Discussion:
Unfair to say Hamilton is Winning Because of Car
Add Reply
Heron
2020-08-18 13:26:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
XYXPDQ
2020-08-18 17:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
LOL
Alan Baker
2020-08-18 17:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
Except no one is actually saying that.

The piece reads like fangurl worship:

'The sensation of having five-times the force of gravity acting on your
body at 180mph is unimaginable for the majority of us, yet Hamilton did
it 66 times through the Circuit de Catalunya's Turn 3 on Sunday. What's
more, he did it while monitoring the four volatile chemical reactions
occurring on the surface of each tyre, managing the performance of an
engine spinning at 12,000 revolutions per minute and maintaining a gap
to one of his most aggressive rivals on the grid, Max Verstappen.'

Guess what:

EVERYONE OUT THERE WAS EXPERIENCING THE SAME THING!
Dan the Man
2020-08-19 13:44:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
You need both the driver and the car to make a champion.

Dan
Heron
2020-08-19 14:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
Post by Dan the Man
You need both the driver and the car to make a champion.
Dan
Who ever implied otherwise?
XYXPDQ
2020-08-19 17:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
You need both the driver and the car to make a champion.
Dan
Who ever implied otherwise?
All the Hamilton worshipers.
Heron
2020-08-19 18:08:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by XYXPDQ
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
You need both the driver and the car to make a champion.
Dan
Who ever implied otherwise?
All the Hamilton worshipers.
I've neither encountered nor are aware of any but the vague,
unsupported charge exhibits the earmarks of a fabrication.
Alan Baker
2020-08-19 18:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Martin Harran
2020-08-20 07:41:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.

Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
~misfit~
2020-08-21 00:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything to going faster / winning
races / doing better inspires a team - and it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who
works with him, his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.

Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton
communicated that he wanted to champion BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If
that doesn't say he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know what does.

Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team who worked most closely
with him on his side of the garage. That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing
musical chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so that
Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).

I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with engineers, it's also his infectious
drive and enthusiasm that motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success
has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.

(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 00:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'

The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
Martin Harran
2020-08-21 08:32:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 15:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Martin Harran
2020-08-22 07:41:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:12:51 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Where did I say in there anything about your views on Hamilton's
ability as a driver?
Alan Baker
2020-08-22 07:46:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:12:51 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Where did I say in there anything about your views on Hamilton's
ability as a driver?
What did I say in there that suggests I have anything against Hamilton.

Noting that Mercedes wasn't "nowhere" before he arrived says nothing
about him.
Martin Harran
2020-08-22 10:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:46:53 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:12:51 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Where did I say in there anything about your views on Hamilton's
ability as a driver?
What did I say in there that suggests I have anything against Hamilton.
Noting that Mercedes wasn't "nowhere" before he arrived says nothing
about him.
Asserting that he had no influence on the development of the car does.
Alan Baker
2020-08-22 14:10:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:46:53 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:12:51 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Where did I say in there anything about your views on Hamilton's
ability as a driver?
What did I say in there that suggests I have anything against Hamilton.
Noting that Mercedes wasn't "nowhere" before he arrived says nothing
about him.
Asserting that he had no influence on the development of the car does.
I never asserted that. I did assert that all drivers have relatively
little influence on the development of F1 cars.
Martin Harran
2020-08-22 14:29:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 07:10:39 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:46:53 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:12:51 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Where did I say in there anything about your views on Hamilton's
ability as a driver?
What did I say in there that suggests I have anything against Hamilton.
Noting that Mercedes wasn't "nowhere" before he arrived says nothing
about him.
Asserting that he had no influence on the development of the car does.
I never asserted that. I did assert that all drivers have relatively
little influence on the development of F1 cars.
Errr ... just about a dozen lines up - "The car Mercedes produced was
not made any better (or worse) by Hamilton's presence."
Alan Baker
2020-08-23 04:54:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 07:10:39 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:46:53 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:12:51 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Where did I say in there anything about your views on Hamilton's
ability as a driver?
What did I say in there that suggests I have anything against Hamilton.
Noting that Mercedes wasn't "nowhere" before he arrived says nothing
about him.
Asserting that he had no influence on the development of the car does.
I never asserted that. I did assert that all drivers have relatively
little influence on the development of F1 cars.
Errr ... just about a dozen lines up - "The car Mercedes produced was
not made any better (or worse) by Hamilton's presence."
Yes. The car they PRODUCED...

...not the car after they developed it.
Martin Harran
2020-08-23 08:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 21:54:18 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 07:10:39 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:46:53 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:12:51 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Where did I say in there anything about your views on Hamilton's
ability as a driver?
What did I say in there that suggests I have anything against Hamilton.
Noting that Mercedes wasn't "nowhere" before he arrived says nothing
about him.
Asserting that he had no influence on the development of the car does.
I never asserted that. I did assert that all drivers have relatively
little influence on the development of F1 cars.
Errr ... just about a dozen lines up - "The car Mercedes produced was
not made any better (or worse) by Hamilton's presence."
Yes. The car they PRODUCED...
...not the car after they developed it.
Here's little tip for you; when you dig yourself into a hole, the
first thing you need to do is stop digging. Then you need to climbing
out of the hole - waving your hands about and claiming it isn't really
a hole just makes people laugh at you.
News
2020-08-24 13:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 21:54:18 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 07:10:39 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:46:53 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:12:51 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:51:20 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and it
did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him, his
motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion BLM
Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that doesn't say
he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know
what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
And you wonder why people think you have nothing against Hamilton.
What did I say in there that implies ANYTHING about Hamilton's ability
as a driver?
Where did I say in there anything about your views on Hamilton's
ability as a driver?
What did I say in there that suggests I have anything against Hamilton.
Noting that Mercedes wasn't "nowhere" before he arrived says nothing
about him.
Asserting that he had no influence on the development of the car does.
I never asserted that. I did assert that all drivers have relatively
little influence on the development of F1 cars.
Errr ... just about a dozen lines up - "The car Mercedes produced was
not made any better (or worse) by Hamilton's presence."
Yes. The car they PRODUCED...
...not the car after they developed it.
Here's little tip for you; when you dig yourself into a hole, the
first thing you need to do is stop digging. Then you need to climbing
out of the hole - waving your hands about and claiming it isn't really
a hole just makes people laugh at you.
LMFAO
Mark
2020-08-21 08:59:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...

You seem to be saying one of:

1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive or
negative) on the development of the car
or:
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car

If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.

If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much like
a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
larkim
2020-08-21 10:30:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive or
negative) on the development of the car
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much like
a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
The summary, unanswerable question is whether anyone else on the
current grid, in the current Merc, given at least 12 months to settle into
the Merc team would be consistently beaten by Hamilton over a season
without luck or misfortune getting in the way.

No-one knows the answer to that, the only evidence we have is that
Hamilton against Bottas has been fairly conclusive.

We know Hamilton was beaten by Rosberg and Button. But presumably
both of those seasons' lessons have now been absorbed by Hamilton so
the driver he is today is not the driver he was in those two seasons.

(Thats not to say that Button or Rosberg couldn't / wouldn't still beat him
in those cars / those races / those team positions - we can't know that).

We can posit that there are only a few drivers on the grid who are likely to
be better than Bottas at taking the fight to Hamilton. That's all.
Mark
2020-08-21 10:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by Mark
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much like
a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
The summary, unanswerable question is whether anyone else on the
current grid, in the current Merc, given at least 12 months to settle
into the Merc team would be consistently beaten by Hamilton over a
season without luck or misfortune getting in the way.
No-one knows the answer to that, the only evidence we have is that
Hamilton against Bottas has been fairly conclusive.
We know Hamilton was beaten by Rosberg and Button.
I don't think either example tells us much (either way) about Hamilton
then let alone (as you say) now:

- Rosberg only marginally beat Hamilton in a year where Hamilton
suffered more than Rosberg through mechanical faults. He then
promptly retired, denying any opportunity to find out what he could
then do.
- Button is a better example, but the 2011 season was littered with
unusual mistakes (largely collisions) on the part of Hamilton which
wasn't seen in other years (where he also beat Button).

Anyone who thinks Hamilton is unbeatable is clearly drinking the
kool-aid, but I don't think those two seasons tell us too much.
Post by larkim
But presumably
both of those seasons' lessons have now been absorbed by Hamilton so
the driver he is today is not the driver he was in those two seasons.
I would have thought so.
Post by larkim
(Thats not to say that Button or Rosberg couldn't / wouldn't still beat him
in those cars / those races / those team positions - we can't know that).
Nope.
Post by larkim
We can posit that there are only a few drivers on the grid who are
likely to be better than Bottas at taking the fight to Hamilton.
That's all.
Right now, no-one should be...but Verstappen is doing a great job with
the package available.
Martin Harran
2020-08-21 10:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by larkim
Post by Mark
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much like
a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
The summary, unanswerable question is whether anyone else on the
current grid, in the current Merc, given at least 12 months to settle
into the Merc team would be consistently beaten by Hamilton over a
season without luck or misfortune getting in the way.
No-one knows the answer to that, the only evidence we have is that
Hamilton against Bottas has been fairly conclusive.
We know Hamilton was beaten by Rosberg and Button.
I don't think either example tells us much (either way) about Hamilton
- Rosberg only marginally beat Hamilton in a year where Hamilton
suffered more than Rosberg through mechanical faults. He then
promptly retired, denying any opportunity to find out what he could
then do.
- Button is a better example, but the 2011 season was littered with
unusual mistakes (largely collisions) on the part of Hamilton which
wasn't seen in other years (where he also beat Button).
Anyone who thinks Hamilton is unbeatable is clearly drinking the
kool-aid, but I don't think those two seasons tell us too much.
Post by larkim
But presumably
both of those seasons' lessons have now been absorbed by Hamilton so
the driver he is today is not the driver he was in those two seasons.
I would have thought so.
Post by larkim
(Thats not to say that Button or Rosberg couldn't / wouldn't still beat him
in those cars / those races / those team positions - we can't know that).
Nope.
Post by larkim
We can posit that there are only a few drivers on the grid who are
likely to be better than Bottas at taking the fight to Hamilton.
That's all.
Right now, no-one should be...but Verstappen is doing a great job with
the package available.
Verstappen possibly, LeClerc maybe[1] but I can't see anyone else
coming close.

[1] He is a great driver but i don't think he yet has quite enough
experience to deliver consistently against Hamilton.
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 15:13:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team
who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage. That's why
he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical chairs with
the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so
that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates
the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success has as
much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive or
negative) on the development of the car
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
The former.
Post by Mark
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
It's far, far less than people think.
Post by Mark
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much like
a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
geoff
2020-08-22 07:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive or
        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
The former.
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
It's far, far less than people think.
Obviously. Otherwise BAK would have the greatest car in his formula ever !

geoff
Alan Baker
2020-08-22 07:43:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive or
        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
The former.
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
It's far, far less than people think.
Obviously. Otherwise BAK would have the greatest car in his formula ever !
Simple logic, Geoff.

The cars have sensors and telemetry of every imaginable parameter now.

They don't need the driver to tell them that it is oversteering in fast
bends.
geoff
2020-08-22 09:14:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive or
        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
The former.
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
It's far, far less than people think.
Obviously. Otherwise BAK would have the greatest car in his formula ever !
Simple logic, Geoff.
The cars have sensors and telemetry of every imaginable parameter now.
They don't need the driver to tell them that it is oversteering in fast
bends.
I guess that's why self-driving cars have been such a spectacular
success then.

geoff
Alan Baker
2020-08-22 14:09:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive or
        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
The former.
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
It's far, far less than people think.
Obviously. Otherwise BAK would have the greatest car in his formula ever !
Simple logic, Geoff.
The cars have sensors and telemetry of every imaginable parameter now.
They don't need the driver to tell them that it is oversteering in
fast bends.
I guess that's why self-driving cars have been such a spectacular
success then.
Completely non sequitur.
geoff
2020-08-22 09:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive or
        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
The former.
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
It's far, far less than people think.
Obviously. Otherwise BAK would have the greatest car in his formula ever !
Simple logic, Geoff.
The cars have sensors and telemetry of every imaginable parameter now.
They don't need the driver to tell them that it is oversteering in fast
bends.
"Engineering arrogance" springs to mind.


geoff
Bigbird
2020-08-21 20:47:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run). >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.

I have set it to start at the relevant place.



We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.

Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Heron
Enjoy!
~misfit~
2020-08-22 01:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run). >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that.

Just lately I've discovered Mercedes youtube channel which can be quite enlightening.
<https://www.youtube.com/user/MERCEDESAMGPETRONAS>
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
geoff
2020-08-22 07:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 22/08/2020 8:47 am, Bigbird wrote:
.
Post by Bigbird
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
That's just Toto flattering HAM to show how magnanimous he is, apparently.

geoff
Alan Baker
2020-08-26 02:01:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
.
Post by Bigbird
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
That's just Toto flattering HAM to show how magnanimous he is, apparently.
geoff
Seriously:

Do you imagine that he'd say anything else?

It's a love-in, folks.
Martin Harran
2020-08-22 10:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:47:26 -0000 (UTC), "Bigbird"
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run). >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Nice find!

Then again, what would Toto know, he is only a very successful F1
manager, Alan is a *real* driver, he knows so much more about these
things.
News
2020-08-24 13:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:47:26 -0000 (UTC), "Bigbird"
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run). >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Nice find!
Then again, what would Toto know, he is only a very successful F1
manager, Alan is a *real* driver, he knows so much more about these
things.
LMFAO
Alan Baker
2020-08-26 06:44:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:47:26 -0000 (UTC), "Bigbird"
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run). >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Nice find!
Then again, what would Toto know, he is only a very successful F1
manager, Alan is a *real* driver, he knows so much more about these
things.
Do you really NEED to be a driver to understand that in an interview
such as that, you can hardly expect Wolff to say anything else?
News
2020-08-24 14:33:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run). >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this. (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.

Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development prior
to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Alan Baker
2020-08-24 18:23:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development prior
to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a thing for
racing teams; NASA, yes.
News
2020-08-24 18:40:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development prior
to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a thing for
racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...

You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and chassis
parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
Alan Baker
2020-08-24 21:26:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development prior
to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a thing
for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and chassis
parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
News
2020-08-25 14:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the
potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development
prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a thing
for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and chassis
parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit or
shinola?

Look it up!

"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.

FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and home
brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work) on-vehicle
instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the early 1970s.

Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Alan Baker
2020-08-25 16:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development
prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a thing
for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and chassis
parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit or
shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and home
brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work) on-vehicle
instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...

...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
News
2020-08-25 17:09:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development
prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a
thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and chassis
parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit or
shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and home
brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work) on-vehicle
instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.

It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.

I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
Alan Baker
2020-08-25 17:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development
prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a
thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and chassis
parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit or
shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and home
brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work) on-vehicle
instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.
It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.
I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
It's not MY homework to find support for your claims.

You've got nothing.

I actually participate on a forum for open wheel racing where a lot of
guys who were actually SCCA racing shortly after those days, and I asked
them about when the first data acquisition systems were used...

...and they didn't answer in a way to support you.

But here's a little piece from elsewhere as a freebie:

'Tyrell led the way in 1978 when it introduced a computer-driven
analysis of its cars’ performance data. Dr Karl Kempf, a 27-year old
American physicist, and mathematician who had previously worked for
Goodyear rigged up a computer to the team’s cars and extracted
sensor-generated data on their speed, suspension movements and
directional forces, plus percentages of throttle opening and braking.
this provided Tyrell’s engineers with rapid access to data that would
give them a real advantage over their rivals as they honed their car'

<https://formulaoneinsights.com/data-acquisition-and-telemetry-in-formula-1/>

So that is:

AFTER 1975...

...and at a MUCH higher level than SCCA racing.
News
2020-08-25 18:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact
(positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact
(positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development
prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a
thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and chassis
parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit
or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and
home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work)
on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the
early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.
It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.
I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
It's not MY homework to find support for your claims.
You've got nothing.
I actually participate on a forum for open wheel racing where a lot of
guys who were actually SCCA racing shortly after those days, and I asked
them about when the first data acquisition systems were used...
...and they didn't answer in a way to support you.
'Tyrell led the way in 1978 when it introduced a computer-driven
analysis of its cars’ performance data. Dr Karl Kempf, a 27-year old
American physicist,  and mathematician who had previously worked for
Goodyear rigged up a computer to the team’s cars and extracted
sensor-generated data on their speed, suspension movements and
directional forces, plus percentages of throttle opening and braking.
this provided Tyrell’s engineers with rapid access to data that would
give them a real advantage over their rivals as they honed their car'
<https://formulaoneinsights.com/data-acquisition-and-telemetry-in-formula-1/>
AFTER 1975...
...and at a MUCH higher level than SCCA racing.
A decade late to the party, rube.
Alan Baker
2020-08-25 18:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact
(positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact
(positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from
CFD development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development
prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a
thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and
chassis parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in
the late 1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit
or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and
home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work)
on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the
early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.
It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.
I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
It's not MY homework to find support for your claims.
You've got nothing.
I actually participate on a forum for open wheel racing where a lot of
guys who were actually SCCA racing shortly after those days, and I
asked them about when the first data acquisition systems were used...
...and they didn't answer in a way to support you.
'Tyrell led the way in 1978 when it introduced a computer-driven
analysis of its cars’ performance data. Dr Karl Kempf, a 27-year old
American physicist,  and mathematician who had previously worked for
Goodyear rigged up a computer to the team’s cars and extracted
sensor-generated data on their speed, suspension movements and
directional forces, plus percentages of throttle opening and braking.
this provided Tyrell’s engineers with rapid access to data that would
give them a real advantage over their rivals as they honed their car'
<https://formulaoneinsights.com/data-acquisition-and-telemetry-in-formula-1/>
AFTER 1975...
...and at a MUCH higher level than SCCA racing.
A decade late to the party, rube.
Still you cannot support your claim that data acquisition was being used
in SCCA regional races PRIOR to 1975
News
2020-08-25 20:48:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact
(positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no
impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from
CFD development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car
development prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a
thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and
chassis parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit
or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and
home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work)
on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the
early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.
It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.
I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
It's not MY homework to find support for your claims.
You've got nothing.
I actually participate on a forum for open wheel racing where a lot
of guys who were actually SCCA racing shortly after those days, and I
asked them about when the first data acquisition systems were used...
...and they didn't answer in a way to support you.
'Tyrell led the way in 1978 when it introduced a computer-driven
analysis of its cars’ performance data. Dr Karl Kempf, a 27-year old
American physicist,  and mathematician who had previously worked for
Goodyear rigged up a computer to the team’s cars and extracted
sensor-generated data on their speed, suspension movements and
directional forces, plus percentages of throttle opening and braking.
this provided Tyrell’s engineers with rapid access to data that would
give them a real advantage over their rivals as they honed their car'
<https://formulaoneinsights.com/data-acquisition-and-telemetry-in-formula-1/>
AFTER 1975...
...and at a MUCH higher level than SCCA racing.
A decade late to the party, rube.
Still you cannot support your claim that data acquisition was being used
in SCCA regional races PRIOR to 1975
Really? No free rides for basement-dwelling, dullard ignoramuses.

Here are your three free clues, and DQs:

Jim Hall, Can Am Chaparral 2E, 1966

Mark Donohue, Trans Am Camaro, 1968

Dave Manzolini, SCCA Datsun 2000, 1972

All three engineers with key roles in car development.

DQs: Lotus, Tyrrell, et al, came along much later.

"Led the way", my ass. They cribbed the idea and technology.

They were a decade late to the party.
Alan Baker
2020-08-26 00:43:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was
nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no
impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no
impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing
of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers
have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing
feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in
the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the
potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from
CFD development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car
development prior to, and in the early days of, data
acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a
thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and
chassis parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know
shit or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation
PDP/LINC/MINC-based on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture
systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and
home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work)
on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture systems in
the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.
It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.
I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
It's not MY homework to find support for your claims.
You've got nothing.
I actually participate on a forum for open wheel racing where a lot
of guys who were actually SCCA racing shortly after those days, and
I asked them about when the first data acquisition systems were used...
...and they didn't answer in a way to support you.
'Tyrell led the way in 1978 when it introduced a computer-driven
analysis of its cars’ performance data. Dr Karl Kempf, a 27-year old
American physicist,  and mathematician who had previously worked for
Goodyear rigged up a computer to the team’s cars and extracted
sensor-generated data on their speed, suspension movements and
directional forces, plus percentages of throttle opening and
braking. this provided Tyrell’s engineers with rapid access to data
that would give them a real advantage over their rivals as they
honed their car'
<https://formulaoneinsights.com/data-acquisition-and-telemetry-in-formula-1/>
AFTER 1975...
...and at a MUCH higher level than SCCA racing.
A decade late to the party, rube.
Still you cannot support your claim that data acquisition was being
used in SCCA regional races PRIOR to 1975
Really? No free rides for basement-dwelling, dullard ignoramuses.
Jim Hall, Can Am Chaparral 2E, 1966
Mark Donohue, Trans Am Camaro, 1968
Donahue and Hall are fair points...

...but we're talking outliers here.
Post by News
Dave Manzolini, SCCA Datsun 2000, 1972
And what data was he collecting?
Post by News
All three engineers with key roles in car development.
DQs: Lotus, Tyrrell, et al, came along much later.
"Led the way", my ass. They cribbed the idea and technology.
They were a decade late to the party.
The fact remains that the driver is no longer very important for
collecting information about the car's performance in F1. The cars have
literally hundreds of sensors collecting megabytes of data...

...each lap.
News
2020-08-26 13:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk
Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg
managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that
Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does
with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no
impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no
impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing
of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from
drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where
drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing
feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think
Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds
very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in
the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the
potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is
all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from
CFD development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car
development prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really
a thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and
chassis parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know
shit or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation
PDP/LINC/MINC-based on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture
systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and
home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work)
on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture systems in
the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.
It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.
I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
It's not MY homework to find support for your claims.
You've got nothing.
I actually participate on a forum for open wheel racing where a lot
of guys who were actually SCCA racing shortly after those days, and
I asked them about when the first data acquisition systems were used...
...and they didn't answer in a way to support you.
'Tyrell led the way in 1978 when it introduced a computer-driven
analysis of its cars’ performance data. Dr Karl Kempf, a 27-year
old American physicist,  and mathematician who had previously
worked for Goodyear rigged up a computer to the team’s cars and
extracted sensor-generated data on their speed, suspension
movements and directional forces, plus percentages of throttle
opening and braking. this provided Tyrell’s engineers with rapid
access to data that would give them a real advantage over their
rivals as they honed their car'
<https://formulaoneinsights.com/data-acquisition-and-telemetry-in-formula-1/>
AFTER 1975...
...and at a MUCH higher level than SCCA racing.
A decade late to the party, rube.
Still you cannot support your claim that data acquisition was being
used in SCCA regional races PRIOR to 1975
Really? No free rides for basement-dwelling, dullard ignoramuses.
Jim Hall, Can Am Chaparral 2E, 1966
Mark Donohue, Trans Am Camaro, 1968
Donahue and Hall are fair points...
...but we're talking outliers here.
Innovators are outliers, by definition.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Dave Manzolini, SCCA Datsun 2000, 1972
And what data was he collecting?
64 channels of engine, suspension, and inertial parameters, sampling
frequency UNK, recorded to cassette tape for post-session evaluation.

Arguably, a greater innovator than Hall or Donohue, in the sense that
his was a purely privateer, self-financed effort that, again, arguably,
started the affordable race data acquisition industry.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
All three engineers with key roles in car development.
DQs: Lotus, Tyrrell, et al, came along much later.
"Led the way", my ass. They cribbed the idea and technology.
They were a decade late to the party.
The fact remains that the driver is no longer very important for
collecting information about the car's performance in F1. The cars have
literally hundreds of sensors collecting megabytes of data...
...each lap.
50 years of Moore's Law later...

Keep backpedaling.

You're welcome for the education.
Alan Baker
2020-08-26 15:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk
Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg
managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and
enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think
that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does
with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or
worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no
impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no
impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing
of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback
from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where
drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing
feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the
season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you
think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds
very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in
the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the
potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is
all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up
direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications
from CFD development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car
development prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really
a thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and
chassis parameter, data logging and analysis systems
prevalent in the late 1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA
regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know
shit or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation
PDP/LINC/MINC-based on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture
systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based
and home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC
work) on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture
systems in the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.
It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.
I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
It's not MY homework to find support for your claims.
You've got nothing.
I actually participate on a forum for open wheel racing where a
lot of guys who were actually SCCA racing shortly after those
days, and I asked them about when the first data acquisition
systems were used...
...and they didn't answer in a way to support you.
'Tyrell led the way in 1978 when it introduced a computer-driven
analysis of its cars’ performance data. Dr Karl Kempf, a 27-year
old American physicist,  and mathematician who had previously
worked for Goodyear rigged up a computer to the team’s cars and
extracted sensor-generated data on their speed, suspension
movements and directional forces, plus percentages of throttle
opening and braking. this provided Tyrell’s engineers with rapid
access to data that would give them a real advantage over their
rivals as they honed their car'
<https://formulaoneinsights.com/data-acquisition-and-telemetry-in-formula-1/>
AFTER 1975...
...and at a MUCH higher level than SCCA racing.
A decade late to the party, rube.
Still you cannot support your claim that data acquisition was being
used in SCCA regional races PRIOR to 1975
Really? No free rides for basement-dwelling, dullard ignoramuses.
Jim Hall, Can Am Chaparral 2E, 1966
Mark Donohue, Trans Am Camaro, 1968
Donahue and Hall are fair points...
...but we're talking outliers here.
Innovators are outliers, by definition.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Dave Manzolini, SCCA Datsun 2000, 1972
And what data was he collecting?
64 channels of engine, suspension, and inertial parameters, sampling
frequency UNK, recorded to cassette tape for post-session evaluation.
Arguably, a greater innovator than Hall or Donohue, in the sense that
his was a purely privateer, self-financed effort that, again, arguably,
started the affordable race data acquisition industry.
Sorry, but you're going to have to provide support for that one as I've
got a first-hand report that he had 20 channels... ...in 1982.

'I remember Dave Manzolini at the 1982 Run-Offs having a 20 channel data
system on his FC Zink (Super Vee). He said at that time, the "Indy Car"
people only had 4.'
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
All three engineers with key roles in car development.
DQs: Lotus, Tyrrell, et al, came along much later.
"Led the way", my ass. They cribbed the idea and technology.
They were a decade late to the party.
The fact remains that the driver is no longer very important for
collecting information about the car's performance in F1. The cars
have literally hundreds of sensors collecting megabytes of data...
...each lap.
50 years of Moore's Law later...
Keep backpedaling.
You're welcome for the education.
The point of the discussion was that it is very different with regard to
the need for driver feedback today.
News
2020-08-26 17:22:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side
of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk
Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg
managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and
enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think
that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does
with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or
worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no
impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no
impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following
racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback
from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where
drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing
feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the
season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you
think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds
very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment
in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking
the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it
is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up
direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence
the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications
from CFD development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car
development prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not
really a thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and
chassis parameter, data logging and analysis systems
prevalent in the late 1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA
regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know
shit or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation
PDP/LINC/MINC-based on-vehicle instrumentation and data
capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based
and home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC
work) on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture
systems in the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
Blowhards with no actual experience -- you, for example -- know nothing.
It's all out there for anyone, even you, pedant, blowhard, to find.
I will categorically not do your homework. So get to it.
It's not MY homework to find support for your claims.
You've got nothing.
I actually participate on a forum for open wheel racing where a
lot of guys who were actually SCCA racing shortly after those
days, and I asked them about when the first data acquisition
systems were used...
...and they didn't answer in a way to support you.
'Tyrell led the way in 1978 when it introduced a computer-driven
analysis of its cars’ performance data. Dr Karl Kempf, a 27-year
old American physicist,  and mathematician who had previously
worked for Goodyear rigged up a computer to the team’s cars and
extracted sensor-generated data on their speed, suspension
movements and directional forces, plus percentages of throttle
opening and braking. this provided Tyrell’s engineers with rapid
access to data that would give them a real advantage over their
rivals as they honed their car'
<https://formulaoneinsights.com/data-acquisition-and-telemetry-in-formula-1/>
AFTER 1975...
...and at a MUCH higher level than SCCA racing.
A decade late to the party, rube.
Still you cannot support your claim that data acquisition was being
used in SCCA regional races PRIOR to 1975
Really? No free rides for basement-dwelling, dullard ignoramuses.
Jim Hall, Can Am Chaparral 2E, 1966
Mark Donohue, Trans Am Camaro, 1968
Donahue and Hall are fair points...
...but we're talking outliers here.
Innovators are outliers, by definition.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Dave Manzolini, SCCA Datsun 2000, 1972
And what data was he collecting?
64 channels of engine, suspension, and inertial parameters, sampling
frequency UNK, recorded to cassette tape for post-session evaluation.
Arguably, a greater innovator than Hall or Donohue, in the sense that
his was a purely privateer, self-financed effort that, again,
arguably, started the affordable race data acquisition industry.
Sorry, but you're going to have to provide support for that one as I've
got a first-hand report that he had 20 channels... ...in 1982.
'I remember Dave Manzolini at the 1982 Run-Offs having a 20 channel data
system on his FC Zink (Super Vee). He said at that time, the "Indy Car"
people only had 4.'
Dave was a physicist. While in the Air Force he developed onboard
systems that revolutionized aerial night reconnaissance and targeting,
for which he later received awards. Following his USAF stint, he worked
at the Air Force Research Labs at Rome, NY and continued development on
aerial systems. A quick glance showed that some cast-off Rome hardware
made it into his decrepit looking but deceptively quick Datsun 2000.

He went to the runoffs with the 2000 in 1972, and for three or four
years thereafter, with the 64 channel production car system, which was
larger, heavier, had more capacity but undoubtedly lower sampling rate
(possibly, asynchronously multi-sampling certain parameters to gap-fill,
and if so, fewer than 64 unique parameters).

His DAQ system formed part of the ballast to GCR minimum weight on the
2000, the panel work of which he had gutted internally to lighten it
well below minimums, then foam filled for structural rigidity, then
ballasted to minimums, corner weighted to his desired spec.

I am unaware of the decade later FC Zink system you cite, but if you
think about it and the Moore's Law improvement rates on processors,
sampling rates, development of EPROM storage, packaging, mass, volume,
such a system was undoubtedly lighter, more compact, fitted to a
"formula" car, and likely didn't require the same number of parameters.

So, no surprise, there. Dave the privateer still had the outlier,
higher-performance system.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
All three engineers with key roles in car development.
DQs: Lotus, Tyrrell, et al, came along much later.
"Led the way", my ass. They cribbed the idea and technology.
They were a decade late to the party.
The fact remains that the driver is no longer very important for
collecting information about the car's performance in F1. The cars
have literally hundreds of sensors collecting megabytes of data...
...each lap.
50 years of Moore's Law later...
Keep backpedaling.
You're welcome for the education.
The point of the discussion was that it is very different with regard to
the need for driver feedback today.
News
2020-08-25 17:10:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team >> who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why >> he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with >> the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so >> that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).  >>
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates >> the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as >> much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
That last sentence...
     1. You believe that feedback from drivers has no impact (positive
or        negative) on the development of the car
     2. The feedback specifically from Hamilton has no impact (positive
        or negative) on the development of the car
If it's (1), you must be the only person following racing of any kind
who believes that engineers don't respond to feedback from drivers.
There have been many instances over the years where drivers have been
highlighted as particularly good (or bad) at providing feedback both
during development/testing and through the course of the season.
If it's (2), you will have to explain what makes you think Hamilton
(specifically) is not good (or bad) at this.  (2) sounds very much
like a criticism of Hamilton with no stated grounds.
I thought there was an interesting and relevant segment in the Toto and
Lewis interview aired recently.
I have set it to start at the relevant place.
http://youtu.be/BHCxaYfqlJ4
We often hear that a team are having trouble unlocking the potential of
a car. The engineers design a car to the numbers but it is all theory
until you get a driver in the seat.
Hamilton is credited here with taking the car in a set up direction
that helped unlock the cars potential and then influence the cars
development.
Much as real world aero often differs from implications from CFD
development.
Donohue, the engineer, had significant input to car development
prior to, and in the early days of, data acquisition.
Prior to only. "Data acquisition" before 1975 was not really a
thing for racing teams; NASA, yes.
Oh dear. Doubling down and digging yourself an even deeper hole...
This would have been the space for you to show the goods...
Post by News
You clearly are ignorant of analog and digital, driver and chassis
parameter, data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing.
...but you've got none.
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit or
shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and home
brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work) on-vehicle
instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
First-hand experience, and out there for anyone, even you, pedant,
blowhard, to find.

So go fuck yourself. First or following.
Alan Baker
2020-08-25 17:58:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit or
shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and home
brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work) on-vehicle
instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
First-hand experience, and out there for anyone, even you, pedant,
blowhard, to find.
Meaning you've got nothing.
News
2020-08-25 18:36:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit
or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and
home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work)
on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the
early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
First-hand experience, and out there for anyone, even you, pedant,
blowhard, to find.
Meaning you've got nothing.
Keep digging, dunce.
Alan Baker
2020-08-25 18:39:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit
or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and
home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work)
on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the
early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
First-hand experience, and out there for anyone, even you, pedant,
blowhard, to find.
Meaning you've got nothing.
Keep digging, dunce.
Keep dodging...

...because you've got nothing.
News
2020-08-25 20:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Why make eating crow easy for you, the pedant, who don't know shit
or shinola?
Look it up!
"GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
"even in SCCA regional racing."
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and
home brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work)
on-vehicle instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the
early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...
...without any actual examples
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe."
First-hand experience, and out there for anyone, even you, pedant,
blowhard, to find.
Meaning you've got nothing.
Keep digging, dunce.
Keep dodging...
...because you've got nothing.
See above, basement-dwelling, dullard ignoramus.
News
2020-08-21 13:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything
to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a team - and
it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who works with him,
his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion
BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that
doesn't say he's considered a very important part of the wider team I
don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the
team who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage.
That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing
musical chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and
run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has a highly
competent team of engineers capable of using acquired data and feedback
to further develop the car.
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 15:15:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits
everything to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a
team - and it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who
works with him, his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton
now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to champion
BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that
doesn't say he's considered a very important part of the wider team I
don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the
team who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage.
That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing
musical chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and
run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has a highly
competent team of engineers capable of using acquired data and feedback
to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.

This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
News
2020-08-21 15:25:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits
everything to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires a
team - and it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who
works with him, his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with
Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to
champion BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If
that doesn't say he's considered a very important part of the wider
team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the
team who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage.
That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing
musical chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and
run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has a highly
competent team of engineers capable of using acquired data and
feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.

If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains critically important
because engineers can in good faith use acquired data to set up what
becomes an undrivable car.

Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its terminal speed,
but rendering it uncontrollable, for example.
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 16:13:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits
everything to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires
a team - and it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who
works with him, his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with
Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted to
champion BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If
that doesn't say he's considered a very important part of the wider
team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the
team who worked most closely with him on his side of the garage.
That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing
musical chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg managed to steal a WDC
(and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has a highly
competent team of engineers capable of using acquired data and
feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains critically important
because engineers can in good faith use acquired data to set up what
becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its terminal speed,
but rendering it uncontrollable, for example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected and how
they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as simple as
looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then just deciding to
trim out the wings.
News
2020-08-21 16:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits
everything to going faster / winning races / doing better inspires
a team - and it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone
who works with him, his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with
Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted
to champion BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted
black. If that doesn't say he's considered a very important part
of the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has a highly
competent team of engineers capable of using acquired data and
feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains critically
important because engineers can in good faith use acquired data to set
up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its terminal
speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected and how
they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as simple as
looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then just deciding to
trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 19:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits
everything to going faster / winning races / doing better
inspires a team - and it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires
everyone who works with him, his motto could be 'we win and lose
as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with
Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted
to champion BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted
black. If that doesn't say he's considered a very important part
of the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has a highly
competent team of engineers capable of using acquired data and
feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains critically
important because engineers can in good faith use acquired data to
set up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its terminal
speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected and
how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as simple as
looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then just deciding to
trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
For one thing, do you really think that the engineers don't have data on
the lateral g the car is producing along with sensors for rotation in
all axes and their related accelerations (look up "ring laser gyro")?

Knowing that they have all of that, do you think they need the driver to
tell them when the car is a little unstable, let alone "uncontrollable".

Are you not aware that they have sophisticated models of how the car
operates and what effects making various changes will have; models that
are updated with all the huge amounts of data that the car produces?
News
2020-08-21 19:33:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as
Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits
everything to going faster / winning races / doing better
inspires a team - and it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires
everyone who works with him, his motto could be 'we win and lose
as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with
Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton communicated that he wanted
to champion BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted
black. If that doesn't say he's considered a very important part
of the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially
the team who worked most closely with him on his side of the
garage. That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into
playing musical chairs with the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg managed to
steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with
engineers, it's also his infectious drive and enthusiasm that
motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes was
nowhere before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or worse) by
Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has a highly
competent team of engineers capable of using acquired data and
feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains critically
important because engineers can in good faith use acquired data to
set up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its terminal
speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected and
how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as simple as
looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then just deciding to
trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
For one thing, do you really think that the engineers don't have data on
the lateral g the car is producing along with sensors for rotation in
all axes and their related accelerations (look up "ring laser gyro")?
Knowing that they have all of that, do you think they need the driver to
tell them when the car is a little unstable, let alone "uncontrollable".
Are you not aware that they have sophisticated models of how the car
operates and what effects making various changes will have; models that
are updated with all the huge amounts of data that the car produces?
No, they just have to work to restore what remains, after it is scraped
off the wall.

You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 20:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:26:47 AM
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning
only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch
as a driver, but he wouldn't be doing this
with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to
Hamilton joining them, they had 2 fourths and a
fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of
course Hamilton might just have been lucky in
timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move or maybe,
just maybe, he played a key role in helping them to
bring their car to the heights they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the
contribution he made to the success of the Ferrari
car of his era by the way he worked closely with
the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't
get the same public acclaim for his contribution to
design and engineering at Mercedes but I suspect it
is every bit as important as Schumacher's was to
Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton
commits everything to going faster / winning races /
doing better inspires a team - and it did Mercedes.
He includes and inspires everyone who works with him,
his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only
friends with Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton
communicated that he wanted to champion BLM Toto had
the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that
doesn't say he's considered a very important part of
the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially the team who worked most closely with him
on his side of the garage. That's why he leveraged
his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical
chairs with the engineers - something that
destabilised Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg
managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with engineers, it's also his
infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates the
team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does
with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or
worse) by Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has
a highly competent team of engineers capable of using
acquired data and feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the
feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains
critically important because engineers can in good faith use
acquired data to set up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its
terminal speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for
example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected
and how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as
simple as looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then
just deciding to trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
For one thing, do you really think that the engineers don't have
data on the lateral g the car is producing along with sensors for
rotation in all axes and their related accelerations (look up "ring
laser gyro")?
Knowing that they have all of that, do you think they need the
driver to tell them when the car is a little unstable, let alone
"uncontrollable".
Are you not aware that they have sophisticated models of how the
car operates and what effects making various changes will have;
models that are updated with all the huge amounts of data that the
car produces?
No, they just have to work to restore what remains, after it is
scraped off the wall.
You seriously think that without the driver there to tell them that they
would just change the set up so badly that the car would be undriveable?

Is that your contention?
Post by News
You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Better to be a pedant who actually understands what is going on that an
know-nothing such as yourself.
News
2020-08-21 20:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:26:47 AM
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning
only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch
as a driver, but he wouldn't be doing this
with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to
Hamilton joining them, they had 2 fourths and a
fifth. In his first season with them they got second and they
have won it every year since. Of
course Hamilton might just have been lucky in
timing his move despite commentators almost universally
condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe,
just maybe, he played a key role in helping them to
bring their car to the heights they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the
contribution he made to the success of the Ferrari
car of his era by the way he worked closely with
the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't
get the same public acclaim for his contribution to
design and engineering at Mercedes but I suspect it
is every bit as important as Schumacher's was to
Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton
commits everything to going faster / winning races /
doing better inspires a team - and it did Mercedes.
He includes and inspires everyone who works with him,
his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only
friends with Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton
communicated that he wanted to champion BLM Toto had
the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that
doesn't say he's considered a very important part of
the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially the team who worked most closely with him
on his side of the garage. That's why he leveraged
his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical
chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg
managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with engineers, it's also his
infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates the
team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or
worse) by Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has
a highly competent team of engineers capable of using
acquired data and feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the
feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains
critically important because engineers can in good faith use
acquired data to set up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its
terminal speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for
example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected
and how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as
simple as looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then
just deciding to trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
For one thing, do you really think that the engineers don't have
data on the lateral g the car is producing along with sensors for
rotation in all axes and their related accelerations (look up "ring
laser gyro")?
Knowing that they have all of that, do you think they need the
driver to tell them when the car is a little unstable, let alone
"uncontrollable".
Are you not aware that they have sophisticated models of how the
car operates and what effects making various changes will have;
models that are updated with all the huge amounts of data that the
car produces?
No, they just have to work to restore what remains, after it is
scraped off the wall.
You seriously think that without the driver there to tell them that they
would just change the set up so badly that the car would be undriveable?
Is that your contention?
Post by News
You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Better to be a pedant who actually understands what is going on that an
know-nothing such as yourself.
Ever-fucking pedant continues...
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 20:32:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:26:47 AM
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning
only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch
as a driver, but he wouldn't be doing this
with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes was nowhere
before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to
Hamilton joining them, they had 2 fourths and a
fifth. In his first season with them they got second and
they have won it every year since. Of
course Hamilton might just have been lucky in
timing his move despite commentators almost universally
condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe,
just maybe, he played a key role in helping them to
bring their car to the heights they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the
contribution he made to the success of the Ferrari
car of his era by the way he worked closely with
the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't
get the same public acclaim for his contribution to
design and engineering at Mercedes but I suspect it
is every bit as important as Schumacher's was to
Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton
commits everything to going faster / winning races /
doing better inspires a team - and it did Mercedes.
He includes and inspires everyone who works with him,
his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only
friends with Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton
communicated that he wanted to champion BLM Toto had
the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that
doesn't say he's considered a very important part of
the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially the team who worked most closely with him
on his side of the garage. That's why he leveraged
his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical
chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg
managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with engineers, it's also his
infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates the
team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or
worse) by Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has
a highly competent team of engineers capable of using
acquired data and feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the
feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains
critically important because engineers can in good faith use
acquired data to set up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its
terminal speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for
example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected
and how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as
simple as looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then
just deciding to trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
For one thing, do you really think that the engineers don't have
data on the lateral g the car is producing along with sensors for
rotation in all axes and their related accelerations (look up "ring
laser gyro")?
Knowing that they have all of that, do you think they need the
driver to tell them when the car is a little unstable, let alone
"uncontrollable".
Are you not aware that they have sophisticated models of how the
car operates and what effects making various changes will have;
models that are updated with all the huge amounts of data that the
car produces?
No, they just have to work to restore what remains, after it is
scraped off the wall.
You seriously think that without the driver there to tell them that
they would just change the set up so badly that the car would be
undriveable?
Is that your contention?
Post by News
You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Better to be a pedant who actually understands what is going on that
an know-nothing such as yourself.
Ever-fucking pedant continues...
And know-nothing replies!

Let's get this back on topic:

Is it your contention that without the driver there to tell them that
there was a handling issue that they would just change the set up so
badly that the car would be undriveable?

Is there some reason you're not answering this?

Yes: you really did suggest that the engineers would make a change to a
car that would "render[] it uncontrollable".
News
2020-08-21 20:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:26:47 AM
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning
only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch
as a driver, but he wouldn't be doing this
with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes was
nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to
Hamilton joining them, they had 2 fourths and a
fifth. In his first season with them they got second and
they have won it every year since. Of
course Hamilton might just have been lucky in
timing his move despite commentators almost universally
condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe,
just maybe, he played a key role in helping them to
bring their car to the heights they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the
contribution he made to the success of the Ferrari
car of his era by the way he worked closely with
the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't
get the same public acclaim for his contribution to
design and engineering at Mercedes but I suspect it
is every bit as important as Schumacher's was to
Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton
commits everything to going faster / winning races /
doing better inspires a team - and it did Mercedes.
He includes and inspires everyone who works with him,
his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only
friends with Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton
communicated that he wanted to champion BLM Toto had
the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that
doesn't say he's considered a very important part of
the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially the team who worked most closely with him
on his side of the garage. That's why he leveraged
his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical
chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg
managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with engineers, it's also his
infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates the
team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or
worse) by Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has
a highly competent team of engineers capable of using
acquired data and feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the
feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains
critically important because engineers can in good faith use
acquired data to set up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its
terminal speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for
example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected
and how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as
simple as looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then
just deciding to trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
For one thing, do you really think that the engineers don't have
data on the lateral g the car is producing along with sensors for
rotation in all axes and their related accelerations (look up "ring
laser gyro")?
Knowing that they have all of that, do you think they need the
driver to tell them when the car is a little unstable, let alone
"uncontrollable".
Are you not aware that they have sophisticated models of how the
car operates and what effects making various changes will have;
models that are updated with all the huge amounts of data that the
car produces?
No, they just have to work to restore what remains, after it is
scraped off the wall.
You seriously think that without the driver there to tell them that
they would just change the set up so badly that the car would be
undriveable?
Is that your contention?
Post by News
You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Better to be a pedant who actually understands what is going on that
an know-nothing such as yourself.
Ever-fucking pedant continues...
And know-nothing replies!
Is it your contention that without the driver there to tell them that
there was a handling issue that they would just change the set up so
badly that the car would be undriveable?
Is there some reason you're not answering this?
Yes: you really did suggest that the engineers would make a change to a
car that would "render[] it uncontrollable".
You've never seen that sort of well-intended but resultant incident, DNQ
or DNF?

You must be very slow, as well as an ever-fucking pedant.
Alan Baker
2020-08-21 20:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:26:47 AM
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning
only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch
as a driver, but he wouldn't be doing this
with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes was
nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to
Hamilton joining them, they had 2 fourths and a
fifth. In his first season with them they got second and
they have won it every year since. Of
course Hamilton might just have been lucky in
timing his move despite commentators almost universally
condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe,
just maybe, he played a key role in helping them to
bring their car to the heights they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the
contribution he made to the success of the Ferrari
car of his era by the way he worked closely with
the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't
get the same public acclaim for his contribution to
design and engineering at Mercedes but I suspect it
is every bit as important as Schumacher's was to
Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton
commits everything to going faster / winning races /
doing better inspires a team - and it did Mercedes.
He includes and inspires everyone who works with him,
his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only
friends with Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton
communicated that he wanted to champion BLM Toto had
the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that
doesn't say he's considered a very important part of
the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially the team who worked most closely with him
on his side of the garage. That's why he leveraged
his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical
chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg
managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with engineers, it's also his
infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates the
team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or
worse) by Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has
a highly competent team of engineers capable of using
acquired data and feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the
feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains
critically important because engineers can in good faith use
acquired data to set up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its
terminal speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for
example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected
and how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as
simple as looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then
just deciding to trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
For one thing, do you really think that the engineers don't have
data on the lateral g the car is producing along with sensors for
rotation in all axes and their related accelerations (look up "ring
laser gyro")?
Knowing that they have all of that, do you think they need the
driver to tell them when the car is a little unstable, let alone
"uncontrollable".
Are you not aware that they have sophisticated models of how the
car operates and what effects making various changes will have;
models that are updated with all the huge amounts of data that the
car produces?
No, they just have to work to restore what remains, after it is
scraped off the wall.
You seriously think that without the driver there to tell them that
they would just change the set up so badly that the car would be
undriveable?
Is that your contention?
Post by News
You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Better to be a pedant who actually understands what is going on that
an know-nothing such as yourself.
Ever-fucking pedant continues...
And know-nothing replies!
Is it your contention that without the driver there to tell them that
there was a handling issue that they would just change the set up so
badly that the car would be undriveable?
Is there some reason you're not answering this?
Yes: you really did suggest that the engineers would make a change to
a car that would "render[] it uncontrollable".
You've never seen that sort of well-intended but resultant incident, DNQ
or DNF?
Caused by a car's setup being changed and it suddenly being
"uncontrollable" (your word, agreed?)?

Nope.

Not a single time.
Post by News
You must be very slow, as well as an ever-fucking pedant.
Point to a specific example.

Just one, know-nothing.
News
2020-08-21 21:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 9:26:47 AM
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning
only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch
as a driver, but he wouldn't be doing this
with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes was
nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to
Hamilton joining them, they had 2 fourths and a
fifth. In his first season with them they got second and
they have won it every year since. Of
course Hamilton might just have been lucky in
timing his move despite commentators almost universally
condemning it as a dumb move  or maybe,
just maybe, he played a key role in helping them to
bring their car to the heights they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the
contribution he made to the success of the Ferrari
car of his era by the way he worked closely with
the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't
get the same public acclaim for his contribution to
design and engineering at Mercedes but I suspect it
is every bit as important as Schumacher's was to
Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton
commits everything to going faster / winning races /
doing better inspires a team - and it did Mercedes.
He includes and inspires everyone who works with him,
his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only
friends with Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton
communicated that he wanted to champion BLM Toto had
the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If that
doesn't say he's considered a very important part of
the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton,
especially the team who worked most closely with him
on his side of the garage. That's why he leveraged
his seniority to talk Toto into playing musical
chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised
Hamilton for long enough so that Rosberg
managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's
communication with engineers, it's also his
infectious drive and enthusiasm that motivates the
team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes
success has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Sorry, but it's still nonsense to claim that 'Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.'
The car Mercedes produced was not made any better (or
worse) by Hamilton's presence.
HAM is not an engineer, like, say, Donohue, though he has
a highly competent team of engineers capable of using
acquired data and feedback to further develop the car.
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the
feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
Data acquired and applied, without a data feedback loop, is useless.
If what you meant was driver feedback, this remains
critically important because engineers can in good faith use
acquired data to set up what becomes an undrivable car.
Taking drag/trim out of an Indy car wing to improve its
terminal speed, but rendering it uncontrollable, for
example.
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected
and how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as
simple as looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then
just deciding to trim out the wings.
Do tell, "Ace"
For one thing, do you really think that the engineers don't have
data on the lateral g the car is producing along with sensors for
rotation in all axes and their related accelerations (look up "ring
laser gyro")?
Knowing that they have all of that, do you think they need the
driver to tell them when the car is a little unstable, let alone
"uncontrollable".
Are you not aware that they have sophisticated models of how the
car operates and what effects making various changes will have;
models that are updated with all the huge amounts of data that the
car produces?
No, they just have to work to restore what remains, after it is
scraped off the wall.
You seriously think that without the driver there to tell them that
they would just change the set up so badly that the car would be
undriveable?
Is that your contention?
Post by News
You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Better to be a pedant who actually understands what is going on
that an know-nothing such as yourself.
Ever-fucking pedant continues...
And know-nothing replies!
Is it your contention that without the driver there to tell them that
there was a handling issue that they would just change the set up so
badly that the car would be undriveable?
Is there some reason you're not answering this?
Yes: you really did suggest that the engineers would make a change to
a car that would "render[] it uncontrollable".
You've never seen that sort of well-intended but resultant incident,
DNQ or DNF?
Caused by a car's setup being changed and it suddenly being
"uncontrollable" (your word, agreed?)?
Nope.
Not a single time.
Post by News
You must be very slow, as well as an ever-fucking pedant.
Point to a specific example.
Just one, know-nothing.
Point your nose up your ass, ever-fucking pedant.
Alan Baker
2020-08-22 02:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
You seriously think that without the driver there to tell them
that they would just change the set up so badly that the car would
be undriveable?
Is that your contention?
Post by News
You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Better to be a pedant who actually understands what is going on
that an know-nothing such as yourself.
Ever-fucking pedant continues...
And know-nothing replies!
Is it your contention that without the driver there to tell them
that there was a handling issue that they would just change the set
up so badly that the car would be undriveable?
Is there some reason you're not answering this?
Yes: you really did suggest that the engineers would make a change
to a car that would "render[] it uncontrollable".
You've never seen that sort of well-intended but resultant incident,
DNQ or DNF?
Caused by a car's setup being changed and it suddenly being
"uncontrollable" (your word, agreed?)?
Nope.
Not a single time.
Post by News
You must be very slow, as well as an ever-fucking pedant.
Point to a specific example.
Just one, know-nothing.
Point your nose up your ass, ever-fucking pedant.
So you can't produce a single example of this alleged issue.

Thought so.
News
2020-08-24 13:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
You seriously think that without the driver there to tell them
that they would just change the set up so badly that the car
would be undriveable?
Is that your contention?
Post by News
You ever-fucking pedant bozo.
Better to be a pedant who actually understands what is going on
that an know-nothing such as yourself.
Ever-fucking pedant continues...
And know-nothing replies!
Is it your contention that without the driver there to tell them
that there was a handling issue that they would just change the set
up so badly that the car would be undriveable?
Is there some reason you're not answering this?
Yes: you really did suggest that the engineers would make a change
to a car that would "render[] it uncontrollable".
You've never seen that sort of well-intended but resultant incident,
DNQ or DNF?
Caused by a car's setup being changed and it suddenly being
"uncontrollable" (your word, agreed?)?
Nope.
Not a single time.
Post by News
You must be very slow, as well as an ever-fucking pedant.
Point to a specific example.
Just one, know-nothing.
Point your nose up your ass, ever-fucking pedant.
So you can't produce a single example of this alleged issue.
Thought so.
Whatever you say, ever-fucking closed-minded, pendant.

Go find a barrier to kiss, if you can get going fast enough.
Alan Baker
2020-08-24 17:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
You've never seen that sort of well-intended but resultant
incident, DNQ or DNF?
Caused by a car's setup being changed and it suddenly being
"uncontrollable" (your word, agreed?)?
Nope.
Not a single time.
Post by News
You must be very slow, as well as an ever-fucking pedant.
Point to a specific example.
Just one, know-nothing.
Point your nose up your ass, ever-fucking pedant.
So you can't produce a single example of this alleged issue.
Thought so.
Whatever you say, ever-fucking closed-minded, pendant.
Cover up your failure however you need to.

We all still know you've failed.
Post by News
Go find a barrier to kiss, if you can get going fast enough.
Thanks, but I had a great weekend of racing.

Three poles, three wins, fastest lap of the weekend by more than a second.

I also helped on of the back markers knock a second of his best lap in
the last session with a little advice about turn 4.
t***@gmail.com
2020-08-25 05:45:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
We all still know you've failed.
Who is 'we all'?
Speak for your own pathetic self.
Fucking fool
Alan Baker
2020-08-25 06:25:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
We all still know you've failed.
Who is 'we all'?
Speak for your own pathetic self.
Fucking fool
You're worst failing?

You're dull.
Bigbird
2020-08-22 06:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected and
how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as simple as
looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then just deciding to
trim out the wings.
AB is the definition of conceit overcoming knowledge.
--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Heron
Enjoy!
News
2020-08-24 14:34:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected and
how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as simple as
looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then just deciding to
trim out the wings.
AB is the definition of conceit overcoming knowledge.
Q.E.D.
Alan Baker
2020-08-26 02:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Alan Baker
You have far too little understanding of what data is collected and
how they use it if you imagine for one second that it is as simple as
looking at what terminal speed is achieved and then just deciding to
trim out the wings.
AB is the definition of conceit overcoming knowledge.
Absolutely no factual rebuttal of the point I made...

...which is a good definition for you.

:-)
geoff
2020-08-22 07:10:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more technical
appreciation than others, could presumably be more valuable than that of
those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's may be in the higher range ?

Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top team,
rather than just as tokenism.

geoff
Alan Baker
2020-08-22 07:42:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more technical
appreciation than others, could presumably be more valuable than that of
those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's may be in the higher range ?
Sure. That is entirely possible.

But if you plunk the best test-driving, feedback-giving driver in the
world in the current Williams...

...it's not going to turn them into a winner.

Mercedes was far from "nowhere" when Hamilton joined them.
Post by geoff
Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top team,
rather than just as tokenism.
I don't know why you bring that up, as I have never once thought or said
anything remotely like that.

I'll say it again: Hamilton is one of the very best currently out there.

I'm just not into the hero worship. I don't think he's the GOAT, because
I think there's a very good chance that in equal machinery, there are
two or three other drivers out there who would be as fast.
geoff
2020-08-22 09:18:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more technical
appreciation than others, could presumably be more valuable than that
of those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's may be in the higher range ?
Sure. That is entirely possible.
But if you plunk the best test-driving, feedback-giving driver in the
world in the current Williams...
...it's not going to turn them into a winner.
Mercedes was far from "nowhere" when Hamilton joined them.
Post by geoff
Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top
team, rather than just as tokenism.
I don't know why you bring that up, as I have never once thought or said
anything remotely like that.
I'll say it again: Hamilton is one of the very best currently out there.
I'm just not into the hero worship. I don't think he's the GOAT, because
I think there's a very good chance that in equal machinery, there are
two or three other drivers out there who would be as fast.
What do you know that Merc don't ? Oh, that's right, they are
molly-coddling HAM and don't want him pushed, let alone beaten.

Just a few polite token victories to BOT to make it seem real.

geoff
News
2020-08-24 14:35:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more technical
appreciation than others, could presumably be more valuable than that of
those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's may be in the higher range ?
Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top team,
rather than just as tokenism.
geoff
Donohue among those at the top, in an era of limited data available.
Alan Baker
2020-08-24 17:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more technical
appreciation than others, could presumably be more valuable than that
of those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's may be in the higher range ?
Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top
team, rather than just as tokenism.
geoff
Donohue among those at the top, in an era of limited data available.
"Limited data"?

Try "essentially no data".

Donahue died in 1975, and I doubt there was any "data" collected beyond
telltales for RPM, temperature, etc.
News
2020-08-24 18:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more technical
appreciation than others, could presumably be more valuable than that
of those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's may be in the higher range ?
Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top
team, rather than just as tokenism.
geoff
Donohue among those at the top, in an era of limited data available.
"Limited data"?
Try "essentially no data".
Donahue died in 1975, and I doubt there was any "data" collected beyond
telltales for RPM, temperature, etc.
Are you unaware of analog and digital, driver and chassis parameter,
data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late 1960s and early
1970s, even in SCCA regional racing?
Alan Baker
2020-08-24 21:25:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more
technical appreciation than others, could presumably be more
valuable than that of those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's may
be in the higher range ?
Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top
team, rather than just as tokenism.
geoff
Donohue among those at the top, in an era of limited data available.
"Limited data"?
Try "essentially no data".
Donahue died in 1975, and I doubt there was any "data" collected
beyond telltales for RPM, temperature, etc.
Are you unaware of analog and digital, driver and chassis parameter,
data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late 1960s and early
1970s, even in SCCA regional racing?
I bet you cannot produce a single example of one.

And "digital"? Get real.

In 1975, the very first computers that you could dream of calling
"personal" existed...

...but they were far too big and heavy to use on a racing car.

So what were these devices you think were capturing digital data at the
SCCA regional level?
News
2020-08-25 14:51:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more
technical appreciation than others, could presumably be more
valuable than that of those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's may
be in the higher range ?
Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top
team, rather than just as tokenism.
geoff
Donohue among those at the top, in an era of limited data available.
"Limited data"?
Try "essentially no data".
Donahue died in 1975, and I doubt there was any "data" collected
beyond telltales for RPM, temperature, etc.
Are you unaware of analog and digital, driver and chassis parameter,
data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing?
I bet you cannot produce a single example of one.
And "digital"? Get real.
In 1975, the very first computers that you could dream of calling
"personal" existed...
...but they were far too big and heavy to use on a racing car.
So what were these devices you think were capturing digital data at the
SCCA regional level?
Get out of your basement. The DAS world didn't start with the 8086 or
Apple's shit.

GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.

FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and home
brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work) on-vehicle
instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the early 1970s.

Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe.
Alan Baker
2020-08-25 16:55:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by Alan Baker
Post by News
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
The data being far, far, FAR more important than the feedback.
This isn't about Hamilton: it's true for all drivers.
However the feedback given by some drivers, maybe with more
technical appreciation than others, could presumably be more
valuable than that of those with lesser. Conceivable that HAM's
may be in the higher range ?
Maybe that is part of the reason why he has the top job at the top
team, rather than just as tokenism.
geoff
Donohue among those at the top, in an era of limited data available.
"Limited data"?
Try "essentially no data".
Donahue died in 1975, and I doubt there was any "data" collected
beyond telltales for RPM, temperature, etc.
Are you unaware of analog and digital, driver and chassis parameter,
data logging and analysis systems prevalent in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, even in SCCA regional racing?
I bet you cannot produce a single example of one.
And "digital"? Get real.
In 1975, the very first computers that you could dream of calling
"personal" existed...
...but they were far too big and heavy to use on a racing car.
So what were these devices you think were capturing digital data at
the SCCA regional level?
Get out of your basement. The DAS world didn't start with the 8086 or
Apple's shit.
GM and Ford had Digital Equipment Corporation PDP/LINC/MINC-based
on-vehicle instrumentation and data capture systems in the mid-1960s.
Were GM and FORD using them at SCCA races?
Post by News
FIA and SCCA National and even Regional racers had DEC-based and home
brew (derived from outdated, unclassified AFRL/RADC work) on-vehicle
instrumentation systems and data capture systems in the early 1970s.
So you keep claiming...

...but you cannot actually produce a single real example.
Post by News
Industrial DAS with radio-telemetry in the same timeframe.
And that is irrelevant.
Martin Harran
2020-08-21 08:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:10:05 +1200, ~misfit~
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:40:29 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Heron
Post by Dan the Man
Post by Heron
Why it's unfair to say Hamilton is winning only because of the car
https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/29680110/why-unfair-say-hamilton-only-winning-car
It goes without saying that HAM is top-notch as a driver, but he
wouldn't be doing this with a Williams, either.
Who would? But given time, who knows. Mercedes
was nowhere before Hamilton arrived.
That is complete nonsense.
Not entirely nonsense. In the 3 years prior to Hamilton joining them,
they had 2 fourths and a fifth. In his first season with them they got
second and they have won it every year since. Of course Hamilton might
just have been lucky in timing his move despite commentators almost
universally condemning it as a dumb move or maybe, just maybe, he
played a key role in helping them to bring their car to the heights
they achieved.
Schumacher was widely recognised for the contribution he made to the
success of the Ferrari car of his era by the way he worked closely
with the design and engineering staff. Hamilton doesn't get the same
public acclaim for his contribution to design and engineering at
Mercedes but I suspect it is every bit as important as Schumacher's
was to Ferrari.
I'm with you on that. I think that the way Hamilton commits everything to going faster / winning
races / doing better inspires a team - and it did Mercedes. He includes and inspires everyone who
works with him, his motto could be 'we win and lose as a team'.
Toto recognises that which is why he's not only friends with Hamilton now but the moment Hamilton
communicated that he wanted to champion BLM Toto had the F1 (and Formula E) cars painted black. If
that doesn't say he's considered a very important part of the wider team I don't know what does.
Also Rosberg saw how the team responded to Hamilton, especially the team who worked most closely
with him on his side of the garage. That's why he leveraged his seniority to talk Toto into playing
musical chairs with the engineers - something that destabilised Hamilton for long enough so that
Rosberg managed to steal a WDC (and run).
I think that it's more than just Hamilton's communication with engineers, it's also his infectious
drive and enthusiasm that motivates the team to do better each week. I think that Mercedes success
has as much to do with Hamilton as his does with theirs.
When Hamilton does well, he always share the plaudits with the team
and invariably refers to the people behind the scenes, those back at
the plant. It comes across as genuine.
Post by ~misfit~
(The above based on observation and opinion only.)
Loading...