HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted February 16, 2011 Ok! Back to subject.Here is despair of Rubens over lost marbles and Vettel trying to find it. That's a lot of globbles on Rubens tyre....very runny globbles too, so looks like he's running too high a pressure and the tyre is over working...no wonder he's upset... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted February 16, 2011 And yes, I'm taking a bit of a p**s....obviously THAT amount of globbles has been picked up off piste at a slow speed, as the negative camber has kept the outside of the tyre clean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dribbler 6 Report post Posted February 16, 2011 What the hell are globbles? Do you mean globules? 'Globble' sounds like Timo eating his lunch too fast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted February 16, 2011 Its the plural of globs....like globs and globs of glupe....get with it man...you have a child!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dribbler 6 Report post Posted February 16, 2011 Its the plural of globs....like globs and globs of glupe....get with it man...you have a child!! But are they globbles or bobbles? Seems a muddle. I'm fuddled. Glupe? I only see poop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted February 16, 2011 Now we're reading the same page Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted February 16, 2011 Ahhh Sh#t...no we're not...you're on Page 1 and I just started Page 2... Poop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AleHop 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2011 Luckily, drivers screwed up. That's why we had a good 2010. Had nothing much to do with the cars. If the drivers had been as boringly efficient as the cars, we would have had a season of Bahrains. Summarizing Andres' point; I think he's saying what I think too; I want to see who can manage tyres, but not bits of rubber laying on the track, effectively restricting choice of line. No idiot is going to drive on them. That's where your show gets ruined; effectively a car's width of usable track. Yes and yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackgarrett 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2011 bits of rubber laying on the track= Marbles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AleHop 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2011 It mar-B-els me. mar-V-els Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DOF_power 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2011 Well, like I always say, it's inevitable that you have convoluted rules if you want both a good show and innovation. The teams' interests are best served by making their cars difficult to overtake so of course they will do that, if you give them the freedom to innovate. This is like having a capitalist economy but hoping that no entrepreneur will do anything to make him more money than anyone else - you'd need some fancy rules to make that work too! What aero innovation has there been to beat movable wings (late 60s), ground effects (late 70s in F1, late 60s in Can Am) ?! Heck Auto Union discovered ground effects in the 30s and killed Rosemeyer with that prototype. Honestly aero has been going mostly nowhere for ~ 25 to 40 years (excluding adding computers to control the suspensiona and/or spoilers on sportcars). I want distinct and good looking racecars with equivalent performance, but I don't anymore aero "innovations". And BTW spec is still crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 Well, actually we agree pretty much, apart from your ridiculous and offensive final sentence. You're right that there's not much innovation of any genuine interest in F1 these days... and for a long time. Which is just one more reason to get rid of the teams altogether. That said, aerodynamics has moved on massively from the 60s. Those guys couldn't even beat a Hispania. But I agree that the F1 contribution (to aerodynamics) hasn't been particularly exciting or useful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Delta 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 Well, actually we agree pretty much, apart from your ridiculous and offensive final sentence. You're right that there's not much innovation of any genuine interest in F1 these days... and for a long time. Which is just one more reason to get rid of the teams altogether. That said, aerodynamics has moved on massively from the 60s. Those guys couldn't even beat a Hispania. But I agree that the F1 contribution (to aerodynamics) hasn't been particularly exciting or useful. I totally disagree, the F-Duct and EBD where both very interesting pieces of innovation. The problem is not the teams, it's the FIA constantly imposing restrictions to slow the cars down. If aero restriction was allowed unabated, the cars we have now would be extremely aerodynamically advanced, and would probably be able to corner at about 6G Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dribbler 6 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 I totally disagree, the F-Duct and EBD where both very interesting pieces of innovation. The problem is not the teams, it's the FIA constantly imposing restrictions to slow the cars down. If aero restriction was allowed unabated, the cars we have now would be extremely aerodynamically advanced, and would probably be able to corner at about 6G Then what do you propose would be a safe run-off for cars with such cornering capability? The spectators would be so far away they might as well be at home. We need less aero and more arm twiddling, me thinks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 I tend to agree with Steve, though I suppose interest is all relative and maybe the F-duct and EBD were almost worth bothering with. I also think Virgin's experiment at designing their car entirely on a computer, without windtunnels, is pretty cool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dribbler 6 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 I also think Virgin's experiment at designing their car entirely on a computer, without windtunnels, is pretty cool. Nah, that was stupid. If I designed a woman using a computer, she would look awesome, but her bedroom skills would be well, like a Virgin. Use a piece of paper and a pencil, like Adrian. His Moo Rouge's are quite handy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DOF_power 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 Well, actually we agree pretty much, apart from your ridiculous and offensive final sentence. You're right that there's not much innovation of any genuine interest in F1 these days... and for a long time. Which is just one more reason to get rid of the teams altogether. That said, aerodynamics has moved on massively from the 60s. Those guys couldn't even beat a Hispania. But I agree that the F1 contribution (to aerodynamics) hasn't been particularly exciting or useful. Improvements meaning refining to the n-th degree (in the words of Ross Brawn) but nothing new under the sun really. It's like football tactics, no tactical innovation (just physical improvements) since total football marked the end-point of tactics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Delta 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 Then what do you propose would be a safe run-off for cars with such cornering capability? The spectators would be so far away they might as well be at home. We need less aero and more arm twiddling, me thinks. Why? as much as fans would like it to be, Formula 1 is NOT just about the drivers. I wasn't necessarily trying to say that is the way F1 should be going, the level of performance the cars have now is about right in terms of a tradeoff between safety and speed, I was merely pointing out that it's not the teams fault that the cars are like they are, the FIA are to blame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jannypan 0 Report post Posted February 19, 2011 One day my friend tell me that he wanted to Buy World of Warcraft US Gold. I told him that World of Warcraft US Gold is easy to buy now online. So the Warcraft US CD Key is. Now the role he play is rather powerful. In the game, Wow stuff is every player wants to get. May you could receive your higher WOW Stuff. buying wow gold cheap gold cheapest wow gold cheap wow gold Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DOF_power 0 Report post Posted February 19, 2011 I totally disagree, the F-Duct and EBD where both very interesting pieces of innovation. The problem is not the teams, it's the FIA constantly imposing restrictions to slow the cars down. If aero restriction was allowed unabated, the cars we have now would be extremely aerodynamically advanced, and would probably be able to corner at about 6G That's nothing new at all. Simply moving the rear wing does the same thing and better (late 60s cars or active rides via active suspensions rake angle adjustment). According to Newey the problem with active suspension-less 94 Williams was the sidepods stalling was uncontrollable. Blown diffusers were the norm in the late 80s, they just weren't as refined. There hasn't been any true innovation in aerodynamics for a long long time. Everything is just a rehash. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DOF_power 0 Report post Posted February 19, 2011 Why? as much as fans would like it to be, Formula 1 is NOT just about the drivers. I wasn't necessarily trying to say that is the way F1 should be going, the level of performance the cars have now is about right in terms of a tradeoff between safety and speed, I was merely pointing out that it's not the teams fault that the cars are like they are, the FIA are to blame. The teams and FIA are both to blame. Active suspensions combined with computer controlled movable wings and winglets are the only true solution to the aero issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Delta 0 Report post Posted February 20, 2011 That's nothing new at all. Simply moving the rear wing does the same thing and better (late 60s cars or active rides via active suspensions rake angle adjustment). According to Newey the problem with active suspension-less 94 Williams was the sidepods stalling was uncontrollable. Blown diffusers were the norm in the late 80s, they just weren't as refined. There hasn't been any true innovation in aerodynamics for a long long time. Everything is just a rehash. With the limited range of movement built into the rear wing I can't see it as being as efficient as completely stalling both of it's plains. Besides, a movable wing is not an innovation, it's pretty easy to design. The F-Duct however was a clever solution as it was an example of out of the box thinking. There's nothing clever about sticking an actuator into a wing and moving it up and down in a sport as technically complex as F1. Besides, that is a williams specific problem, I don't see any evidence that the other teams lost that much from the banning of active suspension. The teams and FIA are both to blame. Active suspensions combined with computer controlled movable wings and winglets are the only true solution to the aero issue. How so? Wasn't active suspension meant to improve the handling of the car rather than it's aero performance? Personally I believe that none of that is the answer, I believe that creating ground effect downforce is the best way to alleviate the aero problem, through the removal of that stupid plank that sits under the car. At the moment, Formula 1 cars are too dependant on generating downforce through their upper body surfaces. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites