The car or the driver?

I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If they do, they are god.

[email hidden] writes: > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > they do, they are god. to Arrows? not a chance. the car lacks what? 20-30 kph top speed? -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 FJ�SE!

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > they do, they are god. I'm not going to downplay MS's ability but he wins because: 1) he's a great (some say the best ever) driver 2) he has the best car He would not win in an Arrows or Minardi unless disaster struck the rest of the field. The best driver in the world can only get so much out of a "dog" car.

<[email hidden]> wrote > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > they do, they are god. Jacques Villeneuve went from Williams to BAR, and has had a horrible time. Damon Hill went from Williams to Arrows, and had a tough time but nearly won the 97 Hungarian GP, which would have been one of the all time shock results.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 20:13:43 GMT, "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'm not going to downplay MS's ability but he wins because: > >1) he's a great (some say the best ever) driver >2) he has the best car MS and JPM amazed me at Malaysia, when they fought back from far down to finish 2nd and 3rd. This proves they are good but how good? I'd be interesting to see them drive in a lower spec'd car. >He would not win in an Arrows or Minardi unless disaster struck the rest of >the field. The best driver in the world can only get so much out of a "dog" >car. Okay, so the Arrows doesn't have top speed but aren't all races won in the turns? Couldn't Arrows with a great driver, do well in a track will lots of turns and little straights? They'd probably do bad at the Hock and Indianapolis because of lack of HP.

On 20 Mar 2002 21:09:24 +0100, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>[email hidden] writes: > >> I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams >> and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS >> switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If >> they do, they are god. > >to Arrows? not a chance. the car lacks what? 20-30 kph top speed?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Williams have like 20hp more than the Ferrari? So does top speed matter that much since you can lose at lot of time in the corners if you don't hit the apex all the time?

"Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> [email hidden] writes: > > > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > > they do, they are god. > > to Arrows? not a chance. the car lacks what? 20-30 kph top speed?

Actually the Arrows have a very good engine, it's basically the same Ferrari engine as Ferrari use. Where arrows are let down is by drivers and the chassis. Look how Bernoldi was able to get back past MS on Sunday, that was all engine power, MS then got him back because he has a much better all round package and can brake later and carry more speed through a turn. Heckler

"RS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a7at7t$jvj9v$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> <[email hidden]> wrote > > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > > they do, they are god. > > Jacques Villeneuve went from Williams to BAR, and has had a horrible time. > > Damon Hill went from Williams to Arrows, and had a tough time but nearly

won > the 97 Hungarian GP, which would have been one of the all time shock > results. Was that the one where he had engine problems on the final lap and got passed on the last couple of turns ending up 2nd? I seem to recall that one. Heckler

Aren't Arrows using what was the AsiaTech/Peugeot engine? It's Sauber that has the 2001-spec Ferrari engines. Plus; it's tough to compare top-end speeds between teams without knowing how much relative downforce they have on for a given session. The cars that seem slow in the straights but quick in the turns may just be running more wing. SB "Heckler ����" <[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Actually the Arrows have a very good engine, it's basically the same Ferrari > engine as Ferrari use. Where arrows are let down is by drivers and the > chassis. Look how Bernoldi was able to get back past MS on Sunday, that was > all engine power, MS then got him back because he has a much better all > round package and can brake later and carry more speed through a turn. > > > Heckler > >

Arrows is using the Jaguar/Cosworth motor this year, just as the Jaguar team. Last year Arrwos used the asiatech engine which is in the Minardi this year. Eddy [email hidden] http://hetis.achterdepc.nl/ "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:ZB7m8.11346$[email hidden]... > Aren't Arrows using what was the AsiaTech/Peugeot engine? It's Sauberthat has the 2001-spec Ferrari engines. Plus; it's tough to > compare top-end speeds between teams without knowing how much relativedownforce they have on for a given session. The cars that > seem slow in the straights but quick in the turns may just be running morewing. > > SB > > > "Heckler ����" <[email hidden]> wrote... > > Actually the Arrows have a very good engine, it's basically the sameFerrari > > engine as Ferrari use. Where arrows are let down is by drivers and the > > chassis. Look how Bernoldi was able to get back past MS on Sunday, thatwas

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > all engine power, MS then got him back because he has a much better all > > round package and can brake later and carry more speed through a turn. > > > > > > Heckler > > > > > >

Right you are; forgot about that. thx, SB "Eddy Schulten" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V38m8.486996$hy4.19063059@Flipper...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> > Arrows is using the Jaguar/Cosworth motor this year, just as the Jaguar > team. > Last year Arrwos used the asiatech engine which is in the Minardi this year. > > Eddy > [email hidden] > http://hetis.achterdepc.nl/ > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht > news:ZB7m8.11346$[email hidden]... > > Aren't Arrows using what was the AsiaTech/Peugeot engine? It's Sauber > that has the 2001-spec Ferrari engines. Plus; it's tough to > > compare top-end speeds between teams without knowing how much relative > downforce they have on for a given session. The cars that > > seem slow in the straights but quick in the turns may just be running more > wing. > > > > SB > > > > > > "Heckler ����" <[email hidden]> wrote... > > > Actually the Arrows have a very good engine, it's basically the same > Ferrari > > > engine as Ferrari use. Where arrows are let down is by drivers and the > > > chassis. Look how Bernoldi was able to get back past MS on Sunday, that > was > > > all engine power, MS then got him back because he has a much better all > > > round package and can brake later and carry more speed through a turn. > > > > > > > > > Heckler > > > > > > > > > > > > >

[email hidden] writes: > Okay, so the Arrows doesn't have top speed but aren't all races won in > the turns? oh no. a superior driver may very well _pass_ a superior car in a turn, but there is no way an Arrows will stay ahead down the next straight. > Couldn't Arrows with a great driver, do well in a track > will lots of turns and little straights? They'd probably do bad at > the Hock and Indianapolis because of lack of HP. maybe. but I don't think there are any such tracks in F1. :) -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 silence is FOO!

[email hidden] writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On 20 Mar 2002 21:09:24 +0100, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >[email hidden] writes: > > > >> I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > >> and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > >> switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > >> they do, they are god. > > > >to Arrows? not a chance. the car lacks what? 20-30 kph top speed? > > Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Williams have like 20hp > more than the Ferrari?

no idea. where have you heard this? I'd thank that information was classified. still 820hp over 800 isn't much of an advantage. :) > So does top speed matter that much since you > can lose at lot of time in the corners if you don't hit the apex all > the time? in F1, fer sure. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 silence is FOO!

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On 20 Mar 2002 21:09:24 +0100, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Williams have like 20hp > more than the Ferrari? So does top speed matter that much since you > can lose at lot of time in the corners if you don't hit the apex all > the time?

More HP means you can run more downforce and still get the same speed on the straights. More downforce means you can get a better run coming out of the corner and are therefore more likely to be able to overtake someone. I honestly think the Williams is a better performing car overall, but if I'm not mistaken for one reason or another (reliability, crashes) the Willliams cars don't finish races as often as the Ferraris, therefore they haven't been scoring as well. IIRC on a good day Hakkinen in the Williams was unbeatable. My money's still on JPM for the championship.

[email hidden] wrote: > Okay, so the Arrows doesn't have top speed but aren't all races won in > the turns? Couldn't Arrows with a great driver, do well in a track > will lots of turns and little straights? They'd probably do bad at > the Hock and Indianapolis because of lack of HP. All races definitely aren't won in the turns! There are a lot of tracks where your overall lap time may be significantly faster if your car is good in the turns. This will help you in qualifying, for sure, but you will be at a disadvantage during the race because most passing occurs at the end of a long straight, where sheer horsepower is needed. What's interesting about this is that it is kind of the opposite of sim racing - where some folks will have a radical, hard to drive qualifying setup (with little wing) to get that one fast lap and then make it more drivable for the race. In F1, the teams will often use more wing for qualifying, because the compromise is faster, and then reduce the wing, making the car harder to drive, but capable of passing, for the race This strategy is used at tracks like Indy and Hockenheim. Watch the upcoming race in Brazil - a track with a very long straight. There's a good chance that Schumacher will put the Ferrari on pole, but I'll bet that the Williams will be able to get by on that straight and hold him off (that was pretty much the scenario last year, until Montoya was rear-ended by Verstappen). This is assuming that Ferrari runs the F12001. That being said, horsepower is only half the battle. At many races your statement about the race being won in the turns is more or less true - Monaco and Hungary being prime examples. But to be good in those turns you need to have a really well-designed car (aerodynamically). But the more powerful your engine, the more wing you can run, creating more grip. Arrows, by the way, has a pretty poor chassis, and isn't good in the turns at all (at least that was true last year). As far as drivers winning in lesser cars ... it can be done, but only to an extent. Nobody could win a race in a Minardi. When Schumacher went to Ferrari in 1996, the car was decidedly second rate (teammate Eddie Irvine referred to it as a brick). Schumacher was able to win three races that year - two of them in the rain (brilliant drive at Spain) and one at Monza, thanks to attrition (remember the incredibly bone-headed decision to put loose tires on the inside of the chicanes to prevent straight-lining?). Most of the surprising results in the past few years have been in the rain - where the car is less of a factor and the attrition is so high (Panis in the Ligier in Monaco in 1996, Herbert in the Stewart in 1999, etc.). A great driver can win in the rain in a car not capable of winning in the dry (not that I consider Panis or Herbert in that category - their wins were more due to attrition). A great driver could probably scrape a win or two here and there in a Sauber or a Renault at a track like Monaco or Hungary or in the rain. Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

Haqsau wrote: > I honestly think the Williams is a better performing car > overall, but if I'm not mistaken for one reason or another (reliability, > crashes) the Willliams cars don't finish races as often as the Ferraris, > therefore they haven't been scoring as well. IIRC on a good day > Hakkinen in the Williams was unbeatable. My money's still on JPM for > the championship. Hakkinen never drove a Williams. He drove a McLaren. Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

Very interesting... kind of logical, but I never thought about it that way before ;) Mikkel [SNIP] > All races definitely aren't won in the turns! There are a lot of trackswhere > your overall lap time may be significantly faster if your car is good inthe > turns. This will help you in qualifying, for sure, but you will be at a > disadvantage during the race because most passing occurs at the end of along > straight, where sheer horsepower is needed. What's interesting about thisis > that it is kind of the opposite of sim racing - where some folks will havea > radical, hard to drive qualifying setup (with little wing) to get that onefast > lap and then make it more drivable for the race. In F1, the teams willoften > use more wing for qualifying, because the compromise is faster, and thenreduce > the wing, making the car harder to drive, but capable of passing, for therace > This strategy is used at tracks like Indy and Hockenheim. [SNIP]

"Eddy Schulten" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V38m8.486996$hy4.19063059@Flipper... > > Arrows is using the Jaguar/Cosworth motor this year, just as the Jaguar > team. > Last year Arrwos used the asiatech engine which is in the Minardi thisyear. My mistake, so who IS using the Ferrari engines then? And if Arrows are using the same engine as Jaguar, then it just goes to highlight how bad the Jaguars are. heckler

David Ewing ([email hidden]) wrote on 21 Mar 2002: <snip> > As far as drivers winning in lesser cars ... it can be done, but > only to an extent. Nobody could win a race in a Minardi.<snip> ...though Pierluigi Martini got one on the front row once (I assume it rained partway through qualifying), and of course Damon Hill *very* nearly won in Hungary in an Arrows. -- "After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. The GPL Scrapyard: Back again! http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

It's a package: driver, car, team and $. The team is a huge part of the equation. MS knows that and has helped develop the Ferrari team (to Rubens' disadvantage!). MS and Senna started in inferior equipment and took positions with shear ability. It would take a while before MS could win in an Arrows or Minardi, but he'd give them some great runs while getting there. About the $, two old sayings in racing: 1. Speed costs money; how fast do you want to go? 2. You can make a small fortune in racing. Start with a large fortune. Check the budgets of the winning teams. Now check the Minardi budget. Jim [email hidden] wrote: > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > they do, they are god.

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > they do, they are god. Go take a look at Jacques Villeneuve's biography. -Jason

David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> David Ewing ([email hidden]) wrote on 21 Mar 2002: > <snip> >> As far as drivers winning in lesser cars ... it can be done, but >> only to an extent. Nobody could win a race in a Minardi. > <snip> > ...though Pierluigi Martini got one on the front row once (I assume it > rained partway through qualifying), and of course Damon Hill *very* > nearly won in Hungary in an Arrows.

I only started following F1 at the next year's American Grand Prix, but AFAIK those were the times when Minardi was strongly in the mid-pack rather than on the bottom. That race was the first race of 1990, and in the last three races of 1989 Martini (also then in Minardi) had qualified 5th, 4th and 3rd. Also, looks like he qualified in top ten five more times in 1990. I have a very vague recollection of hearing that Pirelli supplied their teams with very competitive qualifying tyres in those days. -- J. Sakari Salonen / [email hidden]

D'oh! Okay but I'm sticking to the rest of what I said. ;o) "David Ewing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Haqsau wrote: > > > I honestly think the Williams is a better performing car > > overall, but if I'm not mistaken for one reason or another(reliability, > > crashes) the Willliams cars don't finish races as often as theFerraris, > > therefore they haven't been scoring as well. IIRC on a good day > > Hakkinen in the Williams was unbeatable. My money's still on JPMfor

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > the championship. > > Hakkinen never drove a Williams. He drove a McLaren. > > Dave Ewing > > > -- > ***************************************************** > David A. Ewing > Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] > ***************************************************** > > >

"Heckler ����" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a7bcha$k8qco$[email hidden]... > > My mistake, so who IS using the Ferrari engines then? Sauber is using 2001's "Monza Spec" Ferrari engine. > And if Arrows are using the same engine as Jaguar, then it just goes to > highlight how bad the Jaguars are. Jaguar is having serious problems with their new car, the R3. -- Remove "688" to reply.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > they do, they are god. Villeneuve - BAR The car matters a lot.

"J Sakari Salonen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a7bem9$fe0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > David Ewing ([email hidden]) wrote on 21 Mar 2002: > > > <snip> > >> As far as drivers winning in lesser cars ... it can be done, but > >> only to an extent. Nobody could win a race in a Minardi. > > <snip> > > > ...though Pierluigi Martini got one on the front row once (I assume it > > rained partway through qualifying), and of course Damon Hill *very* > > nearly won in Hungary in an Arrows. > > I only started following F1 at the next year's American Grand Prix, but > AFAIK those were the times when Minardi was strongly in the mid-pack

rather

Quoted text (7 lines)

> than on the bottom. That race was the first race of 1990, and in the last > three races of 1989 Martini (also then in Minardi) had qualified 5th, 4th > and 3rd. Also, looks like he qualified in top ten five more times in 1990. > > I have a very vague recollection of hearing that Pirelli supplied their > teams with very competitive qualifying tyres in those days. >

At the end of the turbo era, the naturally aspirated engines were quite competitive. The turbos had boost restrictions (and also fuel efficiency concerns, I think), whereas teams like March could take a well-developed Cosworth and do quite well on certain tracks. Stephen

BMW has about 850bhp Ferrari F2001 modified engine, about 820-825bhp Mercedes Ilmor, about 800bhp These are not official, but almost everbody has been quoting them, so I guess they can't be far off. Also, the McLarens were about 1 sec a lap behind the BMW at Sepang, which is about 50bhp. It is true that a higher downforce car can be run with no reduction in top speed if you have that much more bhp. Wait until hockenheim, spa and other fast circuits (Sepang is quite fast, too) and see the Williams advantage with more downforce through the twisty bits, and still the same top speed as the Ferraris. I don't think Montoya will win the championship this year, because I simply don't thing he is good enough... yet. Next year my money is on him, but this year I think Michael will do it again. How amazing are the next few years in F1 going to be with Michael and JPM battling in out every race? It will be the first time in ages in F1 where I won't mind which of those two comes out on top, because they are both fantastic drivers. If only Montoya would stop trying to prove himself by doing Michael at every opportunity (turn 1, Sepang?). The onboard camera shows he didn't leave enough room, there is a limit to how quickly you can turn your car, especially on the dirty side of the track, and JPM didn't leave enough room. There are 2 lines around that corner, and turn 2 is a hairpin left which he would have been on the inside for. I'm not bitter, I would just have really loved to see MS and JPM battling for the WHOLE race. Nick.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:30:07 -0000, "Nick Govier" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>BMW has about 850bhp >Ferrari F2001 modified engine, about 820-825bhp >Mercedes Ilmor, about 800bhp > >These are not official, but almost everbody has been quoting them, so I >guess they can't be far off. Also, the McLarens were about 1 sec a lap >behind the BMW at Sepang, which is about 50bhp.

I know it's nitpicky, but the figures I've seen a lot from many different sources says: BMW at 870+ Ferrari at about 850 Mercedes/Ilmor slightly lower than the Ferrari Even Minardi's Asiatech is quoted at over 800. Which is a _huge_ improvement from last year's(actually '99 spec) Cosworth at about 750-760. Regarding BMW there's even rumours that it has hit 900hp in recent revisions, although they deny it throroughly.

"Nick Govier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aikm8.3477$[email hidden]... > I don't think Montoya will win the championship this year, because Isimply > don't thing he is good enough... yet. Next year my money is on him, butthis > year I think Michael will do it again. How amazing are the next few yearsin > F1 going to be with Michael and JPM battling in out every race? It will be > the first time in ages in F1 where I won't mind which of those two comesout > on top, because they are both fantastic drivers. RS is better than Montoya. Raikkonen is younger and much less experienced but has impressed me more. Heidfeld and maybe even Button are right with him as well. David G Fisher

Stephen F. ([email hidden]) wrote on 21 Mar 2002: > At the end of the turbo era, the naturally aspirated engines were > quite competitive.<snip> Ye-es. Except that we were talking about 1990, and the last turbo year was 1988! -- "After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. The GPL Scrapyard: Back again! http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

"Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c999758$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I'm kinda new to F1 but is there a driver that switched teams > > and started to win/lose more races? I'm wondering if JPM or MS > > switched to Arrows or Minardi, would they be leading the pack. If > > they do, they are god. > > Villeneuve - BAR > > The car matters a lot.

I've never really rated Villeneuve much as a driver. He had the best car that year... I'm not a huge fan of MS but he's one hell of a driver, maybe even the best... until the next one comes along. I like Eddie Irvine though, not one of the greatest drivers, but he's got style and is a huge loudmouth... and ya gotta respect a guy who speaks his mind rather than spouting the same old tired lines. Heckler

Haqsau wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On 20 Mar 2002 21:09:24 +0100, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Williams have like 20hp > > more than the Ferrari? So does top speed matter that much since you > > can lose at lot of time in the corners if you don't hit the apex all > > the time? > > More HP means you can run more downforce and still get the same speed on > the straights. More downforce means you can get a better run coming out > of the corner and are therefore more likely to be able to overtake > someone. >snip<

Hmm I wonder if someone will design wings which alter their 'angle of attack' (using some servo system tied in with the brake and accelerator?) during a lap, lowering it on the straights and increasing it in the turns? John DiFool

"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hmm I wonder if someone will design wings which alter their 'angle of > attack' > (using some servo system tied in with the brake and accelerator?) during > a lap, lowering it on the straights and increasing it in the turns? > Movable aerodynamic surfaces are explicitly forbidden by the current rules..

J Sakari Salonen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<a7bem9$fe0$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I only started following F1 at the next year's American Grand Prix, but > AFAIK those were the times when Minardi was strongly in the mid-pack rather > than on the bottom. That race was the first race of 1990, and in the last > three races of 1989 Martini (also then in Minardi) had qualified 5th, 4th > and 3rd. Also, looks like he qualified in top ten five more times in 1990. > > I have a very vague recollection of hearing that Pirelli supplied their > teams with very competitive qualifying tyres in those days.

Yep. Jean Alesi, driving for Tyrrell in 90 (by that point not a particularly competitive team) started the season in Phoenix by qualifying 4th on Pirellis and leading from the start until Senna in the McLaren caught him after approximately 20 laps in (if I remember correctly). The problem with the Pirellis is that they didn't hold up very well over long runs, but they were very very quick early on and during qualifying. Jason

"John DiFool"> > Hmm I wonder if someone will design wings which alter their 'angle of > attack' > (using some servo system tied in with the brake and accelerator?) during > a lap, lowering it on the straights and increasing it in the turns? > > John DiFool Jim Hall did that 30 + years ago with the Chapparall Can Am cars. He had a system where the rear wing laid flat until you pressed on the brakes...then the wing would rotate down to full downforce mode. The car was sometimes referred to as "the Flipper" I think it also almost killed him when a rear wing mount broke and he suffered some pretty big injuries... Can anyone fill in my hazy memory? dave henrie

"briGuy" < > > Movable aerodynamic surfaces are explicitly forbidden by the currentrules.. Thats why the tie rods are shapped to near winglike proportions in design and movement???? :) dave henrie

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XVwm8.88514$702.21070@sccrnsc02... > Can anyone fill in my hazy memory? No. ;o)

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cXwm8.86167$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "briGuy" < > > > > Movable aerodynamic surfaces are explicitly forbidden by the current > rules.. > > Thats why the tie rods are shapped to near winglike proportions in > design and movement???? :)

Well, I'm no scrutineer - here's what the FIA have to say: (taken from FIA's Technical Regulations - www.fia.com) 3.15 Aerodynamic influence : Any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance (with the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 in the pit lane only) : - Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork. - Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom). - Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car. I have heard that some designs for the control arms have been rejected by the FIA in the past based on the above, but I haven't seen any of the design details on this... briGuy

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a7e7e8$kk25l$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:XVwm8.88514$702.21070@sccrnsc02... > > > Can anyone fill in my hazy memory? > > No. ;o)

shush! ...on the Chapparall and Jim Hall...everything else IS to fuzzy.... :) dh

"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Stephen F. ([email hidden]) wrote on 21 Mar 2002: > > > At the end of the turbo era, the naturally aspirated engines were > > quite competitive. > <snip> > > Ye-es. Except that we were talking about 1990, and the last turbo year > was 1988! >

Oops. I checked Forix to see when Minardi was performing, and you're of course right. Still, some of my better F1 memories are solid drives by Capelli and Gugelmin in the March. S.

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "John DiFool"> > > Hmm I wonder if someone will design wings which alter their 'angle of > > attack' > > (using some servo system tied in with the brake and accelerator?) during > > a lap, lowering it on the straights and increasing it in the turns? > > > > John DiFool > > Jim Hall did that 30 + years ago with the Chapparall Can Am cars. He > had a system where the rear wing laid flat until you pressed on the > brakes...then the wing would rotate down to full downforce mode. The car > was sometimes referred to as "the Flipper" I think it also almost killed > him when a rear wing mount broke and he suffered some pretty big injuries... > Can anyone fill in my hazy memory?

You're right about Jim Hall's moving wing. However, the wing was controlled by a separate foot pedal. The car had automatic transmission, so there were was no clutch pedal. I believe the default position for the wing was to have full downforce and you had to push the pedal to straighten it out. You're memory about the crash, however, is faulty. Hall was seriously injured during the last race of the 1968 Can Am season at Las Vegas. Lothar Motschenbacher's (sp. ?) car dramatically slowed in front of him, causing Hall's car to hit the back of it, launching it in the air and landing upside down. Hall's legs were badly injured and he never raced again. He, of course, continued to design and build Chaparrals that others drove. You may be thinking of when Formula One borrowed Hall's ideas, a few years later. Hall came out with the wing on his 1966 Chaparral 2E Can-Am car. Formula One got around to it in 1968 (Lotus was the first, I believe), and did a pretty poor job initially. There were some nasty F1 crashes due to inadequately strong mounts. This caused the FIA to ban the high wings, which pissed Hall off. He then came back with some more radical designs to get around this, the ultimate one being the Chaparral 2J "Sucker" car. This one had two snowmobile engines sucking the air out from under the car. The box like skirt of the car would lower down, essentially creating a vacuum. This car had phenomenal grip. It theoretically could be driven upside down. Jackie Stewart, who drove it for one race, said he could go deeper into a turn with it then any car he had ever driven. Unfortunately, it suffered reliability early on and never finished a race. Shortly thereafter, the other teams/drivers lobbied to have the car banned, much to the detriment of the Can-Am series. The Formula Libre (anything goes) spirit of Can-Am was broken, Hall (the father of winged aerodynamics, ground effects, telemetry) left the series, and it was never the same. Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

? > > You're right about Jim Hall's moving wing. However, the wing wascontrolled by > a separate foot pedal. The car had automatic transmission, so there werewas no > clutch pedal. I believe the default position for the wing was to havefull > downforce and you had to push the pedal to straighten it out. > > You're memory about the crash, however, is faulty. Hall was seriouslyinjured > during the last race of the 1968 Can Am season at Las Vegas. Lothar > Motschenbacher's (sp. ?) car dramatically slowed in front of him, causing > Hall's car to hit the back of it, launching it in the air and landingupside > down. Hall's legs were badly injured and he never raced again. He, ofcourse, > continued to design and build Chaparrals that others drove. > > You may be thinking of when Formula One borrowed Hall's ideas, a few years > later. Hall came out with the wing on his 1966 Chaparral 2E Can-Am car. > Formula One got around to it in 1968 (Lotus was the first, I believe), anddid > a pretty poor job initially. There were some nasty F1 crashes due to > inadequately strong mounts. This caused the FIA to ban the high wings,which > pissed Hall off. > > He then came back with some more radical designs to get around this, the > ultimate one being the Chaparral 2J "Sucker" car. This one had twosnowmobile > engines sucking the air out from under the car. The box like skirt of thecar > would lower down, essentially creating a vacuum. This car had phenomenal > grip. It theoretically could be driven upside down. Jackie Stewart, whodrove > it for one race, said he could go deeper into a turn with it then any carhe > had ever driven. Unfortunately, it suffered reliability early on and never > finished a race. Shortly thereafter, the other teams/drivers lobbied tohave > the car banned, much to the detriment of the Can-Am series. The FormulaLibre > (anything goes) spirit of Can-Am was broken, Hall (the father of winged > aerodynamics, ground effects, telemetry) left the series, and it was neverthe > same. > > Dave Ewing Thanks Dave for the filler...I can still remember(probably wrongly tho..) the ABC wide world of Sports doing a quick showcase on the old 2c car....(everytime I saw the lat 90's BMW LMP cars I thought of that old racer...) dave henrie

>"John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote > Hmm I wonder if someone will design wings which alter their 'angle ofattack' > (using some servo system tied in with the brake and accelerator?) during > a lap, lowering it on the straights and increasing it in the turns? There was some accusation of such cheating about two years back at the Australian Grand Prix. Pictures of cars, especially the Benetton and the Ferrari, had their full rear wing tilted back at an angle on some pictures, but others featured the full rear mount at a normal angle. It was the high speed stress and air flow that made the rear wing tilt at the bottom mount. It's the reason why the BAR of Jacques Villeneuve lost it's rear wing (a different reason from this year at the same GP) at high speed. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://www.ymenard.8m.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

> RS is better than Montoya. Raikkonen is younger and much less experienced > but has impressed me more. Heidfeld and maybe even Button are right with him > as well. At the moment, RS is better than JPM, if only because he can keep cool and bring the car home without tripping over anybody. And he doesn't have a MS magnet in the nose of his Williams. I think JPM has more raw talent, and if he continues to improve at the rate he has over the last 4 years (since I first saw him in a competitive car) then he will be the next World Champion. Raikkonen has huge potential, the sooner he leaves McLaren the better, in my opinion. Heidfeld has definitely not come up to expectations, and if he doesn't do something soon I don't think he will ever get a drive in a top team. Witness McLaren cutting him down to bring in Raikkonen. Button is the smoothest driver in Formula One. If you ever see an onboard shot of him driving, he almost never puts any opposite lock on because he is so good at balancing the car on the throttle. Most smooth drivers (Damon Hill, Alain Prost) prefer an understeering car, but JB prefers a car he can balance with his right foot. Excellent technique, and he is better than JPM. But that is all in my own personal opinion. You are welcome to your own opinions, and you can't change mine, so I don't want to start a slagging match over who is the best in F1, Okay? Cheers. Nick.

On 2 Apr 2002 11:53:32 -0800, [email hidden] (Nick) wrote: >At the moment, RS is better than JPM, if only because he can keep cool >and bring the car home without tripping over anybody. And he doesn't >have a MS magnet in the nose of his Williams. Actually he does, he just seemed to have the other pole facing forward... >I think JPM has more raw talent Would agree here. Ralf was, well, disappointing in early races in F1, taking far longer to adapt and get up to speed than Juan. I didn't like him much in CART (preferring Franchitti - hey, I'm Scottish!), but he's been a breath of fresh air in F1. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----

"Senninha" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On 2 Apr 2002 11:53:32 -0800, [email hidden] (Nick) wrote: > > >At the moment, RS is better than JPM, if only because he can keep cool > >and bring the car home without tripping over anybody. And he doesn't > >have a MS magnet in the nose of his Williams. > > Actually he does, he just seemed to have the other pole facing > forward... > > >I think JPM has more raw talent > > Would agree here. Ralf was, well, disappointing in early races in F1, > taking far longer to adapt and get up to speed than Juan. I didn't > like him much in CART (preferring Franchitti - hey, I'm Scottish!), > but he's been a breath of fresh air in F1.

JPM anf RS are the same age. RS started his F1 career at a younger age than JPM and was not in one of the two best cars on the grid like Montoya has been in his first two seasons. Montoya also was a F1 test driver and F3000 driver so he did have experience in F1 along with all his CART career beofre he joined Williams. I can only imagine how JPM would of driven in F1 five years ago. David G Fisher