Webber. Simple as that.

I think Alonso is the best at extracting the most of a non perfect car. Kimi needs a perfectly balanced car to go fast, maybe faster than anyone. New cars are inherently non-perfect and they will stay that way for a while IMO. I don't see Kimi matching Alonso any time soon.

Quote from sinbad :

Are the drivers that struggle when others do not really the best?

Drivers have different styles, strengths and weaknesses. Different cars can highlight or mask those. I can't see why you don't understand that.

The best should be able to adapt ? Yes. That takes time. They are not running thousands of kms of testing like they used to, able to setup the chassis exactly like a driver wants it. Now they setup the car each weekend so that the Pirellis are in their operating window. If the result doesn't suit the driver style then he will most likely look weak.

Where would that kind of damage come from ? Driving through walls of sand ??

Quote from Intrepid :

I think this has to be a myth. For arguments sake let's take the disaster 2011 out of the equation. I am not sure how anyone who has twice beaten a reigning world champion in the same car as well as Rosberg (who was superior to Schumacher in his come back) can be considered as not being 'smart' enough to exploit a formula. Unless one considers Alonso, Button and Rosberg stupid.

Also the control at which Hamilton won Malaysia and then to win in a completely different manner in Bahrain is not a 'stupid' driver. This argument comes from the same people who said a driver like Hamilton would suffer in the new era of tyre/fuel management and Button/Alonso/Vettel would excel. Where are they now?

And let's not forget who has exploited 2014 more than anyone? Who left what was at the time a proven race-winning team to join one that barely had scraped any success in the years post-09 preceding the move?

No doubt I'll be called a fanboy, admittedly I've followed Hamilton since he was 8 so you can forgive me on that one, but stupid he very much isn't.

Usually fans put drivers in a certain category and reject the possibility that they can adapt. Hamilton was horrible at race/tyre management. Not seeing that would make you a fanboy.

When he finally learned that it was a required skill to win a championship in modern F1 he quickly adapted. He is now very good at it and he hasn't lost his wheel-to-wheel skills.

Rosberg had to pass him on the better tire...IMO the only chance he has left at the WDC is through bigtime luck.

Last edited by PhilS13, Tue 8 Apr 2014, 21:43.

+1

WTF is going on with the nose talk? Tire to tire flipped the car, nothing else.

Rosberg showed yesterday he has almost zero chance at the WDC.

I'm not sure if the people actually believing she said that are more/equal/less stupid than a person who would actually say that. It sure is a close call.

Quote from chanoman315 :

The first time I heard them live (Austin 2012) was awesome, you could hear them from far far away from the track and you knew you were late for the FP.

My first time we were a bit late and FP1 started as we were walking to the grandstand. In Canada the walking path is right inside the circuit but sometimes you don't really know where you are relative to the track because of the many trees.

The first car came out of the pits and the sound got louder and louder....we didn't know but at that place we were maybe 20 feet away from the track we couldn't see behind trees. You should have seen our faces when the car went by....

Last edited by PhilS13, Thu 20 Mar 2014, 19:01.

Come on... Why is it so hard to understand that the wow effect is gone for most fans.

It's not about how good it sounds, how clean it sounds. It's ONLY about how loud it sounds. It's about when you went to a race and heard those things for the first time and thought "Holy. Shit." with the mega grin on your face.

It's fine on TV...I love the growl and whirrs and pops...but I also know I'll find dirt cheap tickets for the GP this year. What made a lot of people show up at the track is gone. I'm not sure I want that.

Quote from amp88 :

I'm just wondering why we never heard loads of stories from the pre-season testing about these terrible sensors. Obviously I understand Horner has to play things up, but if there's any truth to his comments (that the sensors were so faulty some were running without them in the race) it just seems like we'd have had those kinds of problems in Jerez and Bahrain already. It seems like the best time to highlight these problems to the FIA is during pre-season testing rather than at the first race when you've got points on the line.

Exactly. Horner can't be trusted. Typical Red Bull politics. But I'm sure he had many things to worry about between Jerez and now other than the FIA hardware.

Thanks for the numbers Tristan. 0.25% is about 1.75 hp @ 700 hp nominal value. I'm not sure if teams find this acceptable but it seems good enough to me.