Discussion:
If the Renault engine had been in the McLaren at Malaysia...
(too old to reply)
larkim
2017-10-06 09:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari good.

With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari hamstringing
themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about their chassis
engineering that they really should be seeing themselves as equal to or
potentially better than RBR as they go into next year?
Edmund
2017-10-06 10:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:

> The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari good.
>
> With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari hamstringing
> themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about their chassis
> engineering that they really should be seeing themselves as equal to or
> potentially better than RBR as they go into next year?

Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems that RBR
has the best chassis for many years.
The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real F1
circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top speed
and no real F1 acceleration.
I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting whether
or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.

Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda comes with
their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at japan and I thought
they meant this year.... My bad :-)

Edmund
larkim
2017-10-06 11:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
>
> > The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari good.
> >
> > With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari hamstringing
> > themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about their chassis
> > engineering that they really should be seeing themselves as equal to or
> > potentially better than RBR as they go into next year?
>
> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems that RBR
> has the best chassis for many years.
> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real F1
> circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top speed
> and no real F1 acceleration.
> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting whether
> or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.
>
> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda comes with
> their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at japan and I thought
> they meant this year.... My bad :-)
>
> Edmund

I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1" experiences
is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not be at quite the same pace
as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at Malaysia) whilst it wasn't competitive
at the front end, it was competitive in the mid-field.

Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas aren't running
a "real" F1 car either?

If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when pushed right to
the limit of current F1 performance, I don't disagree - and some of the
forces at play have exponential effects and impacts, so you're perfectly
correct in saying that a car that gets around a lap 1s slower than another
car isn't experiencing the same forces. But I think you overstate the
situation if you describe it as not "real F1", unless you only think that
RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".
Edmund
2017-10-06 11:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:22:40 -0700, larkim wrote:

> On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>
>> > The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari
>> > good.
>> >
>> > With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari
>> > hamstringing themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about
>> > their chassis engineering that they really should be seeing
>> > themselves as equal to or potentially better than RBR as they go into
>> > next year?
>>
>> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems that
>> RBR has the best chassis for many years.
>> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real F1
>> circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top speed and
>> no real F1 acceleration.
>> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting
>> whether or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.
>>
>> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda comes
>> with their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at japan and I
>> thought they meant this year.... My bad :-)
>>
>> Edmund
>
> I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1" experiences
> is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not be at quite the same
> pace as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at Malaysia) whilst it wasn't
> competitive at the front end, it was competitive in the mid-field.
>
> Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas aren't
> running a "real" F1 car either?
>
> If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when pushed right
> to the limit of current F1 performance, I don't disagree - and some of
> the forces at play have exponential effects and impacts, so you're
> perfectly correct in saying that a car that gets around a lap 1s slower
> than another car isn't experiencing the same forces. But I think you
> overstate the situation if you describe it as not "real F1", unless you
> only think that RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".

Well, I think McLaren is unique in the sense its deficiency is due to the
PU only.
No speed, no acceleration, no fuel efficiency and no reliability
larkim
2017-10-06 14:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 6 October 2017 12:51:25 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:22:40 -0700, larkim wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
> >>
> >> > The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari
> >> > good.
> >> >
> >> > With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari
> >> > hamstringing themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about
> >> > their chassis engineering that they really should be seeing
> >> > themselves as equal to or potentially better than RBR as they go into
> >> > next year?
> >>
> >> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems that
> >> RBR has the best chassis for many years.
> >> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real F1
> >> circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top speed and
> >> no real F1 acceleration.
> >> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting
> >> whether or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.
> >>
> >> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda comes
> >> with their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at japan and I
> >> thought they meant this year.... My bad :-)
> >>
> >> Edmund
> >
> > I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1" experiences
> > is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not be at quite the same
> > pace as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at Malaysia) whilst it wasn't
> > competitive at the front end, it was competitive in the mid-field.
> >
> > Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas aren't
> > running a "real" F1 car either?
> >
> > If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when pushed right
> > to the limit of current F1 performance, I don't disagree - and some of
> > the forces at play have exponential effects and impacts, so you're
> > perfectly correct in saying that a car that gets around a lap 1s slower
> > than another car isn't experiencing the same forces. But I think you
> > overstate the situation if you describe it as not "real F1", unless you
> > only think that RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".
>
> Well, I think McLaren is unique in the sense its deficiency is due to the
> PU only.
> No speed, no acceleration, no fuel efficiency and no reliability

I know you think that.

But if the PU has "no speed", then finishing the last race ahead of two
Williams, and qualifying only 1s behind the RBRs and ahead of both Renaults,
both Williams, both Torro Rosso, both Sauber and both Haas would have to
mean its chassis is absolutely astounding.

Hence my question - if the Renault engine was in the (quite obviously, by
your analysis) astounding Mclaren chassis, would we be expecting the
McLaren to be ahead of or behind the RBR?

Whilst in the long run you were sadly right about the Honda, the hyperbole
you use to describe its performance isn't helpful. It's not the best
PU there, it has got shocking reliablity and other deficiencies. But
last weekend if Merc, RBR and Ferrari weren't there, it would be racing the
Force Indias on merit for the podium places. It's not good, but its not
that bad.
Edmund
2017-10-06 18:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 07:51:03 -0700, larkim wrote:

> On Friday, 6 October 2017 12:51:25 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:22:40 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari
>> >> > good.
>> >> >
>> >> > With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari
>> >> > hamstringing themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about
>> >> > their chassis engineering that they really should be seeing
>> >> > themselves as equal to or potentially better than RBR as they go
>> >> > into next year?
>> >>
>> >> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems that
>> >> RBR has the best chassis for many years.
>> >> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real F1
>> >> circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top speed
>> >> and no real F1 acceleration.
>> >> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting
>> >> whether or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.
>> >>
>> >> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda comes
>> >> with their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at japan and
>> >> I thought they meant this year.... My bad :-)
>> >>
>> >> Edmund
>> >
>> > I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1"
>> > experiences is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not be at
>> > quite the same pace as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at Malaysia)
>> > whilst it wasn't competitive at the front end, it was competitive in
>> > the mid-field.
>> >
>> > Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas aren't
>> > running a "real" F1 car either?
>> >
>> > If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when pushed
>> > right to the limit of current F1 performance, I don't disagree - and
>> > some of the forces at play have exponential effects and impacts, so
>> > you're perfectly correct in saying that a car that gets around a lap
>> > 1s slower than another car isn't experiencing the same forces. But I
>> > think you overstate the situation if you describe it as not "real
>> > F1", unless you only think that RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".
>>
>> Well, I think McLaren is unique in the sense its deficiency is due to
>> the PU only.
>> No speed, no acceleration, no fuel efficiency and no reliability
>
> I know you think that.
>
> But if the PU has "no speed", then finishing the last race ahead of two
> Williams, and qualifying only 1s behind the RBRs and ahead of both
> Renaults,
> both Williams, both Torro Rosso, both Sauber and both Haas would have to
> mean its chassis is absolutely astounding.

It probably is, something which is confirmed by the result in monaco last
year.
>
> Hence my question - if the Renault engine was in the (quite obviously,
> by your analysis) astounding Mclaren chassis, would we be expecting the
> McLaren to be ahead of or behind the RBR?

I already said I think RBR to have the best chassis and have that
for many years. McLaren must be very good too but they don't even have
experience in high speed, acceleration and braking.
>
> Whilst in the long run you were sadly right about the Honda, the
> hyperbole you use to describe its performance isn't helpful. It's not
> the best PU there, it has got shocking reliablity and other
> deficiencies. But last weekend if Merc, RBR and Ferrari weren't there,
> it would be racing the Force Indias on merit for the podium places.
> It's not good, but its not that bad.


superficial l it might not look too bad but taking into other things in
account too, like the amount of money spent on the PU alone, the quality
of the drivers, the quality of the McLaren chassis, they shouldn't be
racing Force India's at all, they should be racing the Mercs.
Alan Baker
2017-10-06 22:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-06 11:00 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 07:51:03 -0700, larkim wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 12:51:25 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:22:40 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari
>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari
>>>>>> hamstringing themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about
>>>>>> their chassis engineering that they really should be seeing
>>>>>> themselves as equal to or potentially better than RBR as they go
>>>>>> into next year?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems that
>>>>> RBR has the best chassis for many years.
>>>>> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real F1
>>>>> circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top speed
>>>>> and no real F1 acceleration.
>>>>> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting
>>>>> whether or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda comes
>>>>> with their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at japan and
>>>>> I thought they meant this year.... My bad :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Edmund
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1"
>>>> experiences is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not be at
>>>> quite the same pace as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at Malaysia)
>>>> whilst it wasn't competitive at the front end, it was competitive in
>>>> the mid-field.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas aren't
>>>> running a "real" F1 car either?
>>>>
>>>> If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when pushed
>>>> right to the limit of current F1 performance, I don't disagree - and
>>>> some of the forces at play have exponential effects and impacts, so
>>>> you're perfectly correct in saying that a car that gets around a lap
>>>> 1s slower than another car isn't experiencing the same forces. But I
>>>> think you overstate the situation if you describe it as not "real
>>>> F1", unless you only think that RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".
>>>
>>> Well, I think McLaren is unique in the sense its deficiency is due to
>>> the PU only.
>>> No speed, no acceleration, no fuel efficiency and no reliability
>>
>> I know you think that.
>>
>> But if the PU has "no speed", then finishing the last race ahead of two
>> Williams, and qualifying only 1s behind the RBRs and ahead of both
>> Renaults,
>> both Williams, both Torro Rosso, both Sauber and both Haas would have to
>> mean its chassis is absolutely astounding.
>
> It probably is, something which is confirmed by the result in monaco last
> year.
>>
>> Hence my question - if the Renault engine was in the (quite obviously,
>> by your analysis) astounding Mclaren chassis, would we be expecting the
>> McLaren to be ahead of or behind the RBR?
>
> I already said I think RBR to have the best chassis and have that
> for many years. McLaren must be very good too but they don't even have
> experience in high speed, acceleration and braking.

That is complete and utter bullshit.

Just because there engine is a little down on power doesn't mean it's
not still accelerating DAMN hard and going very nearly as fast.

And the braking is every bit as much as every other F1 car out there.
Cornering too.
Edmund
2017-10-07 07:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 15:04:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2017-10-06 11:00 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 07:51:03 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 12:51:25 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:22:40 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari
>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari
>>>>>>> hamstringing themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about
>>>>>>> their chassis engineering that they really should be seeing
>>>>>>> themselves as equal to or potentially better than RBR as they go
>>>>>>> into next year?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems
>>>>>> that RBR has the best chassis for many years.
>>>>>> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real
>>>>>> F1 circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top
>>>>>> speed and no real F1 acceleration.
>>>>>> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting
>>>>>> whether or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda
>>>>>> comes with their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at
>>>>>> japan and I thought they meant this year.... My bad :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1"
>>>>> experiences is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not be at
>>>>> quite the same pace as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at Malaysia)
>>>>> whilst it wasn't competitive at the front end, it was competitive in
>>>>> the mid-field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas aren't
>>>>> running a "real" F1 car either?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when pushed
>>>>> right to the limit of current F1 performance, I don't disagree - and
>>>>> some of the forces at play have exponential effects and impacts, so
>>>>> you're perfectly correct in saying that a car that gets around a lap
>>>>> 1s slower than another car isn't experiencing the same forces. But
>>>>> I think you overstate the situation if you describe it as not "real
>>>>> F1", unless you only think that RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".
>>>>
>>>> Well, I think McLaren is unique in the sense its deficiency is due to
>>>> the PU only.
>>>> No speed, no acceleration, no fuel efficiency and no reliability
>>>
>>> I know you think that.
>>>
>>> But if the PU has "no speed", then finishing the last race ahead of
>>> two Williams, and qualifying only 1s behind the RBRs and ahead of both
>>> Renaults,
>>> both Williams, both Torro Rosso, both Sauber and both Haas would have
>>> to mean its chassis is absolutely astounding.
>>
>> It probably is, something which is confirmed by the result in monaco
>> last year.
>>>
>>> Hence my question - if the Renault engine was in the (quite obviously,
>>> by your analysis) astounding Mclaren chassis, would we be expecting
>>> the McLaren to be ahead of or behind the RBR?
>>
>> I already said I think RBR to have the best chassis and have that for
>> many years. McLaren must be very good too but they don't even have
>> experience in high speed, acceleration and braking.
>
> That is complete and utter bullshit.
>
> Just because there engine is a little down on power doesn't mean it's
> not still accelerating DAMN hard and going very nearly as fast.

A little down on power is also a way to put it, loosing 2 or 3 seconds/lap
on the straights only ( on the power circuits ).

>
> And the braking is every bit as much as every other F1 car out there.
> Cornering too.

I really think having 100 HP less is seriously compromising the
development of the chassis, thats my point.

Edmund
m***@gmail.com
2017-10-07 08:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 09:45:46 UTC+2, Edmund wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 15:04:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> > Just because there engine is a little down on power doesn't mean it's
> > not still accelerating DAMN hard and going very nearly as fast.
>
> A little down on power is also a way to put it, loosing 2 or 3 seconds/lap
> on the straights only ( on the power circuits ).


You thinks it's STILL that bad?

In Malaysia, with it's long straights, they had both cars in Q3 and Van Doorne finished in the points. Same in Singapore (with Alonso taken out on the first corner). Even at Monza they had both cars in Q2 and one on Q3.

Their pace now is generally ahead of the Williams. Usually they can get into a race with the Force Indias.

Earlier in the season, Alonso was seriously fast through the corners at Silverstone.

OK... they may be better financially placed to do development through the season than Force India, but whilst they are still off front-running pace, there's no doubt that the package has improved over the year and that there is some good pace in that chassis.

I would even go so far as to put it to you that Honda are now only 99 HP down :-)

>
> >
> > And the braking is every bit as much as every other F1 car out there.
> > Cornering too.
>
> I really think having 100 HP less is seriously compromising the
> development of the chassis, thats my point.

You can develop the chassis even if the engine is lacking. Especially with the sort of virtual development tools they have these days.
Bigbird
2017-10-07 13:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Edmund wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 15:04:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > On 2017-10-06 11:00 AM, Edmund wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 07:51:03 -0700, larkim wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 12:51:25 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:22:40 -0700, larkim wrote:
> > > > >
> >>>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>>> The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc /
> Ferrari >>>>>>> good.
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>> With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari
> >>>>>>> hamstringing themselves), would McLaren be confident enough
> about >>>>>>> their chassis engineering that they really should be
> seeing >>>>>>> themselves as equal to or potentially better than RBR
> as they go >>>>>>> into next year?
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems
> >>>>>> that RBR has the best chassis for many years.
> >>>>>> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in
> real >>>>>> F1 circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real
> F1 top >>>>>> speed and no real F1 acceleration.
> >>>>>> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very
> interesting >>>>>> whether or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next
> year.
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda
> >>>>>> comes with their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it
> at >>>>>> japan and I thought they meant this year.... My bad :-)
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>> Edmund
> > > > > >
> >>>>> I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1"
> >>>>> experiences is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not
> be at >>>>> quite the same pace as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at
> Malaysia) >>>>> whilst it wasn't competitive at the front end, it was
> competitive in >>>>> the mid-field.
> > > > > >
> >>>>> Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas
> aren't >>>>> running a "real" F1 car either?
> > > > > >
> >>>>> If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when
> pushed >>>>> right to the limit of current F1 performance, I don't
> disagree - and >>>>> some of the forces at play have exponential
> effects and impacts, so >>>>> you're perfectly correct in saying that
> a car that gets around a lap >>>>> 1s slower than another car isn't
> experiencing the same forces. But >>>>> I think you overstate the
> situation if you describe it as not "real >>>>> F1", unless you only
> think that RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".
> > > > >
> >>>> Well, I think McLaren is unique in the sense its deficiency is
> due to >>>> the PU only.
> >>>> No speed, no acceleration, no fuel efficiency and no reliability
> > > >
> >>> I know you think that.
> > > >
> >>> But if the PU has "no speed", then finishing the last race ahead
> of >>> two Williams, and qualifying only 1s behind the RBRs and ahead
> of both >>> Renaults,
> >>> both Williams, both Torro Rosso, both Sauber and both Haas would
> have >>> to mean its chassis is absolutely astounding.
> >>
> >> It probably is, something which is confirmed by the result in
> monaco >> last year.
> > > >
> >>> Hence my question - if the Renault engine was in the (quite
> obviously, >>> by your analysis) astounding Mclaren chassis, would we
> be expecting >>> the McLaren to be ahead of or behind the RBR?
> >>
> >> I already said I think RBR to have the best chassis and have that
> for >> many years. McLaren must be very good too but they don't even
> have >> experience in high speed, acceleration and braking.
> >
> > That is complete and utter bullshit.
> >
> > Just because there engine is a little down on power doesn't mean
> > it's not still accelerating DAMN hard and going very nearly as fast.
>
> A little down on power is also a way to put it, loosing 2 or 3
> seconds/lap on the straights only ( on the power circuits ).
>

At what tracks are they really over 2 seconds slower?

Consider that their qualifying pace is generally faster than anyone's
fastest laps during the race.

So what are they really unable to test? The behaviour the chassis at
over 320k? What else? Not really very much...

> >
> > And the braking is every bit as much as every other F1 car out
> > there. Cornering too.
>
> I really think having 100 HP less is seriously compromising the
> development of the chassis, thats my point.
>

"seriously"?
Alan Baker
2017-10-07 14:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-07 12:45 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 15:04:21 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-06 11:00 AM, Edmund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 07:51:03 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 12:51:25 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 04:22:40 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari
>>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari
>>>>>>>> hamstringing themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about
>>>>>>>> their chassis engineering that they really should be seeing
>>>>>>>> themselves as equal to or potentially better than RBR as they go
>>>>>>>> into next year?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems
>>>>>>> that RBR has the best chassis for many years.
>>>>>>> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real
>>>>>>> F1 circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top
>>>>>>> speed and no real F1 acceleration.
>>>>>>> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting
>>>>>>> whether or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda
>>>>>>> comes with their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at
>>>>>>> japan and I thought they meant this year.... My bad :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edmund
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1"
>>>>>> experiences is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not be at
>>>>>> quite the same pace as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at Malaysia)
>>>>>> whilst it wasn't competitive at the front end, it was competitive in
>>>>>> the mid-field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas aren't
>>>>>> running a "real" F1 car either?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when pushed
>>>>>> right to the limit of current F1 performance, I don't disagree - and
>>>>>> some of the forces at play have exponential effects and impacts, so
>>>>>> you're perfectly correct in saying that a car that gets around a lap
>>>>>> 1s slower than another car isn't experiencing the same forces. But
>>>>>> I think you overstate the situation if you describe it as not "real
>>>>>> F1", unless you only think that RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I think McLaren is unique in the sense its deficiency is due to
>>>>> the PU only.
>>>>> No speed, no acceleration, no fuel efficiency and no reliability
>>>>
>>>> I know you think that.
>>>>
>>>> But if the PU has "no speed", then finishing the last race ahead of
>>>> two Williams, and qualifying only 1s behind the RBRs and ahead of both
>>>> Renaults,
>>>> both Williams, both Torro Rosso, both Sauber and both Haas would have
>>>> to mean its chassis is absolutely astounding.
>>>
>>> It probably is, something which is confirmed by the result in monaco
>>> last year.
>>>>
>>>> Hence my question - if the Renault engine was in the (quite obviously,
>>>> by your analysis) astounding Mclaren chassis, would we be expecting
>>>> the McLaren to be ahead of or behind the RBR?
>>>
>>> I already said I think RBR to have the best chassis and have that for
>>> many years. McLaren must be very good too but they don't even have
>>> experience in high speed, acceleration and braking.
>>
>> That is complete and utter bullshit.
>>
>> Just because there engine is a little down on power doesn't mean it's
>> not still accelerating DAMN hard and going very nearly as fast.
>
> A little down on power is also a way to put it, loosing 2 or 3 seconds/lap
> on the straights only ( on the power circuits ).
>
>>
>> And the braking is every bit as much as every other F1 car out there.
>> Cornering too.
>
> I really think having 100 HP less is seriously compromising the
> development of the chassis, thats my point.
>

And you're really wrong.

Sorry, but you just are.
Brian W Lawrence
2017-10-07 17:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/10/2017 08:45, Edmund wrote:

>> Just because there engine is a little down on power doesn't mean it's
>> not still accelerating DAMN hard and going very nearly as fast.
>
> A little down on power is also a way to put it, loosing 2 or 3 seconds/lap
> on the straights only ( on the power circuits ).
>
>>
>> And the braking is every bit as much as every other F1 car out there.
>> Cornering too.
>
> I really think having 100 HP less is seriously compromising the
> development of the chassis, thats my point.

Not to prove or disprove anything, but here is some comparison data.

Comparing the top speed through the speed trap during the race with
the top speed achieved by McLaren-Honda (in kph):

GP Top Drv Team McLaren Best Diff %diff
=================================================
AUS 320.8 KVY STR 12th VAN 306.9 13.9 4.3%
CHN 336.4 MAS Will 16th VAN 317.5 18.9 5.6%
BHR 331.6 HAM Merc 19th ALO 315.6 16.0 4.8%
RUS 331.4 BOT Merc 17th VAN 295.2 36.2 11.0%
ESP 339.6 MAS Will 9th ALO 332.6 7.0 2.1%
MON 292.7 OCO F.I. 17th VAN 291.5 11.2 3.8%
CDN 344.1 VET Ferr 11th VAN 330.0 14.1 4.1%
AZB 336.4 RIC RBR 6th ALO 332.8 3.6 1.1%
AUT 328.8 HAM Merc 12th VAN 313.9 14.9 4.5%
GBR 330.6 BOT Merc 14th ALO 314.6 16.0 4.8%
HUN 319.6 BOT Merc 13th VAN 312.5 7.1 2.2%
BEL 324.3 PER F.I. 14th VAN 312.2 12.1 3.6%
ITA 357.4 PER F.I. 13th VAN 345.7 11.7 3.3%
SIN 306.0 OCO F.I. 11th VAN 290.0 16.0 5.2%
MAS 332.9 VET Ferr 14th ALO 316.0 16.9 5.1%

Top Ranked

Mercedes 11 (Merc 5, F.I. 4, Will 2)
Ferrari 2
Renault 2 (RBR 1, STR 1)

Also for ref., number of laps completed by McLaren drivers:

GP #laps ALO VAN BUT
==========================
AUS 57 50 55 -
CHN 56 33 17 -
BHR 57 54 0 -
RUS 52 0 51 -
ESP 66 64 32 -
MON 78 - 66 57
CDN 70 66 69
AZB 51 51 51
AUT 71 1 70
GBR 51 32 50
HUN 70 70 69
BEL 44 25 44
ITA 53 50 33
SIN 58 8 58
MAS 56 55 55

Number of laps completed in 2017:

Vandoorne 720 of 890 (80.9%)
Alonso 559 of 812 (68.8%)
Button 57 of 78 (73.1%)

McLaren 1336 of 1780 (75.0%)

Most laps by driver - Hamilton 890 (100%)
Most laps by team - F.India 1753 (98.5%)


Japanese Qually:

1. RAI 311.6
12. ALO 298.1
--------------
13.5
4.3%
Brian W Lawrence
2017-10-08 08:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/10/2017 18:16, Brian W Lawrence wrote:

> Japanese Qually:
>
>  1. RAI  311.6
> 12. ALO  298.1
> --------------
>           13.5
>            4.3%

Race Speed Trap

1. BOT 313.2
8. ALO 306.9
--------------
6.3
2.0%
Alan Baker
2017-10-08 18:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-08 1:02 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 18:16, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Japanese Qually:
>>
>>   1. RAI  311.6
>> 12. ALO  298.1
>> --------------
>>            13.5
>>             4.3%
>
> Race Speed Trap
>
>  1. BOT  313.2
>  8. ALO  306.9
> --------------
>            6.3
>            2.0%
>
>
>

Yup. And since power required increases with the cube of speed, then
assuming the same figures for drag (which I know we actually can't
know), Bottas's 1.02 times more speed means 1.06 times more power.
Bigbird
2017-10-08 18:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2017-10-08 1:02 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> > On 07/10/2017 18:16, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > Japanese Qually:
> > >
> > >   1. RAI  311.6
> > > 12. ALO  298.1
> > > --------------
> > >            13.5
> > >             4.3%
> >
> > Race Speed Trap
> >
> >  1. BOT  313.2
> >  8. ALO  306.9
> > --------------
> >            6.3
> >            2.0%
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yup. And since power required increases with the cube of speed, then
> assuming the same figures for drag (which I know we actually can't
> know)

slipstream, DRS, weight...
Alan Baker
2017-10-08 18:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-08 11:28 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-08 1:02 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 07/10/2017 18:16, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> Japanese Qually:
>>>>
>>>>   1. RAI  311.6
>>>> 12. ALO  298.1
>>>> --------------
>>>>            13.5
>>>>             4.3%
>>>
>>> Race Speed Trap
>>>
>>>  1. BOT  313.2
>>>  8. ALO  306.9
>>> --------------
>>>            6.3
>>>            2.0%
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yup. And since power required increases with the cube of speed, then
>> assuming the same figures for drag (which I know we actually can't
>> know)
>
> slipstream, DRS, weight...
>

"slipstream, DRS"

You're assuming those compiling the statistics can't do their job.

"weight"

At the end of a long straight, weight has pretty much zero impact on top
speed. Drag becomes the hugely overriding factor.
Bigbird
2017-10-08 20:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:


> > >
> > > Yup. And since power required increases with the cube of speed,
> > > then assuming the same figures for drag (which I know we actually
> > > can't know)
> >
> > slipstream, DRS, weight...
> >
>
> "slipstream, DRS"
>
> You're assuming those compiling the statistics can't do their job.
>

No. That looks mindless a assertion.
Bigbird
2017-10-08 21:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> "weight"
>
> At the end of a long straight, weight has pretty much zero impact on
> top speed. Drag becomes the hugely overriding factor.

You're assuming the speed trap is at the end of a long straight.
Alan Baker
2017-10-08 23:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-08 2:58 PM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> "weight"
>>
>> At the end of a long straight, weight has pretty much zero impact on
>> top speed. Drag becomes the hugely overriding factor.
>
> You're assuming the speed trap is at the end of a long straight.
>

That's where speed traps usually are, yes.

If you're trying to provide fans with the top speed of each car, would
you put the speed trap at a point where it wouldn't be the top speed?

You're the one making the unusual suggestion that the speed trap isn't
placed to capture top speed...

...so you prove it.

:-)
Bigbird
2017-10-09 09:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2017-10-08 2:58 PM, Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > "weight"
> > >
> > > At the end of a long straight, weight has pretty much zero impact
> > > on top speed. Drag becomes the hugely overriding factor.
> >
> > You're assuming the speed trap is at the end of a long straight.
> >
>
> That's where speed traps usually are, yes.
>

I know where the speed trap is. Where do you guess it is?

> If you're trying to provide fans with the top speed of each car,
> would you put the speed trap at a point where it wouldn't be the top
> speed?
>
> You're the one making the unusual suggestion

You think knowledge is a more unusual basis for assertions than
guessing? That's rhetorical; you have demonstrated the answer.

> that the speed trap
> isn't placed to capture top speed...
>

That is not actually what I said... but you know that.

What I did is suggest that your assertions are made on
assumptions/guessing rather than knowledge.

> ...so you prove it.
>

https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/eventtiming-information-26

So Alan, is the speed trap at the end of a long straight? Did it record
the top speeds? Did it even record the highest reported speeds?
Alan Baker
2017-10-10 18:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-09 2:11 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-08 2:58 PM, Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> "weight"
>>>>
>>>> At the end of a long straight, weight has pretty much zero impact
>>>> on top speed. Drag becomes the hugely overriding factor.
>>>
>>> You're assuming the speed trap is at the end of a long straight.
>>>
>>
>> That's where speed traps usually are, yes.
>>
>
> I know where the speed trap is. Where do you guess it is?

I don't have to guess...

>
>> If you're trying to provide fans with the top speed of each car,
>> would you put the speed trap at a point where it wouldn't be the top
>> speed?
>>
>> You're the one making the unusual suggestion
>
> You think knowledge is a more unusual basis for assertions than
> guessing? That's rhetorical; you have demonstrated the answer.
>
>> that the speed trap
>> isn't placed to capture top speed...
>>
>
> That is not actually what I said... but you know that.

That's what you IMPLIED... ...but you know that.

>
> What I did is suggest that your assertions are made on
> assumptions/guessing rather than knowledge.
>
>> ...so you prove it.
>>
>
> https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/eventtiming-information-26
>
> So Alan, is the speed trap at the end of a long straight? Did it record
> the top speeds? Did it even record the highest reported speeds?

You do realize that:

1. I have to click another link in that link to get what you're trying
to show me. Perhaps if you worked on your own competence before
attempting to "one-up" me.
<https://www.fia.com/file/62036/download?token=bVYCDmg->

2. 2017 F1 cars are taking 130R at full throttle. So all that's lost is
what is scrubbed off in a high speed corner, and that's pretty much
equal across the board.

So, no, the speed trap didn't pick up the very highest speed, but with
the trap positioned just beyond the apex of 130R (70m or less than one
second beyond), I can report by observation that the cars have only
scrubbed off about 4-6kph.



And guess what: at 315kph as opposed to the 320kph, drag is STILL the
largest determining factor by a LONG way.
Bigbird
2017-10-10 19:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2017-10-09 2:11 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > On 2017-10-08 2:58 PM, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "weight"
> > > > >
> > > > > At the end of a long straight, weight has pretty much zero
> > > > > impact on top speed. Drag becomes the hugely overriding
> > > > > factor.
> > > >
> > > > You're assuming the speed trap is at the end of a long straight.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's where speed traps usually are, yes.
> > >
> >
> > I know where the speed trap is. Where do you guess it is?
>
> I don't have to guess...
>

Yet you clearly made an incorrect assumption so you did guess.

IOW yet another flasehood.

> >
> > > If you're trying to provide fans with the top speed of each car,
> > > would you put the speed trap at a point where it wouldn't be the
> > > top speed?
> > >
> > > You're the one making the unusual suggestion
> >
> > You think knowledge is a more unusual basis for assertions than
> > guessing? That's rhetorical; you have demonstrated the answer.
> >
> > > that the speed trap
> > > isn't placed to capture top speed...
> > >
> >
> > That is not actually what I said... but you know that.
>
> That's what you IMPLIED... ...but you know that.
>

Again with the falsehoods.

Your comments are worthless when they are simply made up.


> >
> > What I did is suggest that your assertions are made on
> > assumptions/guessing rather than knowledge.
> >
> > > ...so you prove it.
> > >
> >
> >
https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/eventtiming-information-26
> >
> > So Alan, is the speed trap at the end of a long straight? Did it
> > record the top speeds? Did it even record the highest reported
> > speeds?
>
> You do realize that:
>
> 1. I have to click another link in that link to get what you're
> trying to show me.

Yes. You need to look at at least two documents.

Why should I spoonfeed you further.

I know you claim to find the FIA website confusing but I thought that
was only when you don't want to find the answer.


> Perhaps if you worked on your own competence
> before attempting to "one-up" me.
> <https://www.fia.com/file/62036/download?token=bVYCDmg->
>

I was not incompetent. You are simply an ARSEHOLE.


> 2. 2017 F1 cars are taking 130R at full throttle. So all that's lost
> is what is scrubbed off in a high speed corner, and that's pretty
> much equal across the board.

Proving that your guess was indeed a guess and that your subsequent
claim was a lie.

You are not only incompetent but transparently a liar.

> So, no, the speed trap didn't pick up the very highest speed, but
> with the trap positioned just beyond the apex of 130R (70m or less
> than one second beyond), I can report by observation that the cars
> have only scrubbed off about 4-6kph.
>

Proving my comments correct and you a liar.

Evfery time it's the same. You resort to lying when caught making
incorrect assertions.

GNF
Alan Baker
2017-10-10 19:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-10 12:51 PM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-09 2:11 AM, Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-10-08 2:58 PM, Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "weight"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the end of a long straight, weight has pretty much zero
>>>>>> impact on top speed. Drag becomes the hugely overriding
>>>>>> factor.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're assuming the speed trap is at the end of a long straight.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's where speed traps usually are, yes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know where the speed trap is. Where do you guess it is?
>>
>> I don't have to guess...
>>
>
> Yet you clearly made an incorrect assumption so you did guess.

No. I was speaking in general, and exceptions to a general rule don't
disprove it... ...in general.

>
> IOW yet another flasehood.
>
>>>
>>>> If you're trying to provide fans with the top speed of each car,
>>>> would you put the speed trap at a point where it wouldn't be the
>>>> top speed?
>>>>
>>>> You're the one making the unusual suggestion
>>>
>>> You think knowledge is a more unusual basis for assertions than
>>> guessing? That's rhetorical; you have demonstrated the answer.
>>>
>>>> that the speed trap
>>>> isn't placed to capture top speed...
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not actually what I said... but you know that.
>>
>> That's what you IMPLIED... ...but you know that.
>>
>
> Again with the falsehoods.
>
> Your comments are worthless when they are simply made up.

LOL!

>
>
>>>
>>> What I did is suggest that your assertions are made on
>>> assumptions/guessing rather than knowledge.
>>>
>>>> ...so you prove it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/eventtiming-information-26
>>>
>>> So Alan, is the speed trap at the end of a long straight? Did it
>>> record the top speeds? Did it even record the highest reported
>>> speeds?
>>
>> You do realize that:
>>
>> 1. I have to click another link in that link to get what you're
>> trying to show me.
>
> Yes. You need to look at at least two documents.
>
> Why should I spoonfeed you further.
>
> I know you claim to find the FIA website confusing but I thought that
> was only when you don't want to find the answer.

Nope. I could read "Circuit Map" quite easily.

>
>
>> Perhaps if you worked on your own competence
>> before attempting to "one-up" me.
>> <https://www.fia.com/file/62036/download?token=bVYCDmg->
>>
>
> I was not incompetent. You are simply an ARSEHOLE.

Awwww... ...does someone need a nap.

You were incompetent. You had the opportunity to post a direct link and
you fucked it up.

>
>
>> 2. 2017 F1 cars are taking 130R at full throttle. So all that's lost
>> is what is scrubbed off in a high speed corner, and that's pretty
>> much equal across the board.
>
> Proving that your guess was indeed a guess and that your subsequent
> claim was a lie.

Nope. As I already explained.

>
> You are not only incompetent but transparently a liar.
>
>> So, no, the speed trap didn't pick up the very highest speed, but
>> with the trap positioned just beyond the apex of 130R (70m or less
>> than one second beyond), I can report by observation that the cars
>> have only scrubbed off about 4-6kph.
>>
>
> Proving my comments correct and you a liar.

Nope.

>
> Evfery time it's the same. You resort to lying when caught making
> incorrect assertions.

Odd the way you left my entire post intact...

...except for the part that was actually on the original topic:

"And guess what: at 315kph as opposed to the 320kph, drag is STILL the
largest determining factor by a LONG way. "

Just an oversight, right?

No a lie by omission at all!

:-)
Bigbird
2017-10-11 13:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> > > > What I did is suggest that your assertions are made on
> > > > assumptions/guessing rather than knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > > ...so you prove it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/eventtiming-information-26
> > > >
> > > > So Alan, is the speed trap at the end of a long straight? Did it
> > > > record the top speeds? Did it even record the highest reported
> > > > speeds?
> > >
> > > You do realize that:
> > >
> > > 1. I have to click another link in that link to get what you're
> > > trying to show me.
> >
> > Yes. You need to look at at least two documents.
> >
> > Why should I spoonfeed you further.
> >
> > I know you claim to find the FIA website confusing but I thought
> > that was only when you don't want to find the answer.
>
> Nope. I could read "Circuit Map" quite easily.
>
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps if you worked on your own competence
> > > before attempting to "one-up" me.
> > > <https://www.fia.com/file/62036/download?token=bVYCDmg->
> > >
> >
> > I was not incompetent. You are simply an ARSEHOLE.
>
> Awwww... ...does someone need a nap.
>
> You were incompetent. You had the opportunity to post a direct link
> and you fucked it up.
>

You are indeed a proven ARSEHOLE.

There is no single direct link that would lead you to ALL the
information other than the one I provided.

Your assertion otherwise is yet another falsehood.

The link was so that you could find ALL pertinent information, such as
further proof that your assertions were false; e.g. "circuit map" and
"Maximum Speeds".

Clearly I did not foresee your inability to do so... thus the
incompetence is yours and you are simply an ARSEHOLE.

Whoever nicknamed you the RESIDENT ARSEHOLE TROLL obvioulsy knew what
they were about.

You later refer to knowing more about the maximum speeds. Pray provide
a link to where you found such information... or were you simply
guessing again. Try to do so without lying any more. Your dishonesty
becomes tiresome.
Alan Baker
2017-10-11 22:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-11 6:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>>>> What I did is suggest that your assertions are made on
>>>>> assumptions/guessing rather than knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...so you prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/eventtiming-information-26
>>>>>
>>>>> So Alan, is the speed trap at the end of a long straight? Did it
>>>>> record the top speeds? Did it even record the highest reported
>>>>> speeds?
>>>>
>>>> You do realize that:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I have to click another link in that link to get what you're
>>>> trying to show me.
>>>
>>> Yes. You need to look at at least two documents.
>>>
>>> Why should I spoonfeed you further.
>>>
>>> I know you claim to find the FIA website confusing but I thought
>>> that was only when you don't want to find the answer.
>>
>> Nope. I could read "Circuit Map" quite easily.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps if you worked on your own competence
>>>> before attempting to "one-up" me.
>>>> <https://www.fia.com/file/62036/download?token=bVYCDmg->
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was not incompetent. You are simply an ARSEHOLE.
>>
>> Awwww... ...does someone need a nap.
>>
>> You were incompetent. You had the opportunity to post a direct link
>> and you fucked it up.
>>
>
> You are indeed a proven ARSEHOLE.

And you still need your nap...

>
> There is no single direct link that would lead you to ALL the
> information other than the one I provided.


Since the assertion you were asked to prove was the location of the
speed trap, I was somehow supposed to intuit that there was other
information you wanted me to look at?

>
> Your assertion otherwise is yet another falsehood.
>
> The link was so that you could find ALL pertinent information, such as
> further proof that your assertions were false; e.g. "circuit map" and
> "Maximum Speeds".

What "assertions" did they disprove?

I was discussing the fact that at top speeds, the slight differences in
weight make almost no difference to the speed achieved, because drag is
the most important factor by a HUGE margin.

>
> Clearly I did not foresee your inability to do so... thus the
> incompetence is yours and you are simply an ARSEHOLE.
>
> Whoever nicknamed you the RESIDENT ARSEHOLE TROLL obvioulsy knew what
> they were about.
>
> You later refer to knowing more about the maximum speeds. Pray provide
> a link to where you found such information... or were you simply
> guessing again. Try to do so without lying any more. Your dishonesty
> becomes tiresome.

Where is the alleged reference?

Quote it.. ...in context.

Simple fact for you: aerodynamic drag rises as the square of speed, and
the power required rises as the cube of speed.

So when you're dealing with cars and their top speeds, you are dealing
almost exclusively with the war between aero drag and available power.
Bigbird
2017-10-11 16:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> > Yet you clearly made an incorrect assumption so you did guess.
>
> No. I was speaking in general, and exceptions to a general rule don't
> disprove it... ...in general.
>

Yet another falsehood. The comment I replied to was very specifically
referring to the Japanese GP.
Alan Baker
2017-10-11 17:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-11 9:17 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> Yet you clearly made an incorrect assumption so you did guess.
>>
>> No. I was speaking in general, and exceptions to a general rule don't
>> disprove it... ...in general.
>>
>
> Yet another falsehood. The comment I replied to was very specifically
> referring to the Japanese GP.
>

Riiiiiiight. Which is why my words have now been snipped:

"At the end of a long straight, weight has pretty much zero impact on
top speed. Drag becomes the hugely overriding factor."

Not the "A", and note that despite the speed trap not being precisely at
the end of the straight. The cars are only losing a few kph when they
arrive at it.

Drag is still the hugely overriding factor.
Bigbird
2017-10-11 16:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> Odd the way you left my entire post intact...
>
> ...except for the part that was actually on the original topic:
>
> "And guess what: at 315kph as opposed to the 320kph, drag is STILL
> the largest determining factor by a LONG way. "
>
> Just an oversight, right?
>
> No a lie by omission at all!
>
> :-)

Quite clearly I was dealing with your multiple falshoods and quite
deliberately ignored your straw man.

You are a proven lying ARSEHOLE.

:-))))
Alan Baker
2017-10-11 17:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-10-11 9:27 AM, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Odd the way you left my entire post intact...
>>
>> ...except for the part that was actually on the original topic:
>>
>> "And guess what: at 315kph as opposed to the 320kph, drag is STILL
>> the largest determining factor by a LONG way. "
>>
>> Just an oversight, right?
>>
>> No a lie by omission at all!
>>
>> :-)
>
> Quite clearly I was dealing with your multiple falshoods and quite
> deliberately ignored your straw man.
>
> You are a proven lying ARSEHOLE.
>
> :-))))
>

Since this was about top speeds and how they correlated to power, please
explain how this statement is supposed to be a straw man argument:

"And guess what: at 315kph as opposed to the 320kph, drag is STILL the
largest determining factor by a LONG way."
Geoff May
2017-10-10 20:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/10/2017 20:51, Bigbird wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> [snipped]
>
> I was not incompetent. You are simply an ARSEHOLE.

Come now, that is unfair. After all, arseholes are useful. Try living
without one and see how you get on ...

;-)

Cheers

Geoff

> [snipped]
Geoff
2017-10-07 03:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/10/2017 12:51 AM, Edmund wrote:
>
>
> Well, I think McLaren is unique in the sense its deficiency is due to the
> PU only.
> No speed, no acceleration, no fuel efficiency and no reliability
>


Naa. It's their #2 driver who puts more energy into whinging than he
does into actually driving the car.

geff
t***@gmail.com
2017-10-07 03:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 9:20:40 PM UTC-6, Geoff wrote:

> Naa.

That is not a word you raging homosexual.

> geff

Oh my.
a425couple
2017-10-07 19:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/6/2017 4:22 AM, larkim wrote:
> On Friday, 6 October 2017 11:10:17 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
>>
>>> The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari good.
>>>
>>> With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari hamstringing
>>> themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about their chassis
>>> engineering that they really should be seeing themselves as equal to or
>>> potentially better than RBR as they go into next year?
>>
>> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems that RBR
>> has the best chassis for many years.
>> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real F1
>> circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top speed
>> and no real F1 acceleration.
>> I would say RBR has the advantage and it will be very interesting whether
>> or not Mclaren can catch up with RBR next year.
>>
>> Equally interesting: what will Toro Rosso do when and if Honda comes with
>> their Spec 4 PU next year. They would introduce it at japan and I thought
>> they meant this year.... My bad :-)
>>
>> Edmund
>
> I appreciate there is some hyperbole in there, but "real F1" experiences
> is what the McLaren has been doing. It might not be at quite the same pace
> as the Mercs or Ferrari, but (e.g at Malaysia) whilst it wasn't competitive
> at the front end, it was competitive in the mid-field.
>
> Unless you don't think the Sauber, Renault, Torro Rosso, Haas aren't running
> a "real" F1 car either?
>
> If the point is, they don't know how the car performs when pushed right to
> the limit of current F1 performance, I don't disagree - and some of the
> forces at play have exponential effects and impacts, so you're perfectly
> correct in saying that a car that gets around a lap 1s slower than another
> car isn't experiencing the same forces. But I think you overstate the
> situation if you describe it as not "real F1", unless you only think that
> RBR, Merc and Ferrari are "real F1".

I agree with "larkim" about you using "hyperbole".

Look at the Qualifying from Japan.
Pole by Hamilton Mercedes = 1:27.3
10th by Alonso McLaren FL = 1:29.7
11th by Vandoorne MCLAREN HONDA FL = 1:29.7
Toro Rosso, Sauber & Hass all behind, with #20 being 1:31.8.

Then notice "Q1 107% Time - 1:35.280"
The entire field is fast and competitive.

from
https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2017/races/974/japan/qualifying.html
Bigbird
2017-10-06 16:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Edmund wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 02:19:47 -0700, larkim wrote:
>
> > The received wisdom was that Honda bad, Renault OK, Merc / Ferrari
> > good.
> >
> > With last weekend's result (albeit benefitting from Ferrari
> > hamstringing themselves), would McLaren be confident enough about
> > their chassis engineering that they really should be seeing
> > themselves as equal to or potentially better than RBR as they go
> > into next year?
>
> Well it seems that McLaren has a very good chassis and it seems that
> RBR has the best chassis for many years.
> The last 3 years McLaren was unable to test their chassis in real F1
> circumstances because they have no real F1 PU, no real F1 top speed
> and no real F1 acceleration.

They haven't been going around any "real" corners then?
Loading...