Forum Replies Created
1st June 2014, 16:45 at 4:45 pm #262118
I think that would be rather fun.
Maybe just a sensor mounted in the barrier at certain places. Because as @pezlo2013 says, it would be completely redundant on most circuits, apart from Monaco, Singapore and montreal. So building it into the wheelhub as per regulations would probably be a little overkill I think.
But it would be very fun to know how close each driver got to the wall on their flying lap. Especially around monaco.11th May 2014, 18:55 at 6:55 pm #259925
I think Alonso’s overtake on Kimi was pretty stellar. Buuuut I think I will go for Vettel on Bottas.
The way he came from what seemed like a mile back and just threw the car up the inside of Bottas was very gutsy.9th May 2014, 15:40 at 3:40 pm #259344
F1 in: 1980′s or 1990′s?17th March 2014, 15:37 at 3:37 pm #251982
Oh Lewis… not again..
How can that even be even remotely important?
Surely all that matters is that he wakes up in good condition.
I think it is very insensitive to suggest that it happened, because once he wakes up he will have shown that he is.. whatever.16th March 2014, 15:53 at 3:53 pm #252855
Will he launch a WDC assault a la Lewis Hamilton in 2007?
No I don’t think so.
The McLaren so far is still miles off the Merc just like everyone else, and I think Red Bull is faster then them as well and I don’t think McLaren can outdevelop either Merc or Red Bull.
How long can he keep up his podium streak?
This will be as far as it goes. I don’t think he will be able to repeat the success in Malaysia.
If both Mercs finish it will just take one of the Red Bulls to do the same and he will have a very hard time to get on the podium.
How badly will be outshine (or be outshone by) Button?
I think he is going to be significantly faster, nearly as consistent and I don’t expect a lot of brain-fade rookie mistakes. In the end Magnussen will have a clear points advantage.
How many poles and wins will he score (assuming McLaren keep pace in the development war)?
I don’t expect any pole positions. Maybe a couple of front row starts, but I think both Red Bull and even more so the Mercs are going to keep him off.
A single win at Spa, and 5 other podium finishes.6th February 2014, 19:03 at 7:03 pm #248567
The hydraulic brake-lines can’t physically control the KERS harvest and that is what does most of the rear breaking this year, so brake by wire is the best option for the rear wheels.6th February 2014, 18:58 at 6:58 pm #248573
I simply don’t see where 100HP should come from. With the limits on fuel consumption, the Mercedes engine would have to be a whopping 16.6 percent more fuel efficient then the Renault. With so strict regulations, I simply cannot see that happening.6th February 2014, 16:32 at 4:32 pm #248563
Electronic braking, so no physical connection between the brake pedal and the brake fluid circuit.
Same as drive by wire in the throttle on your car. Just in the braking system.
But it will only affect the rear wheels. The front wheel breaking will be done as usual.29th January 2014, 20:06 at 8:06 pm #248426
Sorry for being such a joy-kill though. Nice topic! I will give it a go tomorrow. : )29th January 2014, 20:05 at 8:05 pm #248425
• The fuel limit for cars would be 150kg, but if a team uses electric only, the weight of the battery units would be 75kg – this will allow the weight loss of fuel-burning cars to be mitigated and averaged out.
That would completely rule out battery powered cars.
Petrol contains 46.4MJ/kg of energy, in a normal engine only a third of that would be converted to mechanical energy, so roughly 15.4MJ/kg.
The best Lithium Ion batteries, as most commonly used in cars, contains up to 1MJ/kg. But since nearly all of the energy stored in the battery can be converted to actual, mechanical energy, we can just assume that the actual, driving, power is 1MJ/kg.
Basically the battery, to contain the same propulsion power would need to weigh 15.4 times MORE then the fuel allowed in the petrol car in order to contain a similar amount of power.
So the battery weight would need to be something like two tonnes in order to compete with 150kg of standard petrol.29th January 2014, 19:42 at 7:42 pm #248377
The V8 engines didn’t run between 0-10,000RPM. At race speed the gearing made sure they were kept well above that at all times. Watch a few onboard laps. Even in the really slow corners they would only juuust get near 10,000RPM, and that has more to do with trying to limit wheelspin then anything else. They were practically always well above that.27th January 2014, 19:35 at 7:35 pm #248350
They still have Newey, effectively factory support on engines, and most of their key people still in place, so I see no reason why they shouldn’t be at the top.
That said, dominance always ends and 9/10 times it is because of a big regulation change.
So I do not expect them to be dominant, maybe not even championship contenders, but I doubt they will turn up with a dog.25th January 2014, 21:48 at 9:48 pm #248255
I think most of the cars from the 70′s and early 80′s were pretty horrid.
But since ’85, I don’t really recall seeing something nearly as bad as this.
Well yes, there were always the occasional ugly duckling, but that is one or two vehicles. This time, it’s across the board. Every single one so far is bad, and there is no reason to believe that any of the others will not be.
Picking the best looking is like picking your favourite STD.
Although 1996 weren’t so great either, with the raised side protection. It looked awkward. Still nothing in comparison to this year.11th January 2014, 11:39 at 11:39 am #248039
I think it is the future for road cars, but I wouldn’t like it on the racing cars.
Basically it would mean that the teams will run maximum downforce EVERYWHERE without loosing out on top speed, as well as it would make the slipstream less effective.
Basically having more downforce then the others would be a ‘free’ advantage in the sense that there would be virtually no drawback.
Not like today where teams running more downforce are usually slower on the straights. I like that sort of balancing act between downforce and top speed. I think it makes the racing more interesting.5th December 2013, 19:30 at 7:30 pm #245879
Introducing traction control wouldn’t reduce Red Bull’s traction advantage.
Traction is a measure for the amount of force you can put through the tyres at any given time.
Say Red Bull can put down 1000Nm at 80km/h (completely made up numbers!) but Mercedes are only able to put down 950Nm at 80km/h. Using traction control will allow the driver to on average come a little closer to those numbers then they normally do, but if we say that Vettel and Hamilton are equally good at applying their right foot, then the TC advantage will mean that Lewis can come closer to 950, and Vettel can come closer to 1000. Making no difference.
If a driver however has a bad right foot and while the car is able to put down 1000Nm, and he only applies 950, or 1050 (causing slip) then he will be no faster then a good driver with less traction.
Introducing traction control will allow the worse driver to get equally close to his cars maximum traction, as a better driver.
Meaning it is now a lot more about the car, then the driver.