Hi all,
Have you encountered the handling problems when you dive out from
behind a car that you're slipstreaming? Seems particularly prevalent
on long straights like Monza and Hockenheim. As soon as you pull out
at top speed you're chucked into a spin. Is this realistic? I'd expect
turbulence, but not that degree of loss of control.
Comments please.
Alan Head
-----------------------------------------------------
Why does Schumacher wear an odd-shaped helmet?
Irvine: "He's a German, he's got a funny-shaped head!"
(British Grand Prix press conference, July 1996)
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Hi all, >Have you encountered the handling problems when you dive out from >behind a car that you're slipstreaming? Seems particularly prevalent >on long straights like Monza and Hockenheim. As soon as you pull out >at top speed you're chucked into a spin. Is this realistic? I'd expect >turbulence, but not that degree of loss of control. >Comments please.>Hey, people always talk about how poorly F1 cars deal with
>close-quarters racing. Maybe this is an example of it. Indycars have a
>better time with it for several reasons, perhaps most of all being
>their reliance on ground-effects downforce. F1 design rule limit
>severely ground effects design; hopefully they'll decide to move
>toward it soon.
Highly unlikely since they moved away from it for safety reasons.
Richard
>>F1 design rules limit
>>severely ground effects design; hopefully they'll decide to move
>>toward it soon.
>Highly unlikely since they moved away from it for safety reasons.
What is the full deal on that. To me, it seemed they were simply
after, as in Indycar, a reduction of downforce. But FIA chose to go
mostly for reducing ground effects, while Indycar (while reducing some
of that too), mostly went for reducing upper body features that
provide downforce.
Turns out ground effects downforce is less affected by turbulence, if
I am hearing right. That is, a car racing right at another's tail
isn't affected nearly as much as a car relying mostly on wings for
downforce. makes for more close-quarter racing, something F1 seems to
need if we ever expect to see passing on narrow, twisty courses. Like
in the Hungary race- we all basically knew Jacques had the race in the
last 5 laps, and so did Damon, so did the announcers, because the only
way he could lose was to make a very bad mistake or break something.
In indycar, two lead runners that close are never so certain. I know,
I know, particularly in the last few road races,, where everyone goes
kamikazee at the end! Or an unfortunate yellow turns it in to a drag
race.
Hey, both forms of racing have their problems, I think any way you
look at it, all forms of racing have to make compromises that seem
like flaws in some situations... that is racing.
Quoted text (10 lines)
>Hi all, >Have you encountered the handling problems when you dive out from >behind a car that you're slipstreaming? Seems particularly prevalent >on long straights like Monza and Hockenheim. As soon as you pull out >at top speed you're chucked into a spin. Is this realistic? I'd expect >turbulence, but not that degree of loss of control. >Comments please. >Alan Head>What is the full deal on that. To me, it seemed they were simply
>after, as in Indycar, a reduction of downforce. But FIA chose to go
>mostly for reducing ground effects, while Indycar (while reducing some
>of that too), mostly went for reducing upper body features that
>provide downforce.
Can't say that I ever really understood the reasoning. What we end up
with is cars that still go very fast but corner much slower. I hate to
think what would happen if someone lost their brakes at a really
critical point :(
I'm no expert in this area, but reducing the power of the cars or
increasing the weight (extra weight could be used to further
strengthen the car and provide driver protection) seems much better
all round. Cars would be generally slower, but the same speed in the
corners - and having less reliance on the front wing would allow for
much better racing.
Richard
Quoted text (19 lines)
>>What is the full deal on that. To me, it seemed they were simply >>after, as in Indycar, a reduction of downforce. But FIA chose to go >>mostly for reducing ground effects, while Indycar (while reducing some >>of that too), mostly went for reducing upper body features that >>provide downforce. >Can't say that I ever really understood the reasoning. What we end up >with is cars that still go very fast but corner much slower. I hate to >think what would happen if someone lost their brakes at a really >critical point :( >I'm no expert in this area, but reducing the power of the cars or >increasing the weight (extra weight could be used to further >strengthen the car and provide driver protection) seems much better >all round. Cars would be generally slower, but the same speed in the >corners - and having less reliance on the front wing would allow for >much better racing. >Richard: Speed is what the sport is all about. Safety comes second. Racecar drivers
: are supposed to die.
This isn't one bit funny! This is also not true! The sport is about
competition which happens to include speed. Without racecar drivers
there would be no sport. I will admit that speed usually takes a slight
precedent over safety at times. Safety is the prime concern for the
drivers. They know the sport is dangerous and they know that they can't
protect themselves 100%.
Your comment is totally uncalled for. These types of comments where why
I sent you to your room (twit/kill file) in the first place. If you
can't restrain yourself in the future, I am going to have to ask you to
go back to your room.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Speed is what the sport is all about. Safety comes second. Racecar drivers
>are supposed to die.
>Chris
Soon, someone you love will die, and then, you'll know how it feels.
Mark Fields
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cheers!
Mark Fields
NASS '96 Driver
Web Sites:
http://www.git.net/simspeed - Simspeed's World Wide Web Site
http://www.skn.net/~twburgess - Mark's Index Page
http://www.skn.net/~twburgess/nasicr - NASCAR Racing/Indycar II Sim Page
http://www.simspeed.com - Coming Soon!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quoted text (17 lines)
>: Speed is what the sport is all about. Safety comes second. Racecar drivers >: are supposed to die. >This isn't one bit funny! This is also not true! The sport is about >competition which happens to include speed. Without racecar drivers >there would be no sport. I will admit that speed usually takes a slight >precedent over safety at times. Safety is the prime concern for the >drivers. They know the sport is dangerous and they know that they can't >protect themselves 100%. >Your comment is totally uncalled for. These types of comments where why >I sent you to your room (twit/kill file) in the first place. If you >can't restrain yourself in the future, I am going to have to ask you to >go back to your room. >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************Some people just aren't worth the bother. Add him to your killfile and
forget about him - I have.
Richard
snip
Good post, but, if there is going to be a saving of RAS, then
we must simply DO IT.
Replying to ANYTHING that "they" post is simply encouragement to
them.
DO IT...STOP posting anything to those notes.
DO IT NOW.
JEB (violating my own advice, but you get the idea)
PS, nice Save RAS page, BTW.
Quoted text (27 lines)
> Billy Yannoh, > Welcome to everyone's kill file. And people who use the WWW to access groups, > welcome to the ignoring list. I agree with Mike Carver, this isn't funny, and what > you just said may have gotten your ticket to hell. I hope you fry. > Evewryone else who reads this, please ignore all Billy Yannoh posts, they aren't funny at > all, like this one. And also please visit the Save R.A.S. Web Site: > http://www.git.net/simspeed/saveras.html > You are sick Billy. Go back to hell from whence you came. > Do you feel lucky punk? > Mark A. Fields > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Cheers! > Mark Fields > NASS '96 Driver > Web Sites: > http://www.git.net/simspeed - Simspeed's World Wide Web Site > http://www.skn.net/~twburgess - Mark's Index Page > http://www.skn.net/~twburgess/nasicr - NASCAR Racing/Indycar II Sim Page > http://www.simspeed.com - Coming Soon!! > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Quoted text (23 lines)
>>: Speed is what the sport is all about. Safety comes second. Racecar drivers >>: are supposed to die. >>This isn't one bit funny! This is also not true! The sport is about >>competition which happens to include speed. Without racecar drivers >>there would be no sport. I will admit that speed usually takes a slight >>precedent over safety at times. Safety is the prime concern for the >>drivers. They know the sport is dangerous and they know that they can't >>protect themselves 100%. >>Your comment is totally uncalled for. These types of comments where why >>I sent you to your room (twit/kill file) in the first place. If you >>can't restrain yourself in the future, I am going to have to ask you to >>go back to your room. >>-- >>**************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* >It really doesn't matter if what I say is true. You have no right to tell me >that I'm not allowed to say it. Add me to your kill file. You're a geek. >Everyone dies. Get over it. >ChrisWhat was particularly ironic was that he replied to Michael...who had
already killfiled him. Is this perhaps the dictionary definition of a
pointless exercise?!
Cheers!
John
_________________________________
__ _____| |_____ __
________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________
\ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | /
> :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \
/______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/ \._____\
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews
> >Some people just aren't worth the bother. Add him to your killfile and
> >forget about him - I have.
> What was particularly ironic was that he replied to Michael...who had
> already killfiled him. Is this perhaps the dictionary definition of a
> pointless exercise?!
Just further proof that usenet is a write only medium.
--
Suck The Goat
