rec.autos.simulators

by **Tim Wheatle** » Sat, 22 May 1999 04:00:00

The point is....... A MODERN F1 car is driven to the limit......
a 1967 F1 car was driven to the limit....... It was just as difficult to be
number 1 in 1967 as it is today, and it's just as difficult today as it was
in 1967.... are you seriously thinking that Michael Schumacher finds it
'easy' to get a pole? no, i think not, he has to push like hell to get a
time... Just like Jim Clark used to when he wanted pole. Get the message?
good.

Driving on the limit, is driving on the limit.
--
Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley
________________________________________________

Tim Wheatley
"Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror"
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

http://www.racesimcentral.net/~nascar
________________________________________________

by **J M Tinne** » Sat, 22 May 1999 04:00:00

> On Thu, 20 May 1999 22:31:51 +0100, "J M Tinney"

> Graham Hill certainly knows a lot, but shouldn't we ask a person that
> - as a driver has won GPs in 3 different decades plus 3 world
> championships
> - as car constructor (co-)developed cars in 3 different decades with
> great success
> - and is still alive?

> Papy did. ;-)

> --
> Matthias Flatt

An interesting argument there, Matthias. However, Graham Hill's F1 career
was longer than Jack Brabham's (Hill 1958-1975, Brabham 1955-1970). Hill
also developed his own chassis. Hill drove more Grands Prix (176 to
Brabham's 126) and scored more points. Whether or not Papy consulted with
Brabham or not does not change the fact that Hill (a man who unlike you or
me actually drove these cars) still thought that the cars of the sixties
were easier to drive than those of the seventies.

Matthew.

by **John Walla** » Sat, 22 May 1999 04:00:00

On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:23:05 +0100, "Tim Wheatley"

>The point is....... A MODERN F1 car is driven to the limit......
>a 1967 F1 car was driven to the limit....... It was just as difficult to be
>number 1 in 1967 as it is today, and it's just as difficult today as it was
>in 1967.... are you seriously thinking that Michael Schumacher finds it
>'easy' to get a pole? no, i think not, he has to push like hell to get a
>time... Just like Jim Clark used to when he wanted pole. Get the message?
>good.

>Driving on the limit, is driving on the limit.

You are claiming then that driving the GPL F3 car on the limit is as
difficult as driving the F1 car on the limit? Or that a Reliant Robin
on the limit is as difficult as a Ferrari 355?

Driving on the limit is _not_ the same irrespective of the car you are
driving - the turbo era F1 cars snapped around _real_ quick when
turbos were unrefined and the power burst in at once, cars with skirts
were similar when the aero integrity was compromised. All cars are
certainly challenging to drive on the limit, but to say they are all
equally challenging is nonsense.

Cheers!
John

by **Michael Barlo** » Sat, 22 May 1999 04:00:00

I don't think he said they were equally challenging.. He said, "When your on
the limit...." Driving an F3 "on the limit" is just as hard as driving a space
shuttle around a GP track, "on the limit". If you are in control of your F3
car, then you're not "on the limit".

That's my take on what he's trying to say.

Mike Barlow

> On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:23:05 +0100, "Tim Wheatley"

> >The point is....... A MODERN F1 car is driven to the limit......
> >a 1967 F1 car was driven to the limit....... It was just as difficult to be
> >number 1 in 1967 as it is today, and it's just as difficult today as it was
> >in 1967.... are you seriously thinking that Michael Schumacher finds it
> >'easy' to get a pole? no, i think not, he has to push like hell to get a
> >time... Just like Jim Clark used to when he wanted pole. Get the message?
> >good.

> >Driving on the limit, is driving on the limit.

> You are claiming then that driving the GPL F3 car on the limit is as
> difficult as driving the F1 car on the limit? Or that a Reliant Robin
> on the limit is as difficult as a Ferrari 355?

> Driving on the limit is _not_ the same irrespective of the car you are
> driving - the turbo era F1 cars snapped around _real_ quick when
> turbos were unrefined and the power burst in at once, cars with skirts
> were similar when the aero integrity was compromised. All cars are
> certainly challenging to drive on the limit, but to say they are all
> equally challenging is nonsense.

> Cheers!
> John

--
=========================================
Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing?
=========================================
Member of R.O.R. 1999
http://www.pivot.net/~marknjess/ror.html
=========================================
Racing online with the help of......

Race Communications Association
http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html

Holodyne Engineering

Mystic Music

(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)

mikeba.vcf
< 1K Download

by **J M Tinne** » Sun, 23 May 1999 04:00:00

No, that's a very good point. The reason it is apparent that he is
referring to the sixties is that as indicated in my earlier post he made
that comment in 1975 talking about downforce being a contributing to the
greater speeds that made, in his opinion, driving harder, as well as the
fact that the 'earlier' cars you could be rougher with. If you take into
account what he and all the drivers who drove them said about the difficulty
of front engined cars you could, granted, preclude them. Remember he also
says that he did not find the Lotus 49 s hard to drive as Clark did. This
is partly down to their differing driving styles but also due to the fact
that Jim Clark did no testing on the Lotus because he was unable to return
to England so Hill had a lot more track time.

I posted his comment to say, not so much that we should find GPL easy,
rather to say that GPL ought to be no *more* difficult than a racing game
using the GPL physics engine but with modern cars.

Matthew.

> On Fri, 21 May 1999 20:37:08 +0100, "J M Tinney"

> >Whether or not Papy consulted with
> >Brabham or not does not change the fact that Hill (a man who unlike you
or
> >me actually drove these cars) still thought that the cars of the sixties
> >were easier to drive than those of the seventies.

> One thing though - was he referring to the late sixties cars or those from
> the late fifties / early sixties? The quote you gave only said "Racing has
> changed a lot since I started." The GPL era was actually closer to the end
> of his career than the start!

> Cheers,
> Richard

> --
> We all bump into each other every day of our lives, and we render our
opinions
> whether we know anything or not, and if anybody catches us out we lie...

by **J M Tinne** » Sun, 23 May 1999 04:00:00

Interestingly it is a similar reason that is given for the Lotus 49
(Cosworth) being a difficult car to drive. The Cosworth DFV delivered the
bulk of it's considerable power with a bang at 6,500 rpm.

by **Tim Wheatle** » Sun, 23 May 1999 04:00:00

DADA! someone here understands english ;O)

--
Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley
________________________________________________

Tim Wheatley
"Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror"
http://start.at/igps_stats
IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver
http://drive.to/grandprixlegends

http://website.lineone.net/~nascar
________________________________________________

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Wed, 26 May 1999 04:00:00

Depends which threads they've been reading. I've always been of the opinion that more
modern cars merely allow you to do the same tracks faster. When you're going as fast
as possible in *any* car it should be hard work, whether it's a 1960's VW Beetle or a
modern F1 Ferrari. The difference, as pointed to by the quote by Hill, is that the faster
you're going, the more unpredictable and uncontrollable the consequences when you
do finally push it over the limits.

Andrew McP

by **Matthias Fla** » Wed, 26 May 1999 04:00:00

On Fri, 21 May 1999 20:37:08 +0100, "J M Tinney"

>> Graham Hill certainly knows a lot, but shouldn't we ask a person that
>> - as a driver has won GPs in 3 different decades plus 3 world
>> championships
>> - as car constructor (co-)developed cars in 3 different decades with
>> great success
>> - and is still alive?
>> Papy did. ;-)
>An interesting argument there, Matthias. However, Graham Hill's F1 career
>was longer than Jack Brabham's (Hill 1958-1975, Brabham 1955-1970).

Sir Jack retired just in time before making a fool of himself, after a
season with a GP win..
Graham kept on trying years after a bad crash, at a Fangio-like age
(over 40), with very few success, and in uncompetitive cars (setup
problems, no grip etc.).
At the end, in 1975, he even failed to qualify in Monaco (were he won
a record 5 times). His last GP win was there, in 1969.
So, he simply does not know the 1970s cars from a winners perspective.
If he would had the chance to drive the winning cars (like Lotus 72,
Tyrrell, Ferrari 312T, McLaren M23), without setup problems etc., he
might have had another opinion.

Certainly with fewer success than Brabham, who was involved in 4
championship winning cars (1959,60,66,67).
Hill was not able to built a competitive car in the short time before
the airplane crash wiped out his team.

Hill was no contender after 1969, so in many of his GPs he was only an
"also ran".

Yes. Maybe even Brabham had this opinion, after taking part in the
development of wings and slicks. I hope he gave Papy good advice.

But my point was that Hill had big trouble in the 1970s F1 in bad
cars, while he was a winner in the 1960s in good cars, so his
judgement might reflect these personal experiences to some extent.
Stewart, on the other hand, won with winged cars, while his 1960s BRM
years were not that successful. I would like to know how he compares
his Tyrrells against a H16-BRM.

--
Matthias Flatt

rec.autos.simulators

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

E3 Rumours Run Rampant

** E3 Rumours Run Rampant **

E3 Rumours Run Rampant