Forum Replies Created
17th September 2012, 12:08 at 12:08 pm #210526
You’re wrong. Dan Wheldon was killed by severe head trauma when the car hit the supporting post for the catch fence.17th September 2012, 11:34 at 11:34 am #144940
Thanks. I’m pretty useless with pastels, but they’re quite good fun to work with. Ink and pencil is definitely my preference. Maybe I’ll do a few more, though I’m rather lacking in inspiration.17th September 2012, 11:13 at 11:13 am #210524
Covering the cockpit doesn’t just prevent other cars from hitting your head. it would have prevented the deaths of Dan Wheldon and henry Surtees, and it would have prevented the horrific head injuries suffered by Felipe Massa and Maria De Villotta. Of course, in every one of these situations the cause was different, and it would be possible to identify changes which would prevent each one of them from happening again. But they all serve to highlight the vulnerability of the driver’s head.
There was an accident in the Sau Paulo 6 hours on the opening lap which ended up with a Ferrari GT car sliding over the top of a closed-cockpit prototype. if the prototype had been open-cockpitted, then over a ton of Ferrari would have crushed the driver’s head onto his neck.
I do think that the issue needs very careful thought and a proper solution needs to be implemented. There are a number of other safety issues raised by enclosing the cockpit, mostly to do with driver extraction, which need to be addressed. What we really don’t want to see is a driver injured by a situation which was directly caused by them being enclosed.17th September 2012, 10:55 at 10:55 am #201333
Realistically I can’t see a major manufacturer joining F1 in the current climate. This is due to a few different things, but is mainly down to two major factors. Money and the potential to be competitive. The money factor is, I think, fairly clear, but in essence it’s a hugely expensive sport to take part in and the returns in terms of brand exposure are minimal.
The competitiveness problem I think deserves a little more explanation. As an example, look at Caterham. They’ve got major financial backing, a decent facility, two reasonable drivers, and plenty of engineering talent in the team. If you looked at Caterham you’d assume they’d be on the level of teams like Toro Rosso or Force India. But they aren’t. Mostly because of inexperience. An established team has a wealth of experience to draw upon when designing their cars. They have a degree of engineering maturity in how they approach the aero concepts on the cars. A new team starts without the benefit of this wealth of knowledge, and is at a huge disadvantage because of it. This shouldn’t be an insurmountable problem, except for the fact that testing is effectively banned. Time was, a new team could take their car to a test track and spend a week or two pumping in thousands of laps, testing all sorts of components. They could build up that database very effectively and then take their results to the track for races. It removes the ability of a new team to ever build sufficient data to gain ground on established teams.
This means that the only viable route into F1 for a major car manufacturer is through purchasing an established outfit. This is what Force India did, and it’s what Red Bull have done. Both are now competitive teams who are firmly established in the sport. It’s the route that Lotus have (eventually!) taken and it seems to be giving them a fair bit of brand exposure as a result. Mercedes are also trying this out, although their history of involvement in the sport is rather more complicated. However this isn’t likely to be attractive for most car manufacturers, who want to see their own cars winning races rather than just putting their badges on someone else’s work. The history of the Mercedes team and their lack of competitiveness is also likely to put people off buying into an existing team; none of the good teams are for sale, and it seems that these days F1 isn’t a problem which can be solved simply by throwing money at it.
Compare this to Toyota; spent years in F1 with something amounting to a blank chequebook, able to pour almost unlimited resource into their programme and even then they weren’t able to challenge for a title. They have now taken that expertise and channelled it into sportscar racing, and this weekend they managed to put in a commanding win over Audi who have for a very long time been the benchmark, in only their third race. If I was the head of motorsport for a large auto manufacturer I’d look at Mercedes and Caterham in F1, and then I’d look at Toyota in LMP1. To me, the smart money is spent in sportscar racing, where there’s still room for genuine innovation and you get a much much better return for your investment.
For this reason, I find it extremely unlikely that we will see a major car manufacturer join with a brand new team. As for filling the 13th garage with privateers, well honestly I couldn’t be any less interested in the idea. We don’t need another HRT or Marussia, there are enough rolling chicanes in F1 without adding more dead weight to the sport.15th September 2012, 14:23 at 2:23 pm #144938
Never really done any F1 pictures, always been more interested in sports cars. But hey, why not eh. Did a quick pastel sketch this morning for fun.
And here’s a pencil and pen drawing I did a while back of an MX-5
Not especially good, but I do enjoy a bit of art :)12th September 2012, 14:52 at 2:52 pm #210175
I think it’s a shame that people feel hatred for any drivers. No matter what my feelings for the individuals, I am overwhelmed by a massive sense of admiration for anyone who is ever deemed good enough to grace the seat of an F1 car. When it comes to race winners and champions, I love them all, for their differences and their flaws as much as their strengths and abilities.
I used to be proud as an F1 fan that the sport that I love could hold its head above the likes of football, where ‘fans’ are obliged to choose their favourites and pour hate on all others. It’s a sad fact that this seems increasingly to be a part of F1 fandom. There are drivers I like more than others, for a variety of reasons, but hatred has never registered for me. Not even for the likes of Maldonado, or Piquet Jr. I just can’t put myself into the mindset of a person who feels that way.7th September 2012, 11:13 at 11:13 am #209215
Yes, Brazil is a very rapidly developing nation and I think of all the ‘old school’ hosts, it’s probably the one which will be in the best place to meet the financial responsibilities of hosting and improving its facilities. Though its future may rely somewhat on Brazil continuing to provide top level drivers who can make it into F1
When all is said and done, that will the cars be like in 2022 – what will the engines be like, how will the aero have changed, etc5th September 2012, 8:40 at 8:40 am #209058
That’s how I read it too; Hamilton was frustrated by his lack of pace in qualifying and, in the heat of the moment, decided to show people the telemetry as a way of saying “Hey, look, I wasn’t slow – Jenson was faster than me because of the speed down the straights because he had the low drag wing”. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it making excuses, as ti’s a totally valid point, but it does seem that he was concerned that people might think that Button had simply been faster purely because of driving talent, rather than the setup differences in the cars.3rd September 2012, 10:14 at 10:14 am #207856
All energy drinks are horrible. Unfortunately I don’t think you’ll see a car sponsored by PG Tips any time soon.3rd September 2012, 9:19 at 9:19 am #207852
I can’t see anything you’ve mentioned which you couldn’t equally level at any other front running team. The flexible front wing is a great example – the part was technically legal. The fact it used clever engineering to get around the tests was precisely the sort of gemesmanship which defines F1. Technically legal are the two most important words when it comes to building an F1 car. You have to look at the technical regs as a set of rules designed to limit the performance of the car. In order to build a fast car, you need to find a way of making the car faster than the rules were meant to make it, while still satisfying the letter of the law. This is certainly nothing new, and designers were doing this while Adrian Newey was still sucking his thumb.
Red Bull are successful because over the past few years, they’re the ones who have been most effective at doing the above. Every other team were trying to do the same thing, and all were doing it to some extent. A much more blatant example would be Brawn’s introduction of the double diffusor which was a fine example of exploiting technical loopholes. It’s natural that in situations where a team is doing well, that the other teams will try to work out how they’re doing it. In some instances once they work out how it’s being done, they’ll seek a technical clarification. Sometimes it’s upheld and the FIA will clarify the rules which will close a small wording loophole. In other cases, they simply pass it as it’s outside of the scope of the rules. Double diffusors, off throttle exhaust blowing, f-ducts, all recent examples of things which have been technically challenged when the other teams have worked them out, but all were legal within the rules.
What you won’t find, as far as I know, are any examples of Red Bull actually being found to have directly broken a rule. That is to say, something they’ve done which is illegal and banned under the rules. In that respect, they’ve not cheated. They’ve done the best job of maximising the performance of the car while satisfying the technical requirements of the formula. That’s not cheating, that’s just how you win at F1. They should be congratulated for it, not scorned!2nd September 2012, 9:44 at 9:44 am #207847
I’m not sure there are any examples of Red Bull cheating, in fairness. Brinksmanship is the essence of F1; you can’t call it cheating just because you don’t like the team.28th August 2012, 13:59 at 1:59 pm #207831
I think there is something about the human psyche which compels us to weave an interesting narrative around things such as sporting competitions. We want there to be good guys and bad guys, people we can cheer for and people we can boo. We also love an underdog, so it’s convenient if the bad guy is the successful one. Look at virtually anyone that’s extremely successful in sport. Michael Schumacher, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Sebastian Loeb, Ronnie O’Sullivan, and so on. All are seen as controversial characters; celebrated for their prowess, but somehow occupying the position of bad guy. Heroes in sport are those who seem to have almost no hope of beating the top guys. People like Jimmy White.
Sport has to have a bad guy, and Red Bull seem to be the most suitable candidates. They’re new, so can be seen to be waling all over the history and heritage like young upstarts. They’re very well backed, so they can be seen as having a bit of an advantage in terms of their resources. They’ve bought up a lot of top talent from other teams including Adrian Newey. They have a wonderful, almost pantomime smugness to their Team Principle. They’re almost scientifically designed to be the perfect ‘bad guy’ team. And since Vettel is their protégé, it’s only natural that he’ll be the villain on the track. This is despite the fact he’s really a very nice guy who has a great sense of humour and gives some of the best interviews on the grid. Anything to do with the way he holds his finger, it’s all just justification for the fact that we’ve collectively chosen him to be the bad guy in the narrative we’ve overlaid upon the championship.28th August 2012, 9:54 at 9:54 am #207811
You get this with Alonso as well though don’t you, it’s just that his almost flawless performance this year in something of an underdog of a car has silenced a lot of his doubters. For some reason people assumed that a lot of Vettel’s performance last year was down to the car and that he was slightly undeserving of the praise he received. Something I strongly disagree with. people also seem to feel that there’s something underhand about how Red Bull go about building race cars and winning championships. While I doubt many go so far as to accuse them of outright cheating, I think the way they push the brinksmanship of F1 to its limit does make them a target for some (totally misplaced) ire.
But in a lot of ways I think this is something that non-native English speaking drivers will have to suffer. If you look at drivers like Button, Webber, Hamilton, etc, being interviewed, they are always very natural and entertaining in front of the camera. As you’d expect from someone speaking their native language. No matter how well someone like Alonso or Vettel learns to speak English, there will always be some slight language barrier which means it’s hard to get a good understanding of their true personality. They can end up coming across as terse, or overly scripted in the way they answer questions which naturally rubs people up the wrong way. Thankfully things like social media are helping to break down this wall to some extent, and show the more human side of these drivers who can otherwise seem quite aloof, but I think in the UK we’ll always have a situation where foreign speaking drivers will never be accepted as warmly as native English speakers.24th August 2012, 12:30 at 12:30 pm #207778
I’m well pumped for this race. I reckon it could go down to the wire. 6 hour sprint race. Now that would be something.
If you run f1flive then I’ll probably tune in :)20th August 2012, 9:51 at 9:51 am #207728
I don’t tend to play F1 sims since I don’t find them too exciting. I know that might be a bit of a contradiction, but in terms of what I find enjoyable, I like a sim where I have a car which moves around a lot underneath me, whereas an F1 car by definition has huge amounts of grip and is very stable. Yes, you can slide it around if you want, but it’ll always kill your laptime, whereas sports car sims often require you to drive the car past the limits of adhesion in order to set the best laptimes. Usually a fairly low specced rear wheel drive car with the engine in the front is my favourite sort of car. I enjoy releasing the brakes a little over speed and turning in on the nose before the weight shifts back to the rear, in order to let the rear slide. This is a great way to counter the initial understeer on turn-in. Then I like to use the throttle to adjust the angle of the rear, with the ultimate goal to be regaining traction at around the point I hit the apex, so that I can then exit the corner at full speed. This doesn’t equate to huge angles, simply allowing the rear to slide naturally into the line of the corner with little to no countersteering and just using the throttle to correct the slide and maintain the line. It’s this style of driving which I find most enjoyable.
In terms of more exotic machinery, prototypes are generally good fun and I enjoy the twitch experience of keeping them planted while trying to maintain the best possible cornering speed. Timing your braking with these is essential, although it’s probably more critical that you release the brakes at the right moment than trying to brake as late as possible. Braking too deep results in locking and understeer, while releasing the brake at the right moment keeps the car balanced. Sweeping corners where the downforce is really working are the most rewarding, whereas slower corners where the car wants to snap into oversteer are very frustrating since you feel like you’re waiting forever just to get on the throttle. This is why I prefer the lower powered sports cars on road tyres which you can drive on the throttle almost the whole time. 4WD cars are also great for this, since you can unsettle them at the corner entry and then simply keep the throttle planted and the steering straight, to drift the car through the corner with all four wheels sliding. Great fun.
I think I prefer titting about to full on racing.