rec.autos.simulators

by **Byron Forbe** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> Engineering - multimillion dollar cars that break at the least
> provocation. Engineering that can't seem
> to build a car Nigel can fit into?

They break because there made to be as light as they can. Not much
point having an unbreakable car that laps 10 sec/lap slower than the
field. If you can understand that this point is exactly what makes the
eng side so critical ie making the pieces light enough whilst trying to
get them to go the distance, then you appreciate the eng side of things.
Much like drag racing where this is paramount. Oh, and Nigel's too fat
:)

Superior eng by McLaren! I'll be interested to see if they have the
extra brake pedal come next race. But I think their edge is more than
that. Seemed to me they had superior straight line speed as well.

Sprints are great but we're off topic now. Actually, a sim of Sprints
wouldn't be too bad :)

by **Byron Forbe** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction
> control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with
> F1 aerodynamics?

Once again, your implying that F1 is not a test bed for the auto
industry. As are many forms of motorsport, F1 being the most important.

As long as I can remember, but not particularly closely. Close enough
though to know this.

This would be 1 restriction I would agree with. Budget! Just don't
kill innovation! There is nothing like different cars with different
technology and seeing how they match up.

Thanks for being one of the people that did not tell us the result.
(Don't get race here in Aus till about 18 hours later) Unfortunately
someone else already did :( I just hope CART remains a driver's series
and F1 remains a drivers/engineers series. Being a mech eng dropout I
will always favour a format that puts the engineering side of things to
the fore.

by **Nathan Wo** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:55:13 +0100, Matthew Knutsen

>ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction
>control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with
>F1 aerodynamics?
>Tell me, how long have you been following F1?

If I remember correctly, ABS was pioneered on aircraft landing gear
first. However, the commercial applications to cars has been enhanced
from the technology in F1. ABS systems from 20 years ago are almost
too primitive to call ABS compared to todays systems.
You could also argue that F1 cars help Renault, Ford, Honda, Peugeot
and Ferrari to develop new technology and materials which we will see
in future cars.
--
Nathan Wong http://www.nectar.com.au/~alfacors
- Super Touring - Alfa Romeo -

- V8Supercars - CART -

by **Pete** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> > Mansell said the same thing but was back at Williams like a shot ...

> He was? My memory says he attempted to return to F1 with McLaren but
> they couldn't get the***pit to fit his fat arse :) I don't know the
> exact story but it seemed he just said "stuff it" and has not been heard
> of since! I think that idiot running up his arse coming out of the pits
> at Indy and ending up on top of Mansell's head and the consequent
> scolding he got from a little radiator water was a large prompt for him
> to kiss CART good bye. That and the fact that he'd already been there,
> done that.

Your memory is correct, Mansell didn't fit the original MP4/10 monocoque
so was replaced for the first two races by Mark Blundell (who is not all
that slim himself) who had no complaints. When he did return in Spain
he drove around in the mid field complaining that the car was
undriveable. Question is, if it was that bad why was Hakkinen running a
strong third in an identical car???

Bottom line is Mansell has a somewhat overinflated opinion of himself.
His failure to recognise that he was gifted the F1 WC by Williams thanks
to team orders only underlines that.

by **Pete** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> >Have you ever experienced 4.5G? Or even 3G which is achieved under
> >heavy braking? Ever gone from standstill to 160mph in less than
> >4seconds? Or from 0-160mp and back to 0 in 4.5secs?

> I have, in aircraft, but no one was paying to watch me. You ignored the other
> part of my statement, about 35mph chicanes. THAT's what I won't pay to watch,
> especially on 'street' circuits resembling medium-security prisons.

> Racing, to me, should at least include cars going fast in close proximity to
> other cars, on a track I can see more than 150 feet of without looking at a
> "Jumbotron".

> MW

OK so that would be circuits like Silverstone where the Copse grandstand
affords a clear view of the full 600yd length of the start/finish
straight, through one of the fastest turns on the circuit and virtually
the full run down to Stowe (1 mile) including the fast Beckets complex.

Brands Hatch - Most sites will allow a complete view of the Indy Circuit
and most of the GP circuit.

by **Pete** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> >If you had any idea about physics you would realise that it's impossible
> >to generate anything like 4.5g in a 35mph chicane - which there are very
> >few of BTW, most tend to be of the order of 70-100mph.

> Well, it LOOKS like 35mph, just like soccer LOOKS like no one's exerting any
> effort for hours at a time.

It would appear to me that you have a problem appreciating skill when
you see it. Just because neither team scores over 100 points it doesn't
mean that the teams aren't putting the effort in. Remember soccer isn't
like American sports, you can't just change the team if your losing or
stop the game if you're getting tired.

The cars would run quite happily with the chicanes removed but the FIA,
in their infinite wisdom, believe that the chicanes improve safety. I
would tend to agree that a driver has a better chance of surviving a
short trip into the kitty litter than a 200+ mph head on impact into a
concrete wall followed by 10 further secondary impacts due to the
following pack whose cars are so heavy and unwieldy that they are unable
to avoid the poor corpse.

by **Grit** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Surprisingly enough, I think F1 and NASCAR have more
in common than you might think.
Mostly, I think they are both races of "subtlety".
The die-hard fan of each of these leagues enjoys them
because they have spent enough time watching them to see that
there is more there than a casual observation would indicate.
There's plenty of exitement, stategy, skill and plain old
racin' goin' on in both. You just have learn what the subtleties
are.

Now, saying that one has more skill or is more difficult
than the other is completely inane. Apples and oranges, man.

Gritz (long time reader, first time poster)

"If stupidity got us into this mess,
why can't it get us out"?
Roy Rogers

> Yeh, they race around in circles continually, with the car biased into
> the turns. Thats real racing is it ? How often do NASCAR drivers have
> to break from 200mph down to 60mph at a hairpin ? How often do NASCAR
> drivers actually have to use the brake in a race ? and I mean proper
> braking, not just slowing down a little bit !

> Sorry, but F1 will always be more popular. NASCAR is just too boring to
> watch. IMHO.

> Regards

> Andrew

> > On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:54:16 +1100, Bruce Kennewell

> > }> all's they do is stay in line, and supposedly race for
> > }> 2 hours.
> > }
> > }And the difference between NASCAR and F1 is......?

> > Well, in NASCAR, they actually race.

> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Dave Starr

by **Piers C. Structure** » Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Oh come on. Hill very nearly won at Hungary last year, the fact that he
bought the car home 2nd, let alone led for much of the race is a
testemant to his driving skill. As for Jordan, shouldn't we wait and
see?

--
Suck The Goat

by **Matthew Knutse** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

ahem. Where were you last year?
I seem to remember poor Olivier touching the tires, breaking his car in
two, and crushing his legs. I also remember the crashes of Luyendyk and
Zanardi at Fontana. Corpse my back.

Matt

--

Matthew Birger Knutsen
Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut)

"Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw"
-Cale Yarborough

by **ANTHONY** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

David, obviosly being an autoworker, would seem to imply that you arenot
exactly educated, so your feeble brain is unable to grasp what true racing is
all about. Bill France needs the lower forms of life, in order to keep his
series growing. I have been to Europe quite often, and I can tell you that
they see Nascar as amusing, but trite. They have Touring cars that would put
your stock (if a rear wheel drive Taurus is stock) to shame.

by **Pete** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> > Peter said, wisely:

> > The cars would run quite happily with the chicanes removed but the
> > FIA,
> > in their infinite wisdom, believe that the chicanes improve safety. I

> > would tend to agree that a driver has a better chance of surviving a
> > short trip into the kitty litter than a 200+ mph head on impact into a

> > concrete wall followed by 10 further secondary impacts due to the
> > following pack whose cars are so heavy and unwieldy that they are
> > unable
> > to avoid the poor corpse.

> ahem. Where were you last year?
> I seem to remember poor Olivier touching the tires, breaking his car in
> two, and crushing his legs. I also remember the crashes of Luyendyk and
> Zanardi at Fontana. Corpse my back.

> Matt

> --

> Matthew Birger Knutsen
> Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sn.no/~kareknut)

> "Racing cars is like dancing with a chainsaw"
> -Cale Yarborough

I was actually watching the Canadian GP last year.

Panis suffered a suspension failure which caused the car to pitch into
the wall. This was a head-on collision which caused no structural
damage to the monocoque. Unfortunately for Panis the tyre barriers
directed him across the track and into the opposite wall. In normal
circumstances hitting the second wall would again have caused little
damage to the car because the wheel/suspension assembly is a very good
energy absorber. Unfortunately the wheels had been ripped off in the
initial impact and the side area of the monocoque took the impact. As a
direct result this years monocoques are wider and stronger in this area.

by **John Walla** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:55:13 +0100, Matthew Knutsen

>ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction
>control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with
>F1 aerodynamics?

Aerodynamics are still very much an unknown science, and being
furthered by the motorsports and aviation industries - particularly
F1. As for those inventions, they may not have been invented in F1 but
they were certainly developed - especially traction control. Then
there is electronic engine management (a legacy of the thirsty turbo
days), Honda's VTEC engine, active ride, semi-automatic 'boxes, paddle
shift, to say nothing of advances in safety and tyre technology.

I take it he was driving the short course and the F1 car running the
full F1 circuit? That was either a figment of someone's imagination or
the F1 car wasn't allowed out of third.

Cheers!
John

by **John Walla** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Actually his memory isn't all that correct :-) Mansell returned for
two (three?) races with Williams after his Indycar career finished
(Suzuka, Adelaide and perhaps Estoril?). He moved to McLaren only
after he couldn't get a Williams drive.

Yeah, his 22 GP wins prior to that were obviously just flukes....?
Mansell does have an overinflated opinion of himself, but he is a lot
more talented than you appear to be giving him credit for. Where were
Williams in 1990 when he joined them? Occasional race winners, but
nothing more than that. In the very next season Mansell pulled them
together and almost won the championship - the season after that he
did (only to have his second championship gifted to a certain French
magpie...). Of modern times I'd place Mansell behind only Senna,
Schumacher and Prost in terms of ability, and F1 is much poorer for
the absence of real characters like him. Like him or loathe him, there
was always something controversial happening to him!

Cheers!
John

by **Paul Godfre** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> > We need no more evidence of this than Damon Hill's adventures. A
> > champion in Williams, a backmarker in Arrows, and a midpacker in a
> > Jordan.

> Oh come on. Hill very nearly won at Hungary last year, the fact that he
> bought the car home 2nd, let alone led for much of the race is a
> testemant to his driving skill. As for Jordan, shouldn't we wait and
> see?

But we can't forget that he was out-qualified on several occasions by
his team-mate, Pedro Diniz, who was thought of as a lowly pay-driver who
only got the ride due to close ties with sponsors=money. Damon is quick,
but his motivation is questionable sometimes.

Paul

by **Goy Larse** » Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:00:00

> On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:55:13 +0100, Matthew Knutsen

> >ABS was not something "discovered" in F1. Neither was traction
> >control.Tell me exactly what family sedan aerodynamics have to do with
> >F1 aerodynamics?

> Aerodynamics are still very much an unknown science, and being
> furthered by the motorsports and aviation industries - particularly
> F1. As for those inventions, they may not have been invented in F1 but
> they were certainly developed - especially traction control. Then
> there is electronic engine management (a legacy of the thirsty turbo
> days), Honda's VTEC engine, active ride, semi-automatic 'boxes, paddle
> shift, to say nothing of advances in safety and tyre technology.

> >Henri Toivonen drove his Lancia Delta S4 quick enough around the
> >Silverstone GP circuit to outqualify several F1s.....

> I take it he was driving the short course and the F1 car running the
> full F1 circuit? That was either a figment of someone's imagination or
> the F1 car wasn't allowed out of third.

> Cheers!
> John

Well I can`t say that it "is" true as I was not present at the time, but
it was reported in several major car magazines, read it in "Auto Motor
und Sport" myself.

It has to be said that The Group B rally cars of the time had more
horsepower than the backmarkers in F1 running customer Ford V8 engines,
I think the Delta S4 produced some 650-700 HP at sprint events, maybe
even more. Talk about engineering on the loose, Turbocharging AND
supercharging + waterinjection, I was fortunate enough to see those cars
run in anger in Sweden the last year they were running (1986 ?), and
they were truly awesome, ugly as sin and quick as ...., well you get the
picture :-).

And then there was the sound, one journalist described it as a "chainsaw
on the loose", and I have to say it sounded like nothing I have ever
heard before, although soundwise I preferred the MG Metro 6R4

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
Unclegoy on TEN

rec.autos.simulators

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights

OFF topic: ESPN loses F1 rights