Discussion:
Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes and Aerodynamics
(too old to reply)
D Munz
2018-07-09 19:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most slightly different which is interesting for a quote...) as saying:

"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of downforce and that upset the balance of the car."

I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty) to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and disrupts a following car?

FWIW
DLM
build
2018-07-10 02:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:27:17 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
> Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most slightly different which is interesting for a quote...) as saying:
>
> "...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
>
> I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty) to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and disrupts a following car?
>
> FWIW
> DLM

The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is the easiest car to follow.

In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect" fans.

[warning here follows a ramble]

The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it for me".

A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.

BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.

If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.

There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.

Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(

beers,
build
~misfit~
2018-07-10 08:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:27:17 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>> Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
>> the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
>> versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
>> slightly different which is interesting for a quote...) as saying:
>>
>> "...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
>> car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
>> downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
>>
>> I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
>> net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
>> of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
>> to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
>> disrupts a following car?
>>
>> FWIW
>> DLM
>
> The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
> that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
> the easiest car to follow.
>
> In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
> turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
> describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
> search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
> fans.
>
> [warning here follows a ramble]
>
> The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
> vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
> resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
> for me".
>
> A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
> overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
> cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
> are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
> complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
> ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
>
> BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
> high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
> and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
> has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
> but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
>
> If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
> a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
>
> There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
> them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
> the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
>
> Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
> they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(

Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like. That way
the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line with the rest is so
dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to clean the crap off the
tyres. It wasn't always like this.

If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
build
2018-07-10 10:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:27:17 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
> >> Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
> >> the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
> >> versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
> >> slightly different which is interesting for a quote...) as saying:
> >>
> >> "...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
> >> car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
> >> downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
> >>
> >> I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
> >> net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
> >> of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
> >> to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
> >> disrupts a following car?
> >>
> >> FWIW
> >> DLM
> >
> > The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
> > that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
> > the easiest car to follow.
> >
> > In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
> > turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
> > describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
> > search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
> > fans.
> >
> > [warning here follows a ramble]
> >
> > The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
> > vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
> > resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
> > for me".
> >
> > A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
> > overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
> > cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
> > are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
> > complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
> > ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
> >
> > BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
> > high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
> > and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
> > has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
> > but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
> >
> > If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
> > a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
> >
> > There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
> > them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
> > the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
> >
> > Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
> > they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
>
> Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like. That way
> the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line with the rest is so
> dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to clean the crap off the
> tyres. It wasn't always like this.
>
> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
> racing lines which will result in more passing.
> --
> Shaun.

I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
geoff
2018-07-10 11:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>>
>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
>> racing lines which will result in more passing.
>> --
>> Shaun.
>
> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
>

Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the harder
compound ones ?!!!

geoff
~misfit~
2018-07-10 12:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>> --
>>> Shaun.
>>
>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate
>> the problem.
>
> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
> harder compound ones ?!!!

LOL probably.

Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
could go wider.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
D Munz
2018-07-10 15:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
> > On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
> >>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
> >>> --
> >>> Shaun.
> >>
> >> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate
> >> the problem.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
> > harder compound ones ?!!!
>
> LOL probably.
>
> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
> formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
> quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
> could go wider.
> --
> Shaun.
>
> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
> little classification in the DSM*."
> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?

FWIW
DLM
~misfit~
2018-07-11 00:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet D Munz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>
>>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
>>>> exacerbate the problem.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
>>> harder compound ones ?!!!
>>
>> LOL probably.
>>
>> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
>> hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and
>> don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for
>> the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
>>
>
> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
> thing. Or has that all gone away?

No it's still part of the remit. (To pollute the local environment with
various sized bits of discarded petrochemicals.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
D Munz
2018-07-11 11:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:38:57 PM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet D Munz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
> >> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
> >>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
> >>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Shaun.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
> >>>> exacerbate the problem.
> >>>
> >>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
> >>> harder compound ones ?!!!
> >>
> >> LOL probably.
> >>
> >> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
> >> hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and
> >> don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for
> >> the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
> >>
> >
> > Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
> > remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
> > thing. Or has that all gone away?
>
> No it's still part of the remit. (To pollute the local environment with
> various sized bits of discarded petrochemicals.)
> --
> Shaun.
>
> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
> little classification in the DSM*."
> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Maybe they should find a way to make tires out of potatoes. They are doing that with disposable spoons, knives and forks over hear now.

An added benefit would be a feast at the end of the race as long as the temps were kept up! Imagine the sponsorship opportunities and the crowd crashing for a taste of their favorites tire!

FWIW
DLM
News
2018-07-11 12:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/11/2018 7:53 AM, D Munz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:38:57 PM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet D Munz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>>>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
>>>>>> exacerbate the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
>>>>> harder compound ones ?!!!
>>>>
>>>> LOL probably.
>>>>
>>>> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
>>>> hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and
>>>> don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for
>>>> the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
>>> thing. Or has that all gone away?
>>
>> No it's still part of the remit. (To pollute the local environment with
>> various sized bits of discarded petrochemicals.)
>> --
>> Shaun.
>>
>> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
>> little classification in the DSM*."
>> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
>> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
>
> Maybe they should find a way to make tires out of potatoes. They are doing that with disposable spoons, knives and forks over hear now.
>
> An added benefit would be a feast at the end of the race as long as the temps were kept up! Imagine the sponsorship opportunities and the crowd crashing for a taste of their favorites tire!
>
> FWIW
> DLM
>


They could pick up crudités on the cool-down lap...
bra
2018-07-11 16:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>
> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?

Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3 the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?

It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
Sir Tim
2018-07-12 06:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
bra <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>
>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
>> Or has that all gone away?
>
> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
>
> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>

IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.

--
Sir Tim
keithr0
2018-07-12 07:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/12/2018 4:20 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
> bra <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>>
>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
>>> Or has that all gone away?
>>
>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
>> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
>> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
>> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
>> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
>>
>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
>> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>>
>
> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>
Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
Sir Tim
2018-07-12 08:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
keithr0 <***@account.invalid> wrote:
> On 7/12/2018 4:20 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>> bra <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
>>>> Or has that all gone away?
>>>
>>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
>>> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
>>> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
>>> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
>>> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
>>>
>>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
>>> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
>> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>>
> Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
>

Also true, but surely tyre technology has improved commensurately?

The fact is that the current artificial situation is an attempt a) to
improve “the show” and b) to keep the name Pirelli in the public eye when
it is the only tyre supplier.

--
Sir Tim
D Munz
2018-07-12 12:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 3:24:12 AM UTC-5, Sir Tim wrote:
> keithr0 <***@account.invalid> wrote:
> > On 7/12/2018 4:20 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
> >> bra <> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
> >>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
> >>>> Or has that all gone away?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
> >>> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
> >>> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
> >>> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
> >>> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
> >>>
> >>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
> >>> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
> >>>
> >>
> >> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
> >> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
> >>
> > Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
> >
>
> Also true, but surely tyre technology has improved commensurately?
>
> The fact is that the current artificial situation is an attempt a) to
> improve “the show” and b) to keep the name Pirelli in the public eye when
> it is the only tyre supplier.
>
> --
> Sir Tim

I think you can add "c) and to keep people from moaning about the loss of refueling and the associated race strategies."

I know RASF1 has been through countless threads around the pros and cons of refueling but I still feel like we miss something with that bit of the strategy being taken out of the equation.

Consider some of the stuff we are seeing at the starts now. If we added light or heavy fuel loads into the mix. A lower grid car taking a punt on on a low-fuel start and moving up the order... Of would that screw things up in a dangerous or unexciting way? (Unexciting in that all the front runners would know they must have started on low fuel so they just wait them out.

I don't know.

AS a side thought, could they do something with the fuel flow limitations? Keep the max fuel load but allow the teams to mess with fuel flow dynamically during the race. Go ahead and jack up the flow but be careful or you might run out...

FWIW
DLM
~misfit~
2018-07-12 22:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet D Munz wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 3:24:12 AM UTC-5, Sir Tim wrote:
>> keithr0 <***@account.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 7/12/2018 4:20 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>> bra <> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
>>>>>> thing. Or has that all gone away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys
>>>>> in Nevada are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away,
>>>>> and a shirt-pocket iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my
>>>>> boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3 the weight ---- but no engineer or
>>>>> scientist on this planet can make a tyre last 52 laps of
>>>>> Silverstone?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of
>>>>> automotive engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do
>>>> more than one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>>>>
>>> Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
>>>
>>
>> Also true, but surely tyre technology has improved commensurately?
>>
>> The fact is that the current artificial situation is an attempt a) to
>> improve "the show" and b) to keep the name Pirelli in the public eye
>> when it is the only tyre supplier.
>>
>> --
>> Sir Tim
>
> I think you can add "c) and to keep people from moaning about the
> loss of refueling and the associated race strategies."
>
> I know RASF1 has been through countless threads around the pros and
> cons of refueling but I still feel like we miss something with that
> bit of the strategy being taken out of the equation.
>
> Consider some of the stuff we are seeing at the starts now. If we
> added light or heavy fuel loads into the mix. A lower grid car
> taking a punt on on a low-fuel start and moving up the order... Of
> would that screw things up in a dangerous or unexciting way?
> (Unexciting in that all the front runners would know they must have
> started on low fuel so they just wait them out.
>
> I don't know.
>
> AS a side thought, could they do something with the fuel flow
> limitations? Keep the max fuel load but allow the teams to mess with
> fuel flow dynamically during the race. Go ahead and jack up the flow
> but be careful or you might run out...

I think the fuel flow is there to stop teams using one driver as a hare to
benefit their choice for WDC. Can you imagine what Ferrari would do if they
could use Kimi even more to aid Sebastian?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
M2T
2018-07-12 23:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/07/2018 23:41, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet D Munz wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 3:24:12 AM UTC-5, Sir Tim wrote:
>>> keithr0 <***@account.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2018 4:20 PM, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>> bra <> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
>>>>>>> thing. Or has that all gone away?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys
>>>>>> in Nevada are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away,
>>>>>> and a shirt-pocket iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my
>>>>>> boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3 the weight ---- but no engineer or
>>>>>> scientist on this planet can make a tyre last 52 laps of
>>>>>> Silverstone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of
>>>>>> automotive engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do
>>>>> more than one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>>>>>
>>>> Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Also true, but surely tyre technology has improved commensurately?
>>>
>>> The fact is that the current artificial situation is an attempt a) to
>>> improve "the show" and b) to keep the name Pirelli in the public eye
>>> when it is the only tyre supplier.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sir Tim
>>
>> I think you can add "c) and to keep people from moaning about the
>> loss of refueling and the associated race strategies."
>>
>> I know RASF1 has been through countless threads around the pros and
>> cons of refueling but I still feel like we miss something with that
>> bit of the strategy being taken out of the equation.
>>
>> Consider some of the stuff we are seeing at the starts now. If we
>> added light or heavy fuel loads into the mix. A lower grid car
>> taking a punt on on a low-fuel start and moving up the order... Of
>> would that screw things up in a dangerous or unexciting way?
>> (Unexciting in that all the front runners would know they must have
>> started on low fuel so they just wait them out.
>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>> AS a side thought, could they do something with the fuel flow
>> limitations? Keep the max fuel load but allow the teams to mess with
>> fuel flow dynamically during the race. Go ahead and jack up the flow
>> but be careful or you might run out...
>
> I think the fuel flow is there to stop teams using one driver as a hare to
> benefit their choice for WDC. Can you imagine what Ferrari would do if they
> could use Kimi even more to aid Sebastian?
>

I've read that t would enable them to use Kimi to run away on the
straights and slow right down on the corners, making overtaking all but
impossible.
Naked Fame
2018-07-18 19:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"~misfit~" <***@gmail.com> writes:
> I think the fuel flow is there to stop teams using one driver as a hare to
> benefit their choice for WDC. Can you imagine what Ferrari would do if they
> could use Kimi even more to aid Sebastian?

Considering Kimi was allowed to finish one position ahead of Sebastian
less than two weeks ago, what makes you think Ferrari would do what you
think it would do?

--
Signature
~misfit~
2018-07-19 02:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet Naked Fame wrote:
> "~misfit~" <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> I think the fuel flow is there to stop teams using one driver as a
>> hare to benefit their choice for WDC. Can you imagine what Ferrari
>> would do if they could use Kimi even more to aid Sebastian?
>
> Considering Kimi was allowed to finish one position ahead of Sebastian
> less than two weeks ago, what makes you think Ferrari would do what
> you think it would do?

History.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
build
2018-07-12 12:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:20:19 PM UTC+10, Sir Tim wrote:
> bra wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
> >>
> >> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
> >> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
> >> Or has that all gone away?
> >
> > Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
> > are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
> > iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
> > the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
> > tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
> >
> > It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
> > engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
> >
>
> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>
> --
> Sir Tim

Sir,
How often did that happen (used tyres)?
Were those cars on used tyres running last?
How was the passing back then?
Was there much/any?

beers,
Sir Tim
2018-07-12 21:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
build <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:20:19 PM UTC+10, Sir Tim wrote:
>> bra wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
>>>> Or has that all gone away?
>>>
>>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
>>> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
>>> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
>>> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
>>> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
>>>
>>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
>>> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
>> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>>
>> --
>> Sir Tim
>
> Sir,
> How often did that happen (used tyres)?
> Were those cars on used tyres running last?

I can’t swear to it but I’m pretty sure I’m right. A friend of mine was an
executive with Dunlop at the time and was very friendly with Dick
Jefferies, the Dunlop racing manager so I think I may have heard it from
him (Stuart, my friend, always reckoned that Dick had the cushiest job in
Dunlop because he spent the whole summer tooling around Europe with the GP
circus getting a suntan and drinking pink gin).

Bear in mind that tyres were not as important then as they are now - the
1.5 litre Coventry Climax engine developed slightly less than 200 bhp and
aerodynamic downforce was minimal. All teams used Dunlop R5 or, later, R6
racing tyres and there were only two compounds: wet or dry. Slick tyres
were yet to make an appearance.

> How was the passing back then?
> Was there much/any?

There was certainly plenty of passing, especially at Monza. Also plenty of
mechanical failures. Clark, Hill, Brabham and Surtees were the top men but
it was perfectly possible to buy a car from the works, enter it privately
and tool around at the back of the field enjoying yourself. Godin de
Beaufort, Pete Lovely and Bob Bondurant come to mind.


--
Sir Tim
M2T
2018-07-12 22:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/07/2018 22:57, Sir Tim wrote:
> build <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:20:19 PM UTC+10, Sir Tim wrote:
>>> bra wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
>>>>> Or has that all gone away?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
>>>> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
>>>> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
>>>> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
>>>> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
>>>>
>>>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
>>>> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
>>> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sir Tim
>>
>> Sir,
>> How often did that happen (used tyres)?
>> Were those cars on used tyres running last?
>
> I can’t swear to it but I’m pretty sure I’m right. A friend of mine was an
> executive with Dunlop at the time and was very friendly with Dick
> Jefferies, the Dunlop racing manager so I think I may have heard it from
> him (Stuart, my friend, always reckoned that Dick had the cushiest job in
> Dunlop because he spent the whole summer tooling around Europe with the GP
> circus getting a suntan and drinking pink gin).
>
> Bear in mind that tyres were not as important then as they are now - the
> 1.5 litre Coventry Climax engine developed slightly less than 200 bhp and
> aerodynamic downforce was minimal. All teams used Dunlop R5 or, later, R6
> racing tyres and there were only two compounds: wet or dry. Slick tyres
> were yet to make an appearance.
>
>> How was the passing back then?
>> Was there much/any?
>
> There was certainly plenty of passing, especially at Monza. Also plenty of
> mechanical failures. Clark, Hill, Brabham and Surtees were the top men but
> it was perfectly possible to buy a car from the works, enter it privately
> and tool around at the back of the field enjoying yourself. Godin de
> Beaufort, Pete Lovely and Bob Bondurant come to mind.
>
>

They would have been cross ply tyres, which allow the cars to slide
around a lot more, which adds to the "show".
build
2018-07-13 09:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 7:57:18 AM UTC+10, Sir Tim wrote:
> build wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:20:19 PM UTC+10, Sir Tim wrote:
> >> bra wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
> >>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
> >>>> Or has that all gone away?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
> >>> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
> >>> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
> >>> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
> >>> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
> >>>
> >>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
> >>> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
> >>>
> >>
> >> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
> >> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sir Tim
> >
> > Sir,
> > How often did that happen (used tyres)?
> > Were those cars on used tyres running last?
>
> I can’t swear to it but I’m pretty sure I’m right.

I'm not questioning whether you are right, you are usually reliable. I'm interested how often it happened. BTW, it still happens in some series but F1? even then. I'm curious how often it happened. I know BlackJack would not have raced on used tyres.

> A friend of mine was an
> executive with Dunlop at the time and was very friendly with Dick
> Jefferies, the Dunlop racing manager so I think I may have heard it from
> him (Stuart, my friend, always reckoned that Dick had the cushiest job in
> Dunlop because he spent the whole summer tooling around Europe with the GP
> circus getting a suntan and drinking pink gin).
>
> Bear in mind that tyres were not as important then as they are now - the
> 1.5 litre Coventry Climax engine developed slightly less than 200 bhp and
> aerodynamic downforce was minimal. All teams used Dunlop R5 or, later, R6
> racing tyres and there were only two compounds: wet or dry. Slick tyres
> were yet to make an appearance.
>
> > How was the passing back then?
> > Was there much/any?
>
> There was certainly plenty of passing, especially at Monza.

I'd question that assertion. Back then there was not much passing at all and the field was well spread over laps with gaps often measured in minutes.

> Also plenty of
> mechanical failures. Clark, Hill, Brabham and Surtees were the top men but
> it was perfectly possible to buy a car from the works, enter it privately
> and tool around at the back of the field enjoying yourself. Godin de
> Beaufort, Pete Lovely and Bob Bondurant come to mind.

My knowledge of that era is restricted to memories of Motor Racing news race reports. In Oz we'd get them a week or two after GP's and only when Dad was feeling generous as magazines were considered expensive back then. :-)

> --
> Sir Tim
Bigbird
2018-07-13 13:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
build wrote:

> My knowledge of that era is restricted to what I can look up on the
> internet.

Fixed.

Would you like to fix all your posts "build" style?
Naked Fame
2018-07-18 19:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sir Tim <***@brooklands.co.uk> writes:
> build <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:20:19 PM UTC+10, Sir Tim wrote:
>>> bra wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
>>>>> Or has that all gone away?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
>>>> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
>>>> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
>>>> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
>>>> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
>>>>
>>>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
>>>> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
>>> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sir Tim
>>
>> Sir,
>> How often did that happen (used tyres)?
>> Were those cars on used tyres running last?
>
> I can’t swear to it but I’m pretty sure I’m right. A friend of mine was an
> executive with Dunlop at the time and was very friendly with Dick
> Jefferies, the Dunlop racing manager so I think I may have heard it from
> him (Stuart, my friend, always reckoned that Dick had the cushiest job in
> Dunlop because he spent the whole summer tooling around Europe with the GP
> circus getting a suntan and drinking pink gin).
>
> Bear in mind that tyres were not as important then as they are now - the
> 1.5 litre Coventry Climax engine developed slightly less than 200 bhp and
> aerodynamic downforce was minimal. All teams used Dunlop R5 or, later, R6
> racing tyres and there were only two compounds: wet or dry. Slick tyres
> were yet to make an appearance.
>
>> How was the passing back then?
>> Was there much/any?
>
> There was certainly plenty of passing, especially at Monza. Also plenty of
> mechanical failures. Clark, Hill, Brabham and Surtees were the top men but
> it was perfectly possible to buy a car from the works, enter it privately
> and tool around at the back of the field enjoying yourself. Godin de
> Beaufort, Pete Lovely and Bob Bondurant come to mind.

Dear Sir Tim Sir,

I just wanted to tell you that for me, a jaded Finn who grew up during
the early 1980's, following first Keke Rosberg, then even foreign F1
stars, and who now knows all the legends by name if not in person, I
find you remembering days of the past the most interesting part of
this newsgroup. Please never stop!

A sincere Thank You to you, Sir. Still, in the voice of Han Solo:
"Don't get cocky!" :-)

--
Signature
Sir Tim
2018-07-19 07:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Naked Fame <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Sir Tim <***@brooklands.co.uk> writes:
>> build <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:20:19 PM UTC+10, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>> bra wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM UTC-7, D Munz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
>>>>>> Or has that all gone away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
>>>>> are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
>>>>> iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
>>>>> the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
>>>>> tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
>>>>> engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
>>>> one race on the same set of Dunlops.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sir Tim
>>>
>>> Sir,
>>> How often did that happen (used tyres)?
>>> Were those cars on used tyres running last?
>>
>> I can’t swear to it but I’m pretty sure I’m right. A friend of mine was an
>> executive with Dunlop at the time and was very friendly with Dick
>> Jefferies, the Dunlop racing manager so I think I may have heard it from
>> him (Stuart, my friend, always reckoned that Dick had the cushiest job in
>> Dunlop because he spent the whole summer tooling around Europe with the GP
>> circus getting a suntan and drinking pink gin).
>>
>> Bear in mind that tyres were not as important then as they are now - the
>> 1.5 litre Coventry Climax engine developed slightly less than 200 bhp and
>> aerodynamic downforce was minimal. All teams used Dunlop R5 or, later, R6
>> racing tyres and there were only two compounds: wet or dry. Slick tyres
>> were yet to make an appearance.
>>
>>> How was the passing back then?
>>> Was there much/any?
>>
>> There was certainly plenty of passing, especially at Monza. Also plenty of
>> mechanical failures. Clark, Hill, Brabham and Surtees were the top men but
>> it was perfectly possible to buy a car from the works, enter it privately
>> and tool around at the back of the field enjoying yourself. Godin de
>> Beaufort, Pete Lovely and Bob Bondurant come to mind.
>
> Dear Sir Tim Sir,
>
> I just wanted to tell you that for me, a jaded Finn who grew up during
> the early 1980's, following first Keke Rosberg, then even foreign F1
> stars, and who now knows all the legends by name if not in person, I
> find you remembering days of the past the most interesting part of
> this newsgroup. Please never stop!
>
> A sincere Thank You to you, Sir. Still, in the voice of Han Solo:
> "Don't get cocky!" :-)
>

Thank you kind sir (I often think I should have kept up with the Star Wars
series).

--
Sir Tim
build
2018-07-12 13:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:59:57 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
> > Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
> > > On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
> > >>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
> > >>> --
> > >>> Shaun.
> > >>
> > >> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate
> > >> the problem.
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
> > > harder compound ones ?!!!
> >
> > LOL probably.
> >
> > Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
> > formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
> > quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
> > could go wider.
> > --
> > Shaun.
> >
> > "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
> > little classification in the DSM*."
> > David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
> > (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
>
> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?
>
> FWIW
> DLM

NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
M2T
2018-07-12 14:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/07/2018 14:02, build wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:59:57 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate
>>>>> the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
>>>> harder compound ones ?!!!
>>>
>>> LOL probably.
>>>
>>> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
>>> formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
>>> quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
>>> could go wider.
>>> --
>>> Shaun.
>>>
>>> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
>>> little classification in the DSM*."
>>> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
>>> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
>>
>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?
>>
>> FWIW
>> DLM
>
> NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
> The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
> The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
>

Bullshit

> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/

Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
News
2018-07-12 15:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/12/2018 10:20 AM, M2T wrote:
> On 12/07/2018 14:02, build wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:59:57 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>>>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate
>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
>>>>> harder compound ones ?!!!
>>>>
>>>> LOL probably.
>>>>
>>>> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
>>>> hard. Some
>>>> formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't
>>>> self-destruct
>>>> quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky
>>>> they
>>>> could go wider.
>>>> --
>>>> Shaun.
>>>>
>>>> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
>>>> has a cozy
>>>> little classification in the DSM*."
>>>> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
>>>> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
>>>
>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now?  I seem to
>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
>>> thing.  Or has that all gone away?
>>>
>>> FWIW
>>> DLM
>>
>> NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
>> The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
>> The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
>>
>
> Bullshit
>
>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
>>
>
> Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
>
>


Truly, "designed-shyte" tires!
build
2018-07-13 09:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 12:20:21 AM UTC+10, M2T wrote:
> On 12/07/2018 14:02, build wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:59:57 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
> >>> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
> >>>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
> >>>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Shaun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate
> >>>>> the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
> >>>> harder compound ones ?!!!
> >>>
> >>> LOL probably.
> >>>
> >>> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
> >>> formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
> >>> quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
> >>> could go wider.
> >>> --
> >>> Shaun.
> >>>
> >>> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
> >>> little classification in the DSM*."
> >>> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
> >>> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
> >>
> >> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?
> >>
> >> FWIW
> >> DLM
> >
> > NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
> > The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
> > The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
> >
>
> > https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
>
> Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target

That is an old 'beat-up' and written before that season started, we now know Pirelli hit tartgets that year.

Do you have any relevant reply?
~misfit~
2018-07-13 11:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
> On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 12:20:21 AM UTC+10, M2T wrote:
>> On 12/07/2018 14:02, build wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:59:57 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>>>>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
>>>>>>> exacerbate the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
>>>>>> harder compound ones ?!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL probably.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
>>>>> hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track
>>>>> and don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat
>>>>> for the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
>>>>> has a cozy little classification in the DSM*."
>>>>> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
>>>>> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
>>>>
>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
>>>> thing. Or has that all gone away?
>>>>
>>>> FWIW
>>>> DLM
>>>
>>> NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
>>> The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
>>> The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
>>>
>>
>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
>>
>> Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
>
> That is an old 'beat-up' and written before that season started, we
> now know Pirelli hit tartgets that year.
>
> Do you have any relevant reply?

Don't be a wanker Bob - aguing semantics and thinking you're better than
others because they haven't caught on to your private dick-rubbing game.

The word "atificially" shouldn't be there, D Munz made a mistake with his
phrasing. They ARE designed to degrade (non-artifially) and drop fucking
large lumps of rubber all over the track - which is what he meant and you
know it. Have another drink petty person.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-07-13 15:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 5:45:36 AM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:

> Have another drink petty person.

While you sit there, stoned out your tree,
on over prescribed drugs, paid for by
tax dollars, because you are too fucking
stupid to look after your sad self.
Alan Baker
2018-07-13 15:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-13 4:45 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
>> On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 12:20:21 AM UTC+10, M2T wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2018 14:02, build wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:59:57 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>>>>>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
>>>>>>>> exacerbate the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
>>>>>>> harder compound ones ?!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL probably.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
>>>>>> hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track
>>>>>> and don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat
>>>>>> for the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
>>>>>> has a cozy little classification in the DSM*."
>>>>>> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
>>>>>> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>>>>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
>>>>> thing. Or has that all gone away?
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW
>>>>> DLM
>>>>
>>>> NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
>>>> The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
>>>> The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
>>>
>>> Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
>>
>> That is an old 'beat-up' and written before that season started, we
>> now know Pirelli hit tartgets that year.
>>
>> Do you have any relevant reply?
>
> Don't be a wanker Bob - aguing semantics and thinking you're better than
> others because they haven't caught on to your private dick-rubbing game.
>
> The word "atificially" shouldn't be there, D Munz made a mistake with his
> phrasing. They ARE designed to degrade (non-artifially) and drop fucking
> large lumps of rubber all over the track - which is what he meant and you
> know it. Have another drink petty person.
>

While they are designed to degrade, that doesn't automatically mean they
have to drop lumps of rubber.
~misfit~
2018-07-12 22:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:59:57 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:06:26 AM UTC-5, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 10:59 PM, build wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:45:22 PM UTC+10, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>>>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Shaun.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
>>>>> exacerbate the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
>>>> harder compound ones ?!!!
>>>
>>> LOL probably.
>>>
>>> Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
>>> hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and
>>> don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for
>>> the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
>>> --
>>> Shaun.
>>>
>>> "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
>>> has a cozy little classification in the DSM*."
>>> David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
>>> (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
>>
>> Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
>> remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
>> thing. Or has that all gone away?
>>
>> FWIW
>> DLM
>
> NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
> The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.

Yeah right, that's been addressed. (!)

> The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.

Bullshit. If all cars are on the same compound (or thereabouts) and there're
no marbles off-line (and less rubbering-in on-line) then there is potential
for lots MORE passing. (Which is why I bought it up.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-07-13 01:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:51:32 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:

> Bullshit. If all cars are on the same compound (or thereabouts) and there're
> no marbles off-line (and less rubbering-in on-line) then there is potential
> for lots MORE passing. (Which is why I bought it up.)

Take your excessive gay fucking parentheses,
and shove them up your stink hole cunt,
you fucking piece of shit, whiny, crybaby,
asshole.
geoff
2018-07-13 03:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/07/2018 1:57 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:51:32 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. If all cars are on the same compound (or thereabouts) and there're
>> no marbles off-line (and less rubbering-in on-line) then there is potential
>> for lots MORE passing. (Which is why I bought it up.)
>
> Take your excessive gay fucking parentheses,
> and shove them up your stink hole cunt,
> you fucking piece of shit, whiny, crybaby,
> asshole.
>

Hey texarsehole, don't hold back. Say what you REALLY feel. C'mon, let
it all out !

geoff
~misfit~
2018-07-13 11:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
> On 13/07/2018 1:57 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:51:32 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>>> Bullshit. If all cars are on the same compound (or thereabouts) and
>>> there're no marbles off-line (and less rubbering-in on-line) then
>>> there is potential for lots MORE passing. (Which is why I bought it
>>> up.)
>>
>> Take your excessive gay fucking parentheses,
>> and shove them up your stink hole cunt,
>> you fucking piece of shit, whiny, crybaby,
>> asshole.
>>
>
> Hey texarsehole, don't hold back. Say what you REALLY feel. C'mon, let
> it all out !

Texiebaby is sooo easy to trigger.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Bigbird
2018-07-13 09:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
build wrote:

> NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
> The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.

> The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.

Bollocks.

Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
build
2018-07-13 10:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 7:53:17 PM UTC+10, Bigbird wrote:

> Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops equal less passing.

Fixed. I agree
Bigbird
2018-07-13 13:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
build wrote:

> On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 7:53:17 PM UTC+10, Bigbird wrote:
>
> Fixed. I am a lying cunt.

Fixed. I agree.
geoff
2018-07-14 00:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/07/2018 9:53 PM, Bigbird wrote:
> build wrote:
>
>> NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
>> The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
>
>> The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
>
> Bollocks.
>
> Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
>


That would be "Less grip, fewer marbles, and fewer pit-stops...." I believe.

geoff
bra
2018-07-14 01:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 5:48:19 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
> >
>
>
> That would be "Less grip, fewer marbles, and fewer pit-stops...." I believe.
>
> geoff

Don't call the FIA, they'll call you.

"Information" retains its singular form in most English, and in legal vocabulary one can "lay AN information"

It has plurals in some other languages. When Canada reached a trade deal with Saudi Arabia, the joint document referred to "the sharing of informations".

Two questions may resolve this:

1. Is it grammatically correct?
2. Do you want to do business with Saudi Arabia or not?
Bigbird
2018-07-14 05:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
geoff wrote:

> On 13/07/2018 9:53 PM, Bigbird wrote:
> > build wrote:
> >
> > > NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
> > > The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
> >
> > > The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
> >
> > Bollocks.
> >
> > Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
> >
>
>
> That would be "Less grip, fewer marbles, and fewer pit-stops...." I
> believe.
>

You'll never be a speech writer; audience and alliteration supercede. :)

/steps off soap box/
Naked Fame
2018-07-18 19:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
geoff <***@nospamgeoffwood.org> writes:

> On 13/07/2018 9:53 PM, Bigbird wrote:
>> build wrote:
>>
>>> NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
>>> The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
>>
>>> The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
>>
>> Bollocks.
>>
>> Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
>>
>
>
> That would be "Less grip, fewer marbles, and fewer pit-stops...." I believe.

How about "Fewer grip, littlerer marbles, and lesser pi-tst-ops"?

--
Signature
t***@gmail.com
2018-07-10 17:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:33:09 AM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

> Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the harder
> compound ones ?!!!

Go fuck your yourself.
Usless fucking idiot.
~misfit~
2018-07-11 00:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:27:17 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>>> Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
>>> the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
>>> versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
>>> slightly different which is interesting for a quote...) as saying:
>>>
>>> "...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
>>> car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
>>> downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
>>>
>>> I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
>>> net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
>>> of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
>>> to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
>>> disrupts a following car?
>>>
>>> FWIW
>>> DLM
>>
>> The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
>> that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
>> the easiest car to follow.
>>
>> In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
>> turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
>> describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
>> search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
>> fans.
>>
>> [warning here follows a ramble]
>>
>> The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
>> vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
>> resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
>> for me".
>>
>> A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
>> overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
>> cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
>> are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
>> complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
>> ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
>>
>> BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
>> high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
>> and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
>> has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
>> but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
>>
>> If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
>> a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
>>
>> There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
>> them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
>> the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
>>
>> Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
>> they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
>
> Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like.
> That way the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line
> with the rest is so dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to
> clean the crap off the tyres. It wasn't always like this.
>
> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
> racing lines which will result in more passing.

Often the 'multiple racing line' thing is what makes wet races so exciting.
So why not stop the frangible tyre thing and allow that at every race?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Sir Tim
2018-07-11 10:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
~misfit~ <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:27:17 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>>>> Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
>>>> the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
>>>> versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
>>>> slightly different which is interesting for a quote...) as saying:
>>>>
>>>> "...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
>>>> car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
>>>> downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
>>>>
>>>> I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
>>>> net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
>>>> of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
>>>> to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
>>>> disrupts a following car?
>>>>
>>>> FWIW
>>>> DLM
>>>
>>> The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
>>> that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
>>> the easiest car to follow.
>>>
>>> In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
>>> turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
>>> describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
>>> search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
>>> fans.
>>>
>>> [warning here follows a ramble]
>>>
>>> The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
>>> vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
>>> resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
>>> for me".
>>>
>>> A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
>>> overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
>>> cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
>>> are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
>>> complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
>>> ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
>>>
>>> BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
>>> high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
>>> and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
>>> has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
>>> but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
>>>
>>> If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
>>> a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
>>>
>>> There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
>>> them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
>>> the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
>>>
>>> Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
>>> they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
>>
>> Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like.
>> That way the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line
>> with the rest is so dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to
>> clean the crap off the tyres. It wasn't always like this.
>>
>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
>> racing lines which will result in more passing.
>
> Often the 'multiple racing line' thing is what makes wet races so exciting.
> So why not stop the frangible tyre thing and allow that at every race?

Or introduce Bernie’s water sprays :-)
~misfit~
2018-07-11 14:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet Sir Tim wrote:
> ~misfit~ <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:27:17 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>>>>> Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
>>>>> the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red
>>>>> Bull versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of
>>>>> sources (most slightly different which is interesting for a
>>>>> quote...) as saying:
>>>>>
>>>>> "...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect
>>>>> my car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
>>>>> downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
>>>>>
>>>>> I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
>>>>> net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the
>>>>> rear of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance
>>>>> penalty) to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy
>>>>> wake and disrupts a following car?
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW
>>>>> DLM
>>>>
>>>> The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009.
>>>> So that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc
>>>> is the easiest car to follow.
>>>>
>>>> In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
>>>> turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
>>>> describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
>>>> search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground
>>>> effect" fans.
>>>>
>>>> [warning here follows a ramble]
>>>>
>>>> The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
>>>> vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
>>>> resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in
>>>> it for me".
>>>>
>>>> A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
>>>> overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
>>>> cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
>>>> are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
>>>> complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
>>>> ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
>>>>
>>>> BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the
>>>> other high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs
>>>> when close and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance
>>>> the high wake has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing
>>>> may address some but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about
>>>> this a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
>>>>
>>>> There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
>>>> them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k
>>>> in the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
>>>> they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
>>>
>>> Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like.
>>> That way the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line
>>> with the rest is so dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to
>>> clean the crap off the tyres. It wasn't always like this.
>>>
>>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
>>> multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
>>
>> Often the 'multiple racing line' thing is what makes wet races so
>> exciting. So why not stop the frangible tyre thing and allow that at
>> every race?
>
> Or introduce Bernie's water sprays :-)

But that would just be silly. ;-)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
News
2018-07-11 11:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/10/2018 8:08 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet build wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:27:17 AM UTC+10, D Munz wrote:
>>>> Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
>>>> the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
>>>> versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
>>>> slightly different which is interesting for a quote...) as saying:
>>>>
>>>> "...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
>>>> car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
>>>> downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
>>>>
>>>> I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
>>>> net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
>>>> of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
>>>> to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
>>>> disrupts a following car?
>>>>
>>>> FWIW
>>>> DLM
>>>
>>> The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
>>> that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
>>> the easiest car to follow.
>>>
>>> In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
>>> turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
>>> describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
>>> search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
>>> fans.
>>>
>>> [warning here follows a ramble]
>>>
>>> The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
>>> vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
>>> resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
>>> for me".
>>>
>>> A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
>>> overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
>>> cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
>>> are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
>>> complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
>>> ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
>>>
>>> BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
>>> high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
>>> and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
>>> has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
>>> but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
>>>
>>> If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
>>> a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
>>>
>>> There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
>>> them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
>>> the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
>>>
>>> Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
>>> they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
>>
>> Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like.
>> That way the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line
>> with the rest is so dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to
>> clean the crap off the tyres. It wasn't always like this.
>>
>> If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
>> racing lines which will result in more passing.
>
> Often the 'multiple racing line' thing is what makes wet races so exciting.
> So why not stop the frangible tyre thing and allow that at every race?
>


Note to Tilke: install trackside sprinkler systems
Loading...