|
|
Post by mikael on Jan 29, 2023 14:11:32 GMT
Just some rambles:
When reading that "F1 is considering active aerodynamics ‘tricks’ to handicap race leaders in 2026", I thought: so the car-following aerodynamic problems are still there, apparently. So the step taken to the '22 season was not quite enough. Why not take a proper step back, then, to the "real" wing cars (of the late 70's/early 80's) and start from there, rather than continuing with a patching-up approach?
Sometimes you have to take a (proper) step back in order to proceed.
Speaking about the aerodynamics, I guess the "porpoising" problem we saw at the start of the '22 season is now a problem of the past. But I would guess that the concept of the Lotus 88 "twin chassis" would be the ultimate cure of such "porpoising" instability problems.
The idea of the "twin chassis" wing car was so brilliant; and I don't really understand why that idea hasn't been revisited (in connection with the '22 car concept).
How did Chapman get that idea? My guess is that it came from the Lotus 49 with high wings, in 1968. There, the wings were mounted directly to the knuckles (as I believe they are called); that is to say, the wings were sprung only through the tyres, so extremely hardly sprung; and the car was thus sprung independently of the wings. So in this way, the concept of the Lotus 88 was already there.
The Lotus 88
The Lotus 49 with high wing(s).
Front wing mounted directly to the steering knuckles.
Rear wing mounted directly onto the rear knuckles.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Jan 30, 2023 17:52:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Jan 31, 2023 18:20:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Feb 2, 2023 19:22:48 GMT
It's a little sad state of things when the most interesting thing to see is who the sponsors are ... For sure we have entered the era of small design increments 
Maybe I'm becoming too negative now ...  |
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 3, 2023 12:51:22 GMT
It's a little sad state of things when the most interesting thing to see is who the sponsors are ... For sure we have entered the era of small design increments Maybe I'm becoming too negative now ... Yes, it's a trend of which I'm not a fan either. As I said above, show us the car! Today the presentation of the new Red Bull is planned and it should be (fingers crossed) the real car, not just a sponsor thingy. Okay, it will not have all the fine details on it but it would be nice if the presented car is basically real. And if we are going to see some design surprises as last year remains a question for now... let's wait and see. |
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 3, 2023 17:49:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 3, 2023 18:45:08 GMT
Oracle is defined as "a priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was sought from the gods in classical antiquity" Although Helmut or Horner may see themselves as priest or priestess, we want no advice or prophecy...
...Just show us the car
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 3, 2023 19:38:52 GMT
We should start a petition: ‘Just show us the damn car!’  |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Feb 4, 2023 9:41:54 GMT
I would have thought one of the first things to go under the cost cap regime would be wasteful car launches, especially ones that add nothing to ones knowledge of the year ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 4, 2023 11:17:39 GMT
I would have thought one of the first things to go under the cost cap regime would be wasteful car launches, especially ones that add nothing to ones knowledge of the year ahead. Yep, watched a (very) small part of the Red Bull show in New York yesterday and it was: - Not interesting
- Nothing new
- Expensive
.. in other words, a none event.  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Feb 4, 2023 11:41:08 GMT
have just watched the 1minute 11 second KTM GP bike launch, it was appears to be an empty warehoue with just two bikes and the two riders and various fancy camera angles, probably cost next to nought, KTM would rather spend their money on employing a new test rider to help them up the grid,
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 4, 2023 11:43:06 GMT
Oracle is defined as "a priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was sought from the gods in classical antiquity" Although Helmut or Horner may see themselves as priest or priestess, we want no advice or prophecy... ...Just show us the car
Talking about Marko, or citron face as I believe JC used to call him  , he does have an occasional clear moment still when he says something sensible. On a recent German tv interview he said the clampdown on political speech in F1 is " clearly wrong". "The drivers are responsible citizens who are in the global public eye and who know what they have to say and how. In general we are in a democratic society and everyone can express their opinion."And on the matter of a possible Saudi ownership of F1: "I think it wouldn't be so good if it went to a country that is culturally different from where most of the races take place. And generally in these commercial matters, it's more likely to happen with someone who meets normal corporate standards, if you want to put it that way."Way to go Helmut! |
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Feb 4, 2023 13:14:57 GMT
Please excuse me if we have had a similar discussion already; I have a vague recollection that we might have ...
Nonetheless, with the success of Max Verstappen, and the demise of (or at least, the stall of) Mick Schumacher's F1 career, I came to wonder if Max Verstappen isn't a "rare bird", in the sense that he's a second-generation (i.e. son of a former GP driver) driver who is significantly more talented than his father (was).
With the possible exception of Alberto Ascari, no other second-generation GP driver comes to mind, who actually was/is better - or more talented - than his father.
Some have been more successful, for sure. Kevin Magnussen, for example, has now enjoyed a longer F1 career than Jan Magnussen managed to do. Still, Jan's talent was on another level, as I understand it; his F1 career went down the drain because (i) he was very disorganized as a person and (ii) as a test-driver, he had little or no talent.
Jaques Villeneuve managed to become a World Champion, something his father Gilles didn't manage; but still, the "raw" talent of Gilles was probably on another level.
Nico Rosberg managed to achieve as much as his father Keke did in F1, but Keke was completely "self-made", as I understand it; hence, I believe, his talent may have been greater.
There are numerous other examples and cases ...
...
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 4, 2023 13:42:26 GMT
It's an interesting one for sure, Mikael. I agree that Max is exceptionally talented, more so than his dad. But it has to be said that when Jos was young and winning in F3, he was seen as a very bright talent and even presented as 'the next big thing' on the Autosport cover somewhere in '93 if I remember correctly. Jos was probably a bit like Jan Magnussen in that he was too unpolished as a driver and as a person. His background and education just wasn't on the level that could support him properly, unlike his son now. Max is prepped in a way that probably no other driver has ever experienced before. Jos's personal project. Gilles and Jacques most certainly. Gilles' raw talent was a once in a generation thing. But Jacques was certainly very talented also. You don't win the IndyCar title, the Indy 500 and the F1 title without heaps of talent. But on pure talent I would say Gilles, yes. The Hills are also interesting. Graham is often overlooked in discussions about the 'best ever' while his achievements are truly unique. Damon was also a big talent but probably started too late in cars due to his love for bikes. He could have achieved more I believe. And what about the American scene? Mario Andretti is a legend of the sport having won so much in many different forms of racing. But his son Michael was a super talent in IndyCar and I still believe he had the talent to become an F1 star but the circumstances just weren't right at the time. Graham Rahal is clearly not as good as his dad Bobby but what about the Unsers? Al Unser jr. was also a super talent, F1 level talent, but didn't have the focus needed. Carl, any more? |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 4, 2023 17:47:49 GMT
Oracle is defined as "a priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was sought from the gods in classical antiquity" Although Helmut or Horner may see themselves as priest or priestess, we want no advice or prophecy... ...Just show us the car
Talking about Marko, or citron face as I believe JC used to call him , he does have an occasional clear moment still when he says something sensible. On a recent German tv interview he said the clampdown on political speech in F1 is " clearly wrong". "The drivers are responsible citizens who are in the global public eye and who know what they have to say and how. In general we are in a democratic society and everyone can express their opinion."And on the matter of a possible Saudi ownership of F1: "I think it wouldn't be so good if it went to a country that is culturally different from where most of the races take place. And generally in these commercial matters, it's more likely to happen with someone who meets normal corporate standards, if you want to put it that way."Way to go Helmut! When Helmut Marko voices an opinion, I always assume an ulterior motive. Most F1 drivers live in a world of wealth and privilege and have little understanding of ordinary existence. What they have to say usually reflects this disconnection. Instead of being concise, the good doctor "doctors" his opinions into bland generalization. He speaks to the importance of democracy, then does an acrobatic turn to embrace corporate standards, seldom in accordance with democracy. He's absolutely right about the risk to the sport of Saudi ownership, but launders his reasoning into political pablum without conviction.
|
|
