F1 - Montreal

DonDaddyD

gtvlusso wrote:

I am not a fan of F1, IMHO it is a bunch or arrogant overpaid premadonnas who blame everyone else but themselves for their losses.

So like every other sport then... :P

Anyway, a bit of rain halts the F1 GP. The rain at Silverstone was easily as bad this weekend, but the old Motogp chaps were at it hammer and tongs anyway - 2 wheels and rain is a bad mix. Colin Edwards even rode to a 3rd place with 13 titanium screws in his collarbone after an accident last week!!!!!

F1 is kinda like the wet lettuce in a chilli beef sandwich.....

And I bet no one watched the Le Mans coverage and watched Alan Mcnish's crash....

Just sayin'

You can't have a go at the sport for adhering to the safety rules within the sport. That's like having a go at football for having penalty deciders, two leg matches and no TV footage when the ball goes. Them's rules.

Simontheintrepid

gtvlusso wrote:

I am not a fan of F1, IMHO it is a bunch or arrogant overpaid premadonnas who blame everyone else but themselves for their losses.

Anyway, a bit of rain halts the F1 GP. The rain at Silverstone was easily as bad this weekend, but the old Motogp chaps were at it hammer and tongs anyway - 2 wheels and rain is a bad mix. Colin Edwards even rode to a 3rd place with 13 titanium screws in his collarbone after an accident last week!!!!!

F1 is kinda like the wet lettuce in a chilli beef sandwich.....

And I bet no one watched the Le Mans coverage and watched Alan Mcnish's crash....

Just sayin'

Right, first of all, MotoGP was fun until they all fell off. After that I think an ornithology lesson from David Coulthard would've been more interesting. Little point having a race where everyone's crawling round because it's too dodgy to go for it (although the F1 safety car was used too much). Second, yes I did watch Le Mans, too much really, but enjoyed every minute. Don't like Peugeot or Audi but wanted Davidson/Gene/Wurz to win. Shame on them though for their blocking of the #2 car.

DonDaddyD

Who saw the steward fall over as he ran into the road trying to clear the debris, I thought his time was done by the time the second F1 car came round the corner. Epic leap from the ground...

Edit: I think it's both about the car and the driver.

You need to have a car which is competitive to the other title contender's cars.

You need to have a driver who is competitive with the other title contender drivers.

If you had no Vettel, say Webber and someone else from mid-field in the Red Bulls, their times would be impressive but nothing that would make you think true title challengers.

If you had Vettel and Hamilton in HRT and Force India's they would be impressive but not 'threatening' title contenders.

This is why I think DRS is technically (and "engineeringly") good but a 'deus ex machina' type device which creates something hugely artificial. Lewis who is faster than Button proved that he didn't need DRS to overtake Button who was in - as near as can be argued - an identical car. Had he made it work we would be cheering his skill and talent. As it stands his judgement and composure is poor. Equally skill, for me, does matter. Schumacher used his car's plus points to get to 4th. Had he been in a different car with different attributes surely he would have driven to that car's strengths, which is what it should be about?

Paul E

No I am not pro anyone else, yes there were special quali tyres that most people used that really only lasted one lap.

Senna (you can use his name) was just very very good over one lap and in the race for that matter which is why he won 3 world championships and won races in lesser cars before he moved to mclaren.

The top runners all had similar tyres etc and he made up the rest of the time by sheer driving skill so it was not just having tyres and special engines that put him on pole as his team mates had the same kit, it was his driving skill over one lap.

EKE_38BPM

neiltb wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I know Mclaren supply the standard ECUs used in F1, but do the ECUs still allow the teams to make custom maps (I presume they do)? How many maps can the cars hold in their memory. What is to stop all teams making custom quali maps to go with their wet weather maps and blown exhaust maps etc.

A friend of mine is friends with Lewis and tunes road, race and drift cars. A large part of what he does is engine mapping so he has put an economy map on his road car. He can go from a very economical, but slow, 100bhp to a scarily fast 500bhp+ at the press of a button. Every race weekend he changes his Facebook profile picture to one of him laughing with Ron and Lewis in the pits at Silverstone.

The maps are likely just for the final output to injectors and to ensure no more than 18Krpm, your fuel/air map will be your own concern so McL don't learn your own secrets, a few years ago you were restricted to I think 6 maps but don't know now.

Have your friend ask Lewis :roll:

I may well do that. You seem disbelieving that I could know someone who knows an F1 driver. Ever heard of six degrees of separation?

I don't think that Mclaren get to see the other team's maps. The FIA will, for sure, but not Mclaren for the reason you said.
I imagine that Mclaren make the ECUs and give them to the FIA (or FOTA or FOM or whoever) and then they are distributed to the teams. Mclaren would have no reason to get the ECUs back from the teams.

Paul E

It's not the race team that makes the ecu's its another part of the maclaren group that makes them I think in conjunction with microsoft.

greg66_tri_v2.0

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Button was faster partly because he went onto slicks two laps earlier than Vettel meaning his tyres were warmer and could give him more grip. Martin Whitmarsh said so in the interviews after the race.
Mclaren also set their car up for a wet race.ll.

The heat in the tyres would have been lost under the last SC though. When it was Button chasing down Vettel, Button was simply able to conjure more grip from somewhere.

I remember the TV team saying Mclaren had gone for a wet race set up after qaulifying too. Also Christian Horner saying they had gone for a set up that covered wet & dry conditions (which I found pretty hard to believe at the time).

You know more than Martin Whitmarsh?

Nope, but I am sure that there's a ton of disinformation that flies around the pit lane before and after a race, in particular when the questioner is going to broadcast the answer.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

But neither Webber or Button had any problems passing Mercedes other driver who presumably had the same traction into and out of the corners. A good portion of Schumacher's ability to hold them off was down to his driving ability..

There may be lots of differences in the way that the two Mercedes are set up - suspension, geometry, fuel loads at the points they are overtaken, wings. I think I even heard Coldturd say during commentary that the teams (or possibly the drivers) could adjust the torque characteristics of the engines on the fly.

greg66_tri_v2.0

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I know Mclaren supply the standard ECUs used in F1, but do the ECUs still allow the teams to make custom maps (I presume they do)? How many maps can the cars hold in their memory. What is to stop all teams making custom quali maps to go with their wet weather maps and blown exhaust maps etc.

See above. Pretty sure Coldturd mentioned during the race that the engine characteristics can be adjusted on the fly during the race.

greg66_tri_v2.0

gtvlusso wrote:

And I bet no one watched the Le Mans coverage and watched Alan Mcnish's crash....

Didn't have to. They showed it during the F1 coverage.

Didn't have to sit through the other 23 hours 59 minutes and 45 seconds of coverage that way, either! :twisted:

EKE_38BPM

Greg66 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Button was faster partly because he went onto slicks two laps earlier than Vettel meaning his tyres were warmer and could give him more grip. Martin Whitmarsh said so in the interviews after the race.
Mclaren also set their car up for a wet race.ll.

The heat in the tyres would have been lost under the last SC though. When it was Button chasing down Vettel, Button was simply able to conjure more grip from somewhere.

I remember the TV team saying Mclaren had gone for a wet race set up after qaulifying too. Also Christian Horner saying they had gone for a set up that covered wet & dry conditions (which I found pretty hard to believe at the time).

You know more than Martin Whitmarsh?

Nope, but I am sure that there's a ton of disinformation that flies around the pit lane before and after a race, in particular when the questioner is going to broadcast the answer.

For sure.
The rest of my post also outlined a possible reason why the extra laps Button put in on the slicks could have resulted in extra grip though. Equally possible is that Mclaren just went balls out for the win and told Button to turn the engine right up, leaving little or no longevity for future races.
Or a combination of both.
Or neither and Button is just a better driver in those conditions.
Or
Or
Or

Paul E wrote:

It's not the race team that makes the ecu's its another part of the maclaren group that makes them I think in conjunction with microsoft.

That makes sense. It could also explain the cars crashing. (crashing, geddit?)

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is why I think DRS is technically (and "engineeringly") good but a 'deus ex machina' type device which creates something hugely artificial.

Can't you say the same about KERS (pathetic nod to the tree huggers), or in race refuelling, or forcing the drivers to use different types of tyres during the race?

F1 is as much entertainment as it is sport. My mate in the next room and I thought up the idea of using garden sprinklers on the corners to spice things up years ago!

dhope

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Paul E wrote:

It's not the race team that makes the ecu's its another part of the maclaren group that makes them I think in conjunction with microsoft.

That makes sense. It could also explain the cars crashing. (crashing, geddit?)

Alternatively you could have picked up on the misspelling and posted a picture of a Maclaren pram :P

EKE_38BPM

Greg66 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I know Mclaren supply the standard ECUs used in F1, but do the ECUs still allow the teams to make custom maps (I presume they do)? How many maps can the cars hold in their memory. What is to stop all teams making custom quali maps to go with their wet weather maps and blown exhaust maps etc.

See above. Pretty sure Coldturd mentioned during the race that the engine characteristics can be adjusted on the fly during the race.

Yeah, they are called 'Maps'.
Even the little Alfa Romeo Giulietta has three different maps.
On race cars and very high end road cars, the maps would be used inconjunction with other variables so that clicking 'Sport' would result in a more powerful engine, stiffer suspension, less drag (with moveable spoilers), whereas clicking 'Wet' might give a smoother torque curve, softer suspension, more downforce, automatically turning on the demister, flashing red light at the back etc.

I remember a Top Gear many, many years ago, when William Wollard was testing an early turbo car and that car had a lower power setting 'for when the wife borrows the car'.
Maps are nothing new.

bearfraser

Radical thought:- why cant we have mudguards and spray preventors on F1 cars.


And Hamilton should MTFU

will3

bearfraser wrote:

Radical thought:- why cant we have mudguards and spray preventors on F1 cars.


And Hamilton should MTFU

it would look crap

for sure

EKE_38BPM

bearfraser wrote:

Radical thought:- why cant we have mudguards and spray preventors on F1 cars.

And where is the fun in that? Oh yeah, actually having a race.
Visibility isn't the only problem though. Less mechanical grip and less aero grip lead to more (but slower) crashes. Also the cars run so low to the ground that any standing water would lead to aqua-planing. I suppose that you could jack the car right up, fit mud guards, monsoon tyres, wipers etc, but that would hardly be F1 would it?

In the Damon Hill days, the BBC did an April fools gag with Hill having a big wiper on his visor. I've also seen motorbike helmets with a spinning shield on the visor to spin the water out of the eye-line of the wearer.

walkingbootweather

DonDaddyD wrote:

Did you see that Marshal fall on the foor, I thought he had it.

Tumbling steward escapes Canadian Grand Prix accident

will3

walkingbootweather wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Did you see that Marshal fall on the foor, I thought he had it.

Tumbling steward escapes Canadian Grand Prix accident

change of trousers there for sure.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is why I think DRS is technically (and "engineeringly") good but a 'deus ex machina' type device which creates something hugely artificial.

Can't you say the same about KERS (pathetic nod to the tree huggers), or in race refuelling, or forcing the drivers to use different types of tyres during the race?

F1 is as much entertainment as it is sport. My mate in the next room and I thought up the idea of using garden sprinklers on the corners to spice things up years ago!

But DRS isn't entertaining and it's not a variable that could go either way or adds uncertainty. You get your car within 1 second of the other car, DRS and then overtake. It's a certainty. Hence Deus Ex Machina a plot device if you will.

All DRS does is ensure that you overtake the car ahead of you (in the right conditions). In race refuelling, tyres and KERS add an element of uncertainty. DRS is like the mushroom or star in mariokart.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

DRS is like the mushroom or star in mariokart.

I think we should start a campaign for mariokart type weapons in F1

Martin Brundle:"Oh dear, Vettel is taken out on the final corner by a stray green shell. He should have used his star to defend himself!"
David Coulthard: "But he was saving that because he knew Button had a red shell. Now Button has fired his red shell to add insult to injury and used a mushroom to blast past. Great bit of driving there."

DRS has a detection line and an activation line. If these are in the wrong places, then the pass is a gimme. If they are in the right places, it just allows the potential overtaker to get into a position to actually overtake, but not a done deal.

Don't forget why DRS was brought in. Many races were marred by a slower car holding off a faster car because the faster car couldn't pass due to aerodynamics.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

DRS is like the mushroom or star in mariokart.

I think we should start a campaign for mariokart type weapons in F1

Martin Brundle:"Oh dear, Vettel is taken out on the final corner by a stray green shell. He should have used his star to defend himself!"
David Coulthard: "But he was saving that because he knew Button had a red shell. Now Button has fired his red shell to add insult to injury and used a mushroom to blast past. Great bit of driving there."

DRS has a detection line and an activation line. If these are in the wrong places, then the pass is a gimme. If they are in the right places, it just allows the potential overtaker to get into a position to actually overtake, but not a done deal.

Don't forget why DRS was brought in. Many races were marred by a slower car holding off a faster car because the faster car couldn't pass due to aerodynamics.

I would complain that F1 was using Gamecube version of MarioKart where you could carry 2 weapons. I'm an oldskool purest Super Nes or 64 where you could only carry 1. People will always complain.

I just think that the faster car has to earn the right to pass the slower car by way of the driver finding a way past through skill and guile. This is why I like Hamilton on his day, he will push every apex and corner to it's limit to find the gap and squeeze the overtake. That way many can't argue that he is the better driver in a sometimes superior car. - As it should be.

Oh hum, it is what it is.

desweller

DDD, DRS is not that different from designing your rear wing to maximise its effect on the front wing of the following car, which is what they've all been doing for yonks. All that's happened is that the balance of power has shifted from the defending driver to the attacking driver. The other way to do that of course is to get rid of the enormous wings but they're not going to do that - too much ad space.

graeme_s-2

walkingbootweather wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Did you see that Marshal fall on the foor, I thought he had it.

Tumbling steward escapes Canadian Grand Prix accident

I know that the marshals are all volunteers who do it just out of the love of motorsport, but those guys were total dicks who were lucky not to get themselves killed and take a driver out with them.

The safety car went past them with about 6 cars behind it, and they all trooped out onto the track on a blind corner, I started shouting at the TV as soon as they walked out and feared I was about to see something terrible happen. There were still 20-odd cars in the race at that point, what did they think would happen!?

I guess we're lucky they have introduced the rule where drivers have to drive to a set (relatively slow) time while the safety car is deployed, otherwise the drivers would have been screaming round that corner flat out while they hustled to catch the back of the train behind the safety car.

EKE_38BPM

MarioKart 64 allowed you to carry two weapons. e.g. Dragging a red shell and having a mushroom ready to use. I know this for certain a) from too many wasted hours whilst at uni and b) a mate dug out his 64 and I was playing MarioKart, GoldenEye and Perfect Dark last week.

Because of the aerodynamics up to a few seasons ago, it was impossible for one car to closely follow another. Lack of front downforce, 'dirty air' etc meant a car couldn't follow closely enough to get into a position to be close enough to pass on a straight and didn't have enough front end downforce to outbrake into a corner.
To counter the lack of front downforce, last season the drivers were allowed to adjust the angle of the front wing by up to 6 degrees up to twice a lap. This only lasted one season.
To counter dirty air, the rear wing was made narrower and higher (so that the 'dirty air' wake was narrower and above the following car.
The front wing is now wider than it was too.

Add all of these things together and throw in DRS and you get where we are today.
If you think the cars' wings look wrong in comparision to how they used to look in, say, the Damon Hill days, just be glad that Centreline Downwash Generating wing was never used.

KERS is just stupid in my opinion. Its only there so that F1 can say to the tree huggers, 'look, we re-use some of our energy'.
The RBR KERS is about two thirds of the power of the other team's KERS and isn't reliable, but as it is smaller and lighter they carry it and use it when they can. It really just shows how much faster the RBR is (usually) if they can give away all of that horsepower and still win.

Paul E

dhope wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Paul E wrote:

It's not the race team that makes the ecu's its another part of the maclaren group that makes them I think in conjunction with microsoft.

That makes sense. It could also explain the cars crashing. (crashing, geddit?)

Alternatively you could have picked up on the misspelling and posted a picture of a Maclaren pram :P

I was typing it as I was on a call, it was the first time I had put the A inbetween the M and C, arghhhh

EKE_38BPM

Paul E wrote:

dhope wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Paul E wrote:

It's not the race team that makes the ecu's its another part of the maclaren group that makes them I think in conjunction with microsoft.

That makes sense. It could also explain the cars crashing. (crashing, geddit?)

Alternatively you could have picked up on the misspelling and posted a picture of a Maclaren pram :P

I was typing it as I was on a call, it was the first time I had put the A inbetween the M and C, arghhhh

Its not a big deal. No need to lose your fingertips over it!

Paul E

Sorry I just hate being called up on silly spelling mistakes, no reason to be pedantic on a bike forum

gs3

Bear in mind guys that the DRS is still in it's development stage as far as the positioning of the activation line on the track.

As far as I'm aware, it is actually designed to allow cars to get alongside each other towards a corner and have the drivers compete for the racing line - we may well see the activation line for next years Canadian GP (if DRS is still in use) being placed further down the straight so that the effect is not so cut-and-dried as it appeared this year - who knows?

.

itboffin

TailWindHome wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

dhope wrote:

And not a sport? How? What *exactly* qualifies something as a sport. F1 not a sport, but touring cars are, or Moto GP? Or nothing with engines. How about Snooker, or Darts?

I don't see Golf or Darts as sports. To me, even many athletic events are border-line.
I think that in a sport you should be able to effect and interfere with your opposition (a tackle in football, moving your opponent around the court in Tennis, an overtake in motorsport etc) to prevent them gaining an advantage or scoring points.
In Golf, all you can do is play your own game as well as you can and hope the pressure you apply puts your opponent off their game.
Connect 4 is more of a sport than Golf.

I fully expect to get flamed, but I don't see my mind being changed.
I'm with Lee Evans when it comes to Golf: Golf is long distance snooker for w4nkers.

That's the most bizarre opinion ever.

By that definition Formula One is more of a sport than a cycling time trial.

By that logic chess would be a sport - no!?