Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 11:28:55 GMT
It's crazy that drivers are instructed to slow down, and then slow down further, to finish in a good position. Formula One needs to outlaw radio tutorials, Pirelli needs competition, and car control needs to be placed back in the drivers' hands. I'd have to differ from you there Carl, I'm okay with the fact F1 is a technology driven team sport. For me the drivers are there to execute the team strategy to the best of their ability - I get more irritated when they forget they are part of a team and put their own ambitions or ego's ahead of the team - that's why I like to beat up on Ver-crash-en's stupid behaviour this season. I understand the drivers are very skilled, and some are charismatic, but because I'm an engineer, I'm more interested in the ability of the designers, engineers, strategists etc to provide a great car and work as a team (including the driver) to get the best result out of it. On the other hand, I do enjoy a good spec series where the ability of the driver plays a bigger role in getting the result - like F2 and F3 |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 4, 2018 16:28:55 GMT
It's crazy that drivers are instructed to slow down, and then slow down further, to finish in a good position. Formula One needs to outlaw radio tutorials, Pirelli needs competition, and car control needs to be placed back in the drivers' hands. I'd have to differ from you there Carl, I'm okay with the fact F1 is a technology driven team sport. For me the drivers are there to execute the team strategy to the best of their ability - I get more irritated when they forget they are part of a team and put their own ambitions or ego's ahead of the team - that's why I like to beat up on Ver-crash-en's stupid behaviour this season. I understand the drivers are very skilled, and some are charismatic, but because I'm an engineer, I'm more interested in the ability of the designers, engineers, strategists etc to provide a great car and work as a team (including the driver) to get the best result out of it. On the other hand, I do enjoy a good spec series where the ability of the driver plays a bigger role in getting the result - like F2 and F3 A good relationship is often defined by the differences of opinion that provide interest.  |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Jun 4, 2018 17:51:58 GMT
While searching for some repair details on YouTube for my Kubota mower I came across this absolute gem of a film(s). Much of Part 3 we have seen before as it was posted on the MS Forum some while back, however Parts 1 & 2 are superb with cameos of Grand Prix drivers of the time out of the cockpit. Some lovely footage of Jim Clark walking his Collie in the countryside that resonates so much for me, and of Colin Chapman at home, in the Lotus factory and climbing into his airplane with Jim Clark. Wonderful material for us all to enjoy. That was delightful to watch thank you Charles. So those would have been the 1.5 litre engines, in light weight streamlined cars, with treaded tyres and no seat belts! Motorsport, and many aspects of life, was very much different in the 60's. One wee nugget I did read about from the 1965 British GP has echos in today's racing (specifically this years Monaco GP). Towards the end of the race Jim Clark was losing oil pressure, so was cutting the engine in fast corners to avoid seizing, while trying to maintain his lead over a Graham Hill (who was probably having tyre graining problems, lol). Jim, Pleased to hear that you enjoyed the films, they really are treasures and from a very different time. The 1965 British GP was an outstanding example of the genius that was Jim Clark, as were so many of his races victories which exemplified his extraordinary ability to bring home an ailing vehicle. Colin Chapman was also a genius with regard to design capability, and he more than any other brought so much to motor car design from his racing cars, even to this very day. It may appear that I am a Luddite when it comes to modern race car design following some, if not many, of my comments. However that could not be further from the truth as I am from a Design & Technology background and embrace so much of those concepts. However that being said I am not so wrapped up in these intricacies that I cannot see the problems they are bringing on society in general. The question one has to ask oneself is "where does it all end, and how much artificial support do we as humans need to remain totally in control"? To my way of thinking computer programming and ultra clever electronics are taking away human skills, and this is even more apparent in Formula One and most other motor sports. Aerodynamics are also very interesting but one really has to stand back and really look at what they are doing to the sport. I often read some of the total garbage written by the uneducated on some sites where they mention that the answer to everything is to bring back "ground effect". These fools have no concept of the idea, let alone the reasoning behind it being banned at the end of 1982. JC |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 11:09:59 GMT
Jim, The question one has to ask oneself is "where does it all end, and how much artificial support do we as humans need to remain totally in control"? To my way of thinking computer programming and ultra clever electronics are taking away human skills, and this is even more apparent in Formula One and most other motor sports. Aerodynamics are also very interesting but one really has to stand back and really look at what they are doing to the sport. I often read some of the total garbage written by the uneducated on some sites where they mention that the answer to everything is to bring back "ground effect". These fools have no concept of the idea, let alone the reasoning behind it being banned at the end of 1982. JC Cheers JC (I see that your rank is God, but with those initials, you must also be your own son). I can see your point, if there were no restrictions on F1 we'd have cars with so much aero, automation and performance that the g-forces would kill the driver, but a driver would be unnecessary because the cars automation would be driving anyway. There is huge conflict between what could be done technically, what can be controlled by a human, what actually makes for an interesting spectacle that millions of fans would invest time and money in following. I'm not sure how that conflict can be resolved, maybe L.M need to completely reset the challenge, something completely different from current F1 so that teams have a new and relevant challenge to work on - I'm not sure what that challenge could be. |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Jun 5, 2018 11:49:22 GMT
Jim, The question one has to ask oneself is "where does it all end, and how much artificial support do we as humans need to remain totally in control"? To my way of thinking computer programming and ultra clever electronics are taking away human skills, and this is even more apparent in Formula One and most other motor sports. Aerodynamics are also very interesting but one really has to stand back and really look at what they are doing to the sport. I often read some of the total garbage written by the uneducated on some sites where they mention that the answer to everything is to bring back "ground effect". These fools have no concept of the idea, let alone the reasoning behind it being banned at the end of 1982. JC Cheers JC (I see that your rank is God, but with those initials, you must also be your own son). I can see your point, if there were no restrictions on F1 we'd have cars with so much aero, automation and performance that the g-forces would kill the driver, but a driver would be unnecessary because the cars automation would be driving anyway. There is huge conflict between what could be done technically, what can be controlled by a human, what actually makes for an interesting spectacle that millions of fans would invest time and money in following. I'm not sure how that conflict can be resolved, maybe L.M need to completely reset the challenge, something completely different from current F1 so that teams have a new and relevant challenge to work on - I'm not sure what that challenge could be. Ha! Ha! Jim, I am therefore son of myself   . Maybe Formula E is the new way...... I jest! Not only would the "G" Forces kill the driver but every circuit would be redundant, as would paying spectators for they would have to be sighted so far from the track they would be in another district. It is a very difficult conflict to resolve indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jun 6, 2018 7:09:17 GMT
JC I haven't had a spare and totally relaxed time yet to watch your posted videos but I will. Reading some of the other posts on this thread re technology was very interesting. I am more old school and wish the bloody pit wall would shut up about tyre temps, fuel etc. Ricciardio's win at Monaco would have been more impressive to me had he acheived it without help from the pit wall.
I think when history looks back it will discover that the microchip may have caused more damage to the way modern mankind lives than good. It may make the world more efficient but not better for those whose jobs have been replaced and now can't find work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 6, 2018 15:17:03 GMT
JC I haven't had a spare and totally relaxed time yet to watch your posted videos but I will. Reading some of the other posts on this thread re technology was very interesting. I am more old school and wish the bloody pit wall would shut up about tyre temps, fuel etc. Ricciardio's win at Monaco would have been more impressive to me had he acheived it without help from the pit wall. I think when history looks back it will discover that the microchip may have caused more damage to the way modern mankind lives than good. It may make the world more efficient but not better for those whose jobs have been replaced and now can't find work. I agree. Computer algorithms are like the Spock character, well-versed in sterile logic with no concept of beauty, sensual pleasure or emotion. They are creating a brave new world without soul, one eagerly accepted by too many. |
|
.