rec.autos.simulators

by **Asbj?rn Bj?rnst** » Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:45:31

> >Frankly, no. Formula One is currently not very exciting - and whilst some
> >changes to the tracks MIGHT improve things - it is the cars that are the
> >root cause - not the venues.

> I agree with most of the other points you mentioned, but not this one.
> The racing is probably better this year than other years, but still
> not anywhere near where it could go. The problem is twofold - the cars
> AND the tracks.

Bernie Ecclestone was at the GP races in Estoril yesterday, probably
to see some real racing. Let's hope he realized how fun it was to watch
drivers overtake each other.
What a finish in the 125 class... 11 thousands of a second was the
difference between 1. and 2. And about .1 second between 3. and 4.
--
-asbjxrn

by **Rafe McAulif** » Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:32:19

>> >Frankly, no. Formula One is currently not very exciting - and whilst some
>> >changes to the tracks MIGHT improve things - it is the cars that are the
>> >root cause - not the venues.

>> I agree with most of the other points you mentioned, but not this one.
>> The racing is probably better this year than other years, but still
>> not anywhere near where it could go. The problem is twofold - the cars
>> AND the tracks.

>Bernie Ecclestone was at the GP races in Estoril yesterday, probably
>to see some real racing. Let's hope he realized how fun it was to watch
>drivers overtake each other.
>What a finish in the 125 class... 11 thousands of a second was the
>difference between 1. and 2. And about .1 second between 3. and 4.

Yep, the bikes are always good entertainment, no doubt about it. No
aero aids is a beautiful thing :D

Rafe Mc

by **Gregor Vebl** » Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:39:42

What do you mean, no aero aids? Don't they put their legs close to the
ground to produce ground effects ;)?

-Gregor

> Yep, the bikes are always good entertainment, no doubt about it. No
> aero aids is a beautiful thing :D

> Rafe Mc

by JM » Tue, 11 Sep 2001 21:09:48

What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances
though?

John

by **Anton Norup Soerense** » Tue, 11 Sep 2001 22:39:35

> What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances
> though?

Easy - remove those ***y wings!

Anton

by JM » Tue, 11 Sep 2001 23:35:07

> > What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances
> > though?

> Easy - remove those ***y wings!

> Anton

Interesting point, when they had aeros on the BTCC touring cars it made it
harder for them to brake effectively...

cheers
John

by **Mario Petrinovi** » Wed, 12 Sep 2001 04:06:09

No carbon brakes. Known solution.

by **Jonny Hodgso** » Wed, 12 Sep 2001 07:00:12

> > What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking
distances
> > though?
> No carbon brakes. Known solution.

Doesn't help. The advantage of carbon brakes is lower unsprung mass,
not greater stopping power - that's limited by the tyres in any case.

Jonny

by **Rafe McAulif** » Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:30:05

Not sure if that is really necassary - most teams would CHOOSE to run
less wing. More mech grip means less need for aero grip. Braking
distances therefore wouldn't change much IMO. Less efficient at high
speed, more efficient at low speed. Also, more efficient when
following another car.

Rafe Mc

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Anton Norup Soerensen

>> What's the alternative to stop further reduction in braking distances
>> though?

>Easy - remove those ***y wings!

>Anton

by **Rafe McAulif** » Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:32:18

Mostly true but not entirely. Carbon brakes allow the brakes to run a
LOT hotter, resulting in better heat dissipation. Zanardi tested steel
brakes a fair bit, he was usually only 2 secs off the pace. Depends on
how you rate Zanardi's pace tho :P

Rafe Mc

by **Rafe McAulif** » Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:33:50

That's right. I think they should also ban the drivers from hiding
behind the fairing on the straights. Doesn't that come under "moveable
aero aids", which have been banned a long while??? :P

Rafe Mc

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:39:42 +0200, Gregor Veble

>What do you mean, no aero aids? Don't they put their legs close to the
>ground to produce ground effects ;)?

>-Gregor

by **Gregor Vebl** » Wed, 12 Sep 2001 17:03:37

Not necessarily; at high speeds when downforce is *** there might
not be enough braking power available to use all the tyre potential. I
have no clue, though, whether this is true, but it is possible, and even
if not, probably only the new materials would allow the brakes to
operate at such a stopping power lap after lap.

-Gregor

> Doesn't help. The advantage of carbon brakes is lower unsprung mass,
> not greater stopping power - that's limited by the tyres in any case.

> Jonny

by **Jonny Hodgso** » Thu, 13 Sep 2001 01:57:28

I

Probably true actually... but brake force is only a matter of friction
materials and mechanical advantage, and according to Race Tech a while
ago, cast-iron brakes can generate equal stopping power.

As Rafe mentioned, they'll at least do so with better heat rejection
which reduces cooling drag - but I stick to my original view that
braking distances will not increase noticeably by banning
carbon-carbon.

Note that they have banned *** alloys for calipers, though, which
were used to provide better brake 'feel' - it appears this is now
viewed as more significant than sheer friction.

Jonny

> > Doesn't help. The advantage of carbon brakes is lower unsprung
mass,
> > not greater stopping power - that's limited by the tyres in any
case.

> > Jonny

by **9Wright** » Fri, 21 Sep 2001 02:09:59

Um, The British GP is secured at Silverstone for like 20years or something
according to their contract.
However, if it doesn't come up to scratch soon it'll be dropped totally and
I'm glad to see Bernie agree with me when i say that it is unfair to say
that Britain should be allowed use a substandard venue and facilities just
because they are Britain and "we must have a British GP" when places like
Imola (!!!) are under threat.!

by **Douglas Elliso** » Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:17:03

Seing as Silverstone's paddock was rebuilt to Bernie's exacting standards in
1995 - what exactly does he want - and what is substandard about it.

It's painfully obvious that the tobacco sponsor's are on at the governing
body to pull out of countries where such advertising is banned - and as a
result - the FIA are trying to find any excuse they can to do this.

If the standard of the venue was the real issue - then Monaco, Hungaroring
and Brazil would be under real threat - NOT Silverstone.

Doug

rec.autos.simulators

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!

F1 is wrong!!!