Discussion:
Think downforce isn't important at Monaco?
(too old to reply)
Alan Baker
2017-01-23 23:34:09 UTC
Permalink
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people were
debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.

Well check this out:

<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Bruce Hoult
2017-01-24 10:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people were
debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Bigbird
2017-01-24 10:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people were
debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not about Monaco.
Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.


Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.

AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero packages for
tracks such as Monaco.

Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call 295Km/h slow.
Your fuckwittery is complete.
Bruce Hoult
2017-01-24 11:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people were
debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not about Monaco.
Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero packages for
tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call 295Km/h slow.
Your fuckwittery is complete.
For reference, from 2014:

Loading Image...

Approach Massenet at 275, leave Casino at 165. I don't know what they're actually doing around Massenet, but it'd be in the vicinity of 200 I'd think.

Midway in the tunnel 250, exit 270. It's significantly not straight.
Alan Baker
2017-01-24 18:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people were
debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not about Monaco.
Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero packages for
tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call 295Km/h slow.
Your fuckwittery is complete.
And you have ignored what the link above says:

'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster with aero than
without.'

And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Bigbird
2017-01-24 20:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people
were debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like
Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not about
Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks Monaco only has
slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero packages
for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call 295Km/h slow.
Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster with aero
than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.

The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
Alan Baker
2017-01-24 21:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people
were debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like
Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not about
Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks Monaco only has
slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero packages
for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call 295Km/h slow.
Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster with aero
than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.

And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped the context
of my comments.
Bigbird
2017-01-24 21:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where
people were debating the importance of downforce on a slow
track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not about
Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks Monaco only
has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero
packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call 295Km/h
slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster with
aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped the
context of my comments.
That is a lie.
Alan Baker
2017-01-24 22:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where
people were debating the importance of downforce on a slow
track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not about
Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks Monaco only
has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero
packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call 295Km/h
slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster with
aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped the
context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.

Your statement to which mine was a reply was:

"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."

And this link absolutely bears out the fact that you were 100% wrong.

70kph (43.5mph) is slow speed even by the standards of a Formula Ford
which goes around the tightest corner on our track only about 6-7mph
slower than that.

And here is an F1 aerodymanicist explaining that even at that speed,
you'd go 8% slower without aerodynamic downforce.
Bigbird
2017-01-25 07:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where
people were debating the importance of downforce on a
slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not
about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks
Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero
packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call
295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster with
aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped the
context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
And this link absolutely bears out the fact that you were 100% wrong.
70kph (43.5mph) is slow speed even by the standards of a Formula Ford
which goes around the tightest corner on our track only about 6-7mph
slower than that.
And here is an F1 aerodymanicist explaining that even at that speed,
you'd go 8% slower without aerodynamic downforce.
At a typical F1 track or one where, as you asserted, "special aero
packages"are utilised?

Don't forget your OP contained alternative facts regarding it being a
debate about Monaco. It wasn't as you well know and knew when you wrote
the OP. That was the lie.

Crikey, you go a long way to troll.

Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective" (or "so" much
less in current US speak). However unlike the 'alternative facts' you
presented my comment had nothing to do with the exception but a
generalisation regarding a specific comment about the rake angle on the
Red Bull.

You have set yourself a level of pedantic accuracy that you have
frequently, or usually, failed to live up to and can never live up to;
where every sentence must be correct in every eventuality.

Debating every word may be something that someone who has nothing
better to do than write thousands of posts each month but 99% of such
posts deserve to remain unread.

You have fucked yourself; a suggestion made many a time by many people.
It's nice to see one American who can cede to the popular vote.

:-)))
Bigbird
2017-01-25 07:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where
people were debating the importance of downforce on a
slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not
about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks
Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero
packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call
295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster
with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped the
context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively ineffective".

Much like yourself. :)))
Alan Baker
2017-01-25 08:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM UTC+3, alan
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where
people were debating the importance of downforce on a
slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not
about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks
Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero
packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call
295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster
with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped the
context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.

8% is HUGE in racing.
Post by Bigbird
Much like yourself. :)))
Bigbird
2017-01-25 10:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM UTC+3,
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago
where people were debating the importance of
downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was
not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because
Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special
aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call
295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where you
assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow corners
than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.

8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h

70% of 182 km/h

Do yopu have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small compared
to 182.

If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%

If I said you were relatively stupid I think you would be correct in my
British understatement but you are otherwise wrong.
Bigbird
2017-01-25 11:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM UTC+3,
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago
where people were debating the importance of
downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was
not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because
Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special
aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't
call 295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where
you assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow
corners than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.
8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h
70% of 182 km/h
*70% of 260 = 182 km/h
Post by Alan Baker
Do yopu have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small compared
to 182.
If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%
If I said you were relatively stupid I think you would be correct in
my British understatement but you are otherwise wrong.
Alan Baker
2017-01-25 19:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM UTC+3,
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago
where people were debating the importance of
downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was
not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because
Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special
aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call
295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where you
assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow corners
than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.
8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h
70% of 182 km/h
why "70% of 182 km/h" specifically
Post by Alan Baker
Do yopu have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small compared
to 182.
Yup. It's irrelevant, but yes. 3.4 is even relatively small compared to
127.4, which is the RESULT of 70% of 182 that you left out.
Post by Alan Baker
If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%
I never said that 8% is huge, so why do you pretend I did?

The fact is that if you leave a slow 70kph corner 8% faster, you exit
with 5.6kph more speed and you carry that speed almost all the way down
the following straight.

That's why racing drivers work so hard on corner exit speed: to get the
benefit. So even if you only get 8% greater exit speed from downforce in
a slow corner, it's still important.
Post by Alan Baker
If I said you were relatively stupid I think you would be correct in my
British understatement but you are otherwise wrong.
Bigbird
2017-01-25 23:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long
ago where people were debating the importance
of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they
take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate
was not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco
because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get
special aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't
call 295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this
context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively
ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You claim below you never said that "8% is HUGE". Just another
alternative Baker fact.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where
you assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow
corners than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.
8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h
70% of 182 km/h
why "70% of 182 km/h" specifically
Actually it should be 70% of 240 = 168 km/h
The other should read 8% of 70 = 5.6 km/h

I appear to have mixed units. Still pretty much the same magnitudes as
you surmised below.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Do you have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small
compared to 182.
Yup. It's irrelevant, but yes. 3.4 is even relatively small compared
to 127.4, which is the RESULT of 70% of 182 that you left out.
I got the figures from the article you linked to.

One is for a faster curve on the same track.

It's not very intelligent to claim 8% is huge then claim 70% is
irrelevant; while at the same time admitting that 8% is relatively
small.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%
I never said that 8% is huge, so why do you pretend I did?
It wasn't TwattyMcTwatty that said "8% is HUGE in racing." it was you,
I checked the nym.

Why do you pretend you didn't say that.
Post by Alan Baker
The fact is that if you leave a slow 70kph corner 8% faster, you exit
with 5.6kph more speed and you carry that speed almost all the way
down the following straight.
Irrelevant. This figure is only true for one corner in Monaco when they
have "special aero packages" according to you.

It's only relevance it the relative effectiveness of the aero compared
with corners where speeds are 70% greater... and 168 km/h faster "down
the following straight".

Obviously the 8% is greater with the "special package" than you will
find at nearly every other track.

The 70% is probably somewhat lower than the maximum seen at some tracks.

Now the actual context of my comment was not specific to Monaco as you
falsely and blatantly claim, thus your article which is specific to
Monaco with it's special aero packages is not as relevant as if it were
of a more typical track and aero set up. Additionally my comment was in
respect of marginal gains in aero efficiency in slow corners. So not 8%
or even half that that you might get on a similar corner on other
tracks but a fraction of that amount.

Your whole argument is so out of context it is purely decietful.

All we have learned, or rather confirmed, is that you are petty minded
and deceitful and do not have a grasp of hyperbole.

Now you trolled me... You have been fed... You started out in reference
to a post where I called you a complete fuckwit and all you have
succeeded in doing is proving me correct.

Enough is enough. FUCK YOUR LIES AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.
Alan Baker
2017-01-26 02:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long
ago where people were debating the importance
of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they
take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate
was not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco
because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get
special aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't
call 295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this
context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively
ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You claim below you never said that "8% is HUGE". Just another
alternative Baker fact.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where
you assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow
corners than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.
8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h
70% of 182 km/h
why "70% of 182 km/h" specifically
Actually it should be 70% of 240 = 168 km/h
The other should read 8% of 70 = 5.6 km/h
I appear to have mixed units. Still pretty much the same magnitudes as
you surmised below.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Do you have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small
compared to 182.
Yup. It's irrelevant, but yes. 3.4 is even relatively small compared
to 127.4, which is the RESULT of 70% of 182 that you left out.
I got the figures from the article you linked to.
One is for a faster curve on the same track.
It's not very intelligent to claim 8% is huge then claim 70% is
irrelevant; while at the same time admitting that 8% is relatively
small.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%
I never said that 8% is huge, so why do you pretend I did?
It wasn't TwattyMcTwatty that said "8% is HUGE in racing." it was you,
I checked the nym.
Why do you pretend you didn't say that.
Post by Alan Baker
The fact is that if you leave a slow 70kph corner 8% faster, you exit
with 5.6kph more speed and you carry that speed almost all the way
down the following straight.
Irrelevant. This figure is only true for one corner in Monaco when they
have "special aero packages" according to you.
It's only relevance it the relative effectiveness of the aero compared
with corners where speeds are 70% greater... and 168 km/h faster "down
the following straight".
Obviously the 8% is greater with the "special package" than you will
find at nearly every other track.
The 70% is probably somewhat lower than the maximum seen at some tracks.
Now the actual context of my comment was not specific to Monaco as you
falsely and blatantly claim, thus your article which is specific to
Monaco with it's special aero packages is not as relevant as if it were
of a more typical track and aero set up. Additionally my comment was in
respect of marginal gains in aero efficiency in slow corners. So not 8%
or even half that that you might get on a similar corner on other
tracks but a fraction of that amount.
Your whole argument is so out of context it is purely decietful.
All we have learned, or rather confirmed, is that you are petty minded
and deceitful and do not have a grasp of hyperbole.
Now you trolled me... You have been fed... You started out in reference
to a post where I called you a complete fuckwit and all you have
succeeded in doing is proving me correct.
Enough is enough. FUCK YOUR LIES AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.
This is lot of verbiage to avoid the simple fact that in a discussion
about Mercedes active suspension, you attempted to dismiss as
unimportant changes to the rake of the car that increased downforce
because (and this is the direct quote):

"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."

And I hate to break it to you, but that is just wrong.
m***@gmail.com
2017-01-26 02:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long
ago where people were debating the importance
of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they
take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate
was not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco
because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get
special aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't
call 295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this
context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively
ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You claim below you never said that "8% is HUGE". Just another
alternative Baker fact.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where
you assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow
corners than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.
8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h
70% of 182 km/h
why "70% of 182 km/h" specifically
Actually it should be 70% of 240 = 168 km/h
The other should read 8% of 70 = 5.6 km/h
I appear to have mixed units. Still pretty much the same magnitudes as
you surmised below.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Do you have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small
compared to 182.
Yup. It's irrelevant, but yes. 3.4 is even relatively small compared
to 127.4, which is the RESULT of 70% of 182 that you left out.
I got the figures from the article you linked to.
One is for a faster curve on the same track.
It's not very intelligent to claim 8% is huge then claim 70% is
irrelevant; while at the same time admitting that 8% is relatively
small.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%
I never said that 8% is huge, so why do you pretend I did?
It wasn't TwattyMcTwatty that said "8% is HUGE in racing." it was you,
I checked the nym.
Why do you pretend you didn't say that.
Post by Alan Baker
The fact is that if you leave a slow 70kph corner 8% faster, you exit
with 5.6kph more speed and you carry that speed almost all the way
down the following straight.
Irrelevant. This figure is only true for one corner in Monaco when they
have "special aero packages" according to you.
It's only relevance it the relative effectiveness of the aero compared
with corners where speeds are 70% greater... and 168 km/h faster "down
the following straight".
Obviously the 8% is greater with the "special package" than you will
find at nearly every other track.
The 70% is probably somewhat lower than the maximum seen at some tracks.
Now the actual context of my comment was not specific to Monaco as you
falsely and blatantly claim, thus your article which is specific to
Monaco with it's special aero packages is not as relevant as if it were
of a more typical track and aero set up. Additionally my comment was in
respect of marginal gains in aero efficiency in slow corners. So not 8%
or even half that that you might get on a similar corner on other
tracks but a fraction of that amount.
Your whole argument is so out of context it is purely decietful.
All we have learned, or rather confirmed, is that you are petty minded
and deceitful and do not have a grasp of hyperbole.
Now you trolled me... You have been fed... You started out in reference
to a post where I called you a complete fuckwit and all you have
succeeded in doing is proving me correct.
Enough is enough. FUCK YOUR LIES AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.
This is lot of verbiage to avoid the simple fact that in a discussion
about Mercedes active suspension, you attempted to dismiss as
unimportant changes to the rake of the car that increased downforce
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
And I hate to break it to you, but that is just wrong.
This was good. I really enjoyed two assholes going at it.


The good new is....... .....YOU WON!!!!!!!


YOU ARE THE BIGGER ASSHOLE!!!!!!!

:-)
m***@gmail.com
2017-01-26 02:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long
ago where people were debating the importance
of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they
take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate
was not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco
because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get
special aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't
call 295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this
context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively
ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You claim below you never said that "8% is HUGE". Just another
alternative Baker fact.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where
you assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow
corners than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.
8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h
70% of 182 km/h
why "70% of 182 km/h" specifically
Actually it should be 70% of 240 = 168 km/h
The other should read 8% of 70 = 5.6 km/h
I appear to have mixed units. Still pretty much the same magnitudes as
you surmised below.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Do you have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small
compared to 182.
Yup. It's irrelevant, but yes. 3.4 is even relatively small compared
to 127.4, which is the RESULT of 70% of 182 that you left out.
I got the figures from the article you linked to.
One is for a faster curve on the same track.
It's not very intelligent to claim 8% is huge then claim 70% is
irrelevant; while at the same time admitting that 8% is relatively
small.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%
I never said that 8% is huge, so why do you pretend I did?
It wasn't TwattyMcTwatty that said "8% is HUGE in racing." it was you,
I checked the nym.
Why do you pretend you didn't say that.
Post by Alan Baker
The fact is that if you leave a slow 70kph corner 8% faster, you exit
with 5.6kph more speed and you carry that speed almost all the way
down the following straight.
Irrelevant. This figure is only true for one corner in Monaco when they
have "special aero packages" according to you.
It's only relevance it the relative effectiveness of the aero compared
with corners where speeds are 70% greater... and 168 km/h faster "down
the following straight".
Obviously the 8% is greater with the "special package" than you will
find at nearly every other track.
The 70% is probably somewhat lower than the maximum seen at some tracks.
Now the actual context of my comment was not specific to Monaco as you
falsely and blatantly claim, thus your article which is specific to
Monaco with it's special aero packages is not as relevant as if it were
of a more typical track and aero set up. Additionally my comment was in
respect of marginal gains in aero efficiency in slow corners. So not 8%
or even half that that you might get on a similar corner on other
tracks but a fraction of that amount.
Your whole argument is so out of context it is purely decietful.
All we have learned, or rather confirmed, is that you are petty minded
and deceitful and do not have a grasp of hyperbole.
Now you trolled me... You have been fed... You started out in reference
to a post where I called you a complete fuckwit and all you have
succeeded in doing is proving me correct.
Enough is enough. FUCK YOUR LIES AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.
You hypocritical ASSHOLE.

You had the fucking balls to call me out, and now you're doing exactly the same thing as me!!???

Practice what the fuck you preach.
Alan Baker
2017-01-26 02:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long
ago where people were debating the importance
of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they
take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate
was not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco
because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get
special aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't
call 295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this
context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively
ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You claim below you never said that "8% is HUGE". Just another
alternative Baker fact.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where
you assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow
corners than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.
8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h
70% of 182 km/h
why "70% of 182 km/h" specifically
Actually it should be 70% of 240 = 168 km/h
The other should read 8% of 70 = 5.6 km/h
I appear to have mixed units. Still pretty much the same magnitudes as
you surmised below.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Do you have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small
compared to 182.
Yup. It's irrelevant, but yes. 3.4 is even relatively small compared
to 127.4, which is the RESULT of 70% of 182 that you left out.
I got the figures from the article you linked to.
One is for a faster curve on the same track.
It's not very intelligent to claim 8% is huge then claim 70% is
irrelevant; while at the same time admitting that 8% is relatively
small.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%
I never said that 8% is huge, so why do you pretend I did?
It wasn't TwattyMcTwatty that said "8% is HUGE in racing." it was you,
I checked the nym.
Why do you pretend you didn't say that.
Post by Alan Baker
The fact is that if you leave a slow 70kph corner 8% faster, you exit
with 5.6kph more speed and you carry that speed almost all the way
down the following straight.
Irrelevant. This figure is only true for one corner in Monaco when they
have "special aero packages" according to you.
It's only relevance it the relative effectiveness of the aero compared
with corners where speeds are 70% greater... and 168 km/h faster "down
the following straight".
Obviously the 8% is greater with the "special package" than you will
find at nearly every other track.
The 70% is probably somewhat lower than the maximum seen at some tracks.
Now the actual context of my comment was not specific to Monaco as you
falsely and blatantly claim, thus your article which is specific to
Monaco with it's special aero packages is not as relevant as if it were
of a more typical track and aero set up. Additionally my comment was in
respect of marginal gains in aero efficiency in slow corners. So not 8%
or even half that that you might get on a similar corner on other
tracks but a fraction of that amount.
Your whole argument is so out of context it is purely decietful.
All we have learned, or rather confirmed, is that you are petty minded
and deceitful and do not have a grasp of hyperbole.
Now you trolled me... You have been fed... You started out in reference
to a post where I called you a complete fuckwit and all you have
succeeded in doing is proving me correct.
Enough is enough. FUCK YOUR LIES AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.
You hypocritical ASSHOLE.
You had the fucking balls to call me out, and now you're doing exactly the same thing as me!!???
You post under other people's names, too, Michael?

I can't say I'm surprised.

:-)
Post by m***@gmail.com
Practice what the fuck you preach.
m***@gmail.com
2017-01-26 02:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long
ago where people were debating the importance
of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they
take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate
was not about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco
because Alan thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get
special aero packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't
call 295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8%
faster with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this
context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've
snipped the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective".
I'll correct myself; I should have said "relatively
ineffective".
And you would still have been wrong.
8% is HUGE in racing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You claim below you never said that "8% is HUGE". Just another
alternative Baker fact.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Taking the figures from the article regarding Monaco; a track where
you assert they use "special packages" which are better in slow
corners than at most tracks, so not typical by any means.
8% of 43 = 3.4 km/h
70% of 182 km/h
why "70% of 182 km/h" specifically
Actually it should be 70% of 240 = 168 km/h
The other should read 8% of 70 = 5.6 km/h
I appear to have mixed units. Still pretty much the same magnitudes as
you surmised below.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Do you have the grace to admit that 3.4 is relatively small
compared to 182.
Yup. It's irrelevant, but yes. 3.4 is even relatively small compared
to 127.4, which is the RESULT of 70% of 182 that you left out.
I got the figures from the article you linked to.
One is for a faster curve on the same track.
It's not very intelligent to claim 8% is huge then claim 70% is
irrelevant; while at the same time admitting that 8% is relatively
small.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
If 3.4 is HUGE, what word do you use for 182.
If 8% is HUGE, what is the word for 70%
I never said that 8% is huge, so why do you pretend I did?
It wasn't TwattyMcTwatty that said "8% is HUGE in racing." it was you,
I checked the nym.
Why do you pretend you didn't say that.
Post by Alan Baker
The fact is that if you leave a slow 70kph corner 8% faster, you exit
with 5.6kph more speed and you carry that speed almost all the way
down the following straight.
Irrelevant. This figure is only true for one corner in Monaco when they
have "special aero packages" according to you.
It's only relevance it the relative effectiveness of the aero compared
with corners where speeds are 70% greater... and 168 km/h faster "down
the following straight".
Obviously the 8% is greater with the "special package" than you will
find at nearly every other track.
The 70% is probably somewhat lower than the maximum seen at some tracks.
Now the actual context of my comment was not specific to Monaco as you
falsely and blatantly claim, thus your article which is specific to
Monaco with it's special aero packages is not as relevant as if it were
of a more typical track and aero set up. Additionally my comment was in
respect of marginal gains in aero efficiency in slow corners. So not 8%
or even half that that you might get on a similar corner on other
tracks but a fraction of that amount.
Your whole argument is so out of context it is purely decietful.
All we have learned, or rather confirmed, is that you are petty minded
and deceitful and do not have a grasp of hyperbole.
Now you trolled me... You have been fed... You started out in reference
to a post where I called you a complete fuckwit and all you have
succeeded in doing is proving me correct.
Enough is enough. FUCK YOUR LIES AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.
You hypocritical ASSHOLE.
You had the fucking balls to call me out, and now you're doing exactly the same thing as me!!???
You post under other people's names, too, Michael?
I can't say I'm surprised.
Looks like you don't have the faintest clue, Shithead... ...errr..Shit Stain.

Every time you do that, I ROTFLMAO!!!

:-)

Bye... catch you somewhere else.

Alan Baker
2017-01-25 08:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM UTC+3, alan
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where
people were debating the importance of downforce on a
slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not
about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan thinks
Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero
packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call
295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster with
aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped the
context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
And this link absolutely bears out the fact that you were 100% wrong.
70kph (43.5mph) is slow speed even by the standards of a Formula Ford
which goes around the tightest corner on our track only about 6-7mph
slower than that.
And here is an F1 aerodymanicist explaining that even at that speed,
you'd go 8% slower without aerodynamic downforce.
At a typical F1 track or one where, as you asserted, "special aero
packages"are utilised?
You think that makes a real difference to the point?

How sad for you.
Post by Alan Baker
Don't forget your OP contained alternative facts regarding it being a
the OP. That was the lie.
No, actually. It was an EXAMPLE to counter your explicit statement that"

"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Post by Alan Baker
Crikey, you go a long way to troll.
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective" (or "so" much
less in current US speak). However unlike the 'alternative facts' you
presented my comment had nothing to do with the exception but a
generalisation regarding a specific comment about the rake angle on the
Red Bull.
You understand that one can actually use Google Groups to check what was
said in a thread, right?

"Red Bull" wasn't mentioned AT ALL before your comment.
Post by Alan Baker
You have set yourself a level of pedantic accuracy that you have
frequently, or usually, failed to live up to and can never live up to;
where every sentence must be correct in every eventuality.
Debating every word may be something that someone who has nothing
better to do than write thousands of posts each month but 99% of such
posts deserve to remain unread.
You have fucked yourself; a suggestion made many a time by many people.
It's nice to see one American who can cede to the popular vote.
:-)))
A lot of verbiage that could have been replace by:

"Sorry. I was wrong."

:-)
Bigbird
2017-01-25 10:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:11 AM UTC+3, alan
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago
where people were debating the importance of
downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not
about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan
thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero
packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call
295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster
with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped
the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
And this link absolutely bears out the fact that you were 100% wrong.
70kph (43.5mph) is slow speed even by the standards of a Formula
Ford which goes around the tightest corner on our track only
about 6-7mph slower than that.
And here is an F1 aerodymanicist explaining that even at that
speed, you'd go 8% slower without aerodynamic downforce.
At a typical F1 track or one where, as you asserted, "special aero
packages"are utilised?
You think that makes a real difference to the point?
How sad for you.
Post by Bigbird
Don't forget your OP contained alternative facts regarding it being
a debate about Monaco. It wasn't as you well know and knew when you
wrote the OP. That was the lie.
No, actually. It was an EXAMPLE to counter your explicit statement that"
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Post by Bigbird
Crikey, you go a long way to troll.
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective" (or "so" much
less in current US speak). However unlike the 'alternative facts'
you presented my comment had nothing to do with the exception but a
generalisation regarding a specific comment about the rake angle on
the Red Bull.
You understand that one can actually use Google Groups to check what
was said in a thread, right?
"Red Bull" wasn't mentioned AT ALL before your comment.
Your right, what I replied to was a post containing this. I assumed it
was RB being discussed when I looked yesterday.

"it was being used to control the rake of the car and thus the trim of
the wings. At slow speeds it would raise the back of the car, thus
increasing the angle of the wing and gaining downforce"

What was absolutely not being debated was Monaco.

Can you admit that or is your ego telling you that you might just open
a crack that you can never close.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
You have set yourself a level of pedantic accuracy that you have
frequently, or usually, failed to live up to and can never live up
to; where every sentence must be correct in every eventuality.
Debating every word may be something that someone who has nothing
better to do than write thousands of posts each month but 99% of
such posts deserve to remain unread.
You have fucked yourself; a suggestion made many a time by many
people. It's nice to see one American who can cede to the popular
vote.
:-)))
"Sorry. I was wrong."
If you think that then it demonstrates that you lack any comprehension
of both the English language, aerodynamics and F1.

In fact if that were true you should replace nearly all your posts with
that phrase; you are wrong more that you are ever right and worse than
that that you frequently rely on 'alternative facts' in order to try to
claw back some semblance of a point that you have well and truly lost.

That is what you are trying here and it will not work.

Produce some figures for a faster track that demonstrate HUGE
effectiveness of Aerodynamics in slow corners or GFY.

Without that you may as well replace your garbage with

"I don't have a fucking clue"
Alan Baker
2017-01-25 19:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago
where people were debating the importance of
downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bruce Hoult
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take
Massenet? And the tunnel.
Alan has a poor or selective memory; the debate was not
about Monaco. Alan introduced Monaco because Alan
thinks Monaco only has slow corners.
Bb: At slow speeds aero is ineffective.
AB: Riiiiiiiight. Which is why the cars get special aero
packages for tracks such as Monaco.
Bb: Speeds are upto 295km/h at Monaco. I wouldn't call
295Km/h slow. Your fuckwittery is complete.
Correct. I have not read "the link above".
Post by Alan Baker
'Even at 70 km/h (43 mph), an F1 car can corner 8% faster
with aero than without.'
And "slow" is always a relative term in this context.
Slow is a relative term in any context.
The fact remains that to think as you did was wrong.
No.
And the only reason it looks that way is that you've snipped
the context of my comments.
That is a lie.
No, it's not.
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
And this link absolutely bears out the fact that you were 100% wrong.
70kph (43.5mph) is slow speed even by the standards of a Formula
Ford which goes around the tightest corner on our track only
about 6-7mph slower than that.
And here is an F1 aerodymanicist explaining that even at that
speed, you'd go 8% slower without aerodynamic downforce.
At a typical F1 track or one where, as you asserted, "special aero
packages"are utilised?
You think that makes a real difference to the point?
How sad for you.
Post by Bigbird
Don't forget your OP contained alternative facts regarding it being
a debate about Monaco. It wasn't as you well know and knew when you
wrote the OP. That was the lie.
No, actually. It was an EXAMPLE to counter your explicit statement that"
"At slow speeds aero is ineffective."
Post by Bigbird
Crikey, you go a long way to troll.
Fair enough, I should have said "much less effective" (or "so" much
less in current US speak). However unlike the 'alternative facts'
you presented my comment had nothing to do with the exception but a
generalisation regarding a specific comment about the rake angle on
the Red Bull.
You understand that one can actually use Google Groups to check what
was said in a thread, right?
"Red Bull" wasn't mentioned AT ALL before your comment.
Your right, what I replied to was a post containing this. I assumed it
was RB being discussed when I looked yesterday.
"it was being used to control the rake of the car and thus the trim of
the wings. At slow speeds it would raise the back of the car, thus
increasing the angle of the wing and gaining downforce"
What was absolutely not being debated was Monaco.
So the context was what works at speeds that in an F1 car would be
considered slow, and your response was that "at slow speeds aero is
ineffective"

.Monaco just happens to be the best example of a track where F1 cars
operate at slower (for F1) speeds.
Post by Alan Baker
Can you admit that or is your ego telling you that you might just open
a crack that you can never close.
LOL!
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Bigbird
You have set yourself a level of pedantic accuracy that you have
frequently, or usually, failed to live up to and can never live up
to; where every sentence must be correct in every eventuality.
Debating every word may be something that someone who has nothing
better to do than write thousands of posts each month but 99% of
such posts deserve to remain unread.
You have fucked yourself; a suggestion made many a time by many
people. It's nice to see one American who can cede to the popular
vote.
:-)))
"Sorry. I was wrong."
If you think that then it demonstrates that you lack any comprehension
of both the English language, aerodynamics and F1.
In fact if that were true you should replace nearly all your posts with
that phrase; you are wrong more that you are ever right and worse than
that that you frequently rely on 'alternative facts' in order to try to
claw back some semblance of a point that you have well and truly lost.
That is what you are trying here and it will not work.
Produce some figures for a faster track that demonstrate HUGE
effectiveness of Aerodynamics in slow corners or GFY.
Why do I need to demonstrate that?

The context was you disputing the effectiveness of aero at SLOW speeds.
Post by Alan Baker
Without that you may as well replace your garbage with
"I don't have a fucking clue"
Bobster
2017-01-24 18:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Hoult
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people were
debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Monaco has one of the fastest corners in F1 - the one in the tunnel - but also the slowest - the hairpin.

Average speed is slow by F1 standards.
geoff
2017-01-24 19:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Post by Alan Baker
I seem to recall a conversation not too long ago where people
were debating the importance of downforce on a slow track like
Monaco.
<http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2017/01/a-distinguished-lecture.html>
Of course it is. Have you seen how fast they take Massenet? And the tunnel.
Post by Bobster
Monaco has one of the fastest corners in F1 - the one in the tunnel -
but also the slowest - the hairpin.
Average speed is slow by F1 standards.
I'd call that a curve. Else agreed.

geoff
Loading...