Wasn't there a rule set last season that only moderators should make these threads?
[EDIT]
Yes, I was right.
[EDIT]
Yes, I was right.
Yes, they are getting rarer these days.
Oh, you meant the team!
Hmmm... my science and engineering brain agrees with this, but my lawyer brain does not. On hindsight, I should have used the word, "meaning", rather than "interpretation".
In the legal profession (and the judiciary, for that matter), rules are always interpreted literally as the first and most authoritative interpretation. But if the literal interpretation reveals ambiguities within the rule, then the intent of the rules are examined to find the true meaning. I use the legal profession as the model here, since even in the FIA (and many other sporting organisations), disputes about rules ultimately become legal issues.
In the case of the FIA and its technical regulations, this means that the technical regulations should be interpreted literally first and foremost. But ambiguities in the rules need to be dealt with in one of two ways: either the team guesses what the true meaning of the rules are, or they can consult the FIA for clarification of the rules. Generally, I think the team engineers and their advisors would make educated guesses about the rules, by looking at past precedents, notes made during meetings when the rules are written up, etc. When two or more teams find that the other(s) have arrived at different meanings, then it is only natural and fair that the FIA is consulted: "do the ambiguities mean we can do whatever we want, or do you intend that it means something more?"
Last edited by samjh, .
LOL
The thing about rules is that there can only be ONE interpretation, not two, three, or more. That's the whole point of having rules. Seeking clarification is good. Just clenching one's teeth and doing whatever, is not.
The punny game has already started: Di Grassi enjoys first Virgin run.
I'm very much looking forward to the Virgin, Red Bull, and Force India at Jerez this week.
I'm very much looking forward to the Virgin, Red Bull, and Force India at Jerez this week.
They are professionals, and better than they appear in that video.
A bit of background from one of their driving coaches: http://www.pistonheads.com/gas ... opic.asp?h=0&t=768107
A bit of background from one of their driving coaches: http://www.pistonheads.com/gas ... opic.asp?h=0&t=768107
Most teams change their cars significantly over the course of a season: floor, wings, intakes, etc. Allison was merely speaking the obvious.
Don't expect teams to speak frankly about their car development. All they'll say are vague and obvious things like what you quoted from Allison. No team will outline precisely what has changed or what they'll do to their car.
Don't expect teams to speak frankly about their car development. All they'll say are vague and obvious things like what you quoted from Allison. No team will outline precisely what has changed or what they'll do to their car.
Poor Heidfeld. Maybe he should have switched to A/LMS or gone to DTM.
He was also worked in March and Benetton. No newb is he.
He was also worked in March and Benetton. No newb is he.
I'm strongly reminded of CART.
It's got a nice paint job, and the design is an interesting deviation from the status quo.
It's got a nice paint job, and the design is an interesting deviation from the status quo.
I don't think that's something which can be explained by an internet posting.
Some indicators of turbulence include lines that curve back upon itself, sudden changes in direction or angle inconsistent with the curvature of the surface, accumulation of the paint beyond which it no longer flows even though the body continues on, etc.
It's only testing though, not racing. I don't blame people for getting a bit carried away during a Grand Prix, but going hyper during a test?! 
It's like a football riot during team practice!
We know that Hamilton was running with approximately 20 laps worth of fuel. We don't know what Massa, Barri, or Rosberg were running with (nor Kobi, who has also been doing long runs).
Yesterday, Ferrari and McLaren were running with 100kg of fuel. That's a lot more than 20 laps worth! Who knows how much they were carrying for today's long runs?
We also know from Hamilton's lap times that pushing the limits isn't a high priority for these tests. Just before, Hammy was pulling 1:13s with 16 laps of fuel, when we know he can actually go faster. Just because Massa, Barri, and others were pulling 1:14s to 1:16s on their long runs, we shouldn't just assume they were all pushing for fastest laps and compare them against Hamilton's fast heavy laps.
It's like a football riot during team practice! We know that Hamilton was running with approximately 20 laps worth of fuel. We don't know what Massa, Barri, or Rosberg were running with (nor Kobi, who has also been doing long runs).
Yesterday, Ferrari and McLaren were running with 100kg of fuel. That's a lot more than 20 laps worth! Who knows how much they were carrying for today's long runs?
We also know from Hamilton's lap times that pushing the limits isn't a high priority for these tests. Just before, Hammy was pulling 1:13s with 16 laps of fuel, when we know he can actually go faster. Just because Massa, Barri, and others were pulling 1:14s to 1:16s on their long runs, we shouldn't just assume they were all pushing for fastest laps and compare them against Hamilton's fast heavy laps.
Last edited by samjh, .
UPDATE: Rosberg doing heavy runs now.
Massa clocks 1:12.370 during a 6-lap stint. Now suffering from a gearbox problem. Update: false alarm for Massa.
Hamilton on a 18-lap stint, pulls out 1:13.262.
Massa clocks 1:12.370 during a 6-lap stint. Now suffering from a gearbox problem. Update: false alarm for Massa.
Hamilton on a 18-lap stint, pulls out 1:13.262.
Last edited by samjh, .
dawguk: No need to be so defensive. You should base your assumptions on facts, not speculations.
Hamilton set 1m12.491s a few minutes before you posted that he was running with 20 laps to go. It has since been over an hour, and he has only improved his time by just over 0.12 seconds.
Clearly, the lap times should NOT be taken at face value. You are trying to extrapolate too much from the lap times. I should point out that Barrichello, Hamilton, and Massa have all been doing long runs today, not just Hamilton.
After tomorrow, when all the lap times are in and more information may be available, then we can start to say who has been truly impressive.
Hamilton set 1m12.491s a few minutes before you posted that he was running with 20 laps to go. It has since been over an hour, and he has only improved his time by just over 0.12 seconds.
Clearly, the lap times should NOT be taken at face value. You are trying to extrapolate too much from the lap times. I should point out that Barrichello, Hamilton, and Massa have all been doing long runs today, not just Hamilton.
After tomorrow, when all the lap times are in and more information may be available, then we can start to say who has been truly impressive.
The Sauber has been quietly impressive so far. Quicker than I had expected, considering BMW's horrible performance last season, their lack of sponsorship and the effect of limited financial resources in car design and construction, and the relative lack of experience in its drivers.
It's not really that impressive. 20 laps of fuel is only a modest load. This season's cars have fuel tanks with roughly 150 litres of capacity. The average fuel consumption per lap is around 2.5 to 2.7 litres per lap on most tracks. 20 laps of fuel is only around 50 to 52 litres. Since a full tank of fuel is estimated to cost 4 seconds per lap on this track (source: Barrichello), that means 20 laps of fuel equates to roughly 1.2 to 1.4 seconds of deficit.
But remember, it's early times yet.
It's not really that impressive. 20 laps of fuel is only a modest load. This season's cars have fuel tanks with roughly 150 litres of capacity. The average fuel consumption per lap is around 2.5 to 2.7 litres per lap on most tracks. 20 laps of fuel is only around 50 to 52 litres. Since a full tank of fuel is estimated to cost 4 seconds per lap on this track (source: Barrichello), that means 20 laps of fuel equates to roughly 1.2 to 1.4 seconds of deficit.
But remember, it's early times yet.
Last edited by samjh, .
They won't know what their best diffusers, etc., are without testing them on the track. The earlier they test those components, evaluate their solutions, and sort out any problems, the better they will be in the season.
Blind leading the blind, then.
One possible explanation I've just thought up is that perhaps Renault were suffering from separation problems at high angles of attack, and by increasing the leading edge radius, they're seeking to overcome it?
In plain English for non-freaks: because F1 cars' rear wings have very extreme curvature, it's easy for the air flowing under the wing to separate from the wing surface because of centrifugal force (ie. as the air flows faster along the curved surface, it wants to "go straight" and detach from the surface). This can sometimes be corrected by making the front edge of the wing thicker (and more rounded), because increasing the thickness lessens the curvature of the wing surface.
This is well and truly out of my league.
Are you talking about the Sauber? I think it might be because of the "shark fin" engine cover. It makes the car look longer than it actually is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSFLASH: Massa cracks the 1:13 mark with 1:12.842. He must be getting fairly close to the car's peak performance by now. 2007 cars were doing low 1:11s.
One possible explanation I've just thought up is that perhaps Renault were suffering from separation problems at high angles of attack, and by increasing the leading edge radius, they're seeking to overcome it?
In plain English for non-freaks: because F1 cars' rear wings have very extreme curvature, it's easy for the air flowing under the wing to separate from the wing surface because of centrifugal force (ie. as the air flows faster along the curved surface, it wants to "go straight" and detach from the surface). This can sometimes be corrected by making the front edge of the wing thicker (and more rounded), because increasing the thickness lessens the curvature of the wing surface.
This is well and truly out of my league.
Are you talking about the Sauber? I think it might be because of the "shark fin" engine cover. It makes the car look longer than it actually is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSFLASH: Massa cracks the 1:13 mark with 1:12.842. He must be getting fairly close to the car's peak performance by now. 2007 cars were doing low 1:11s.
Last edited by samjh, .
Low ambient temperature (only 15 degrees celsius) at the track.
Drivers tend to do only short stints during the early phases of testing, which means there isn't much time to get the tyres up to nominal operating temperature, especially in cool conditions. So they may opt to use intermediate wet tyres so the cars don't behave too horribly as they would using slicks.
Oops. Comprehension fail. Sorry.
EDIT: Actually, I just looked at the RB5 from Singapore last year, and it had the big hole at the back too. But I don't think it's an exhaust outlet, because the RB5 had two exhaust outlets near the rear suspension arms.
Supercritical aerofoils in F1? I don't know. Tristan would probably have more insight into this.
Last edited by samjh, .
+ brightness
+ contrast
+ sharpen
It looks like at least Ferrari and McLaren have produced triple-deck diffusers. Expect more.
They're the radio and telemetry antannae.
It was pretty much the nuclear weapon last season, so the paranoia is understandable.
It could have been absolutely not funny. Lucky it turned up be fairly harmless.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG