brambilla 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 So, ever since Gary Anderson started working with Andrew Benson at the beeb and provided his insight into the technical side of F1, I thought the man walked on water. However, at the unveiling of the Mercedes W04, he said he didnt see anything exciting about it, and that McLaren seemed to have made a jump forward. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/9847591/Lewis-Hamilton-confident-he-can-regain-Formula-One-world-title-in-Mercedes-W04-following-unveiling-in-Jerez.html) And yet, on the last few columns , he's been going on about the Mercedes and how it's championship material ... WTF ?! Anybody read his stuff ? Is there a better site \ column for good F1 technical analysis ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 The bible: http://scarbsf1.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikathegreat2 2 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 Gary Anderson is a by-word for technical analysis. If he thinks the Merc is a championship winning car then it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dribbler 6 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 Gary Anderson is a by-word for technical analysis. If he thinks the Merc is a championship winning car then it is. Indeed. Apparently his belly is a fuel detecting radar brain. This allows him to know exactly how much fuel was on board the Mercedes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quiet One 15 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 Indeed. Apparently his belly is a fuel detecting radar brain. This allows him to know exactly how much fuel was on board the Mercedes. Ah...I recognize that razor sharp style Welcome back, I was starting to get worried. And yes, I've noticed that commentators have almost every base covered, so much that I wonder why are they paid for if they are as clueless as we are. It was noticeable t his off season how, based on the same facts, two pundits would arrive to opposite conclusions. And, frankly, to say; "Either RBR is sandbagging or they are struggling" is the same as saying "they are either good or not so" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brambilla 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 The bible: http://scarbsf1.com Wow, did not know about this site, in the 13 years of Internet-F1-following I've done, makes me wonder how much I've missed ! Truly is the Bible ! Thanks ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brambilla 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 From the "About" page on scarbsf1 : " I am in touch with the teams, their Technical Directors\Designers and a whole host of other engineers related to the sport. In terms of in depth technical knowledge, illustration and photography, I have few peers." Haha, I like his confidence, and it's also kinda funny cos its true Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 Wow, did not know about this site, in the 13 years of Internet-F1-following I've done, makes me wonder how much I've missed ! Truly is the Bible ! Thanks ! Ain't no thang. (Well, y'all tell I'm white...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rainmaster 7 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 In defence of our Gary, there's a big difference between the launch cars, and the information any observer has at the launch, compared with the cars that appear in subsequent tests, and the information you have following the tests. What I mean to say by that, is that it's entirely possible the Merc really did not look technically impressive in its launch spec and now appears to be, and that the Mclaren has followed the opposite trajectory of looking impressive but then encountering various problems in testing. That is an entirely possible option with such a quickly changing prototype as an F1 car. Ultimately though, I wouldn't place too much faith in anybody's (even Scarbs who really is great) predictive ability in these things. I think technical analysis is more interesting and has much better explanatory power in hindsight rather than in trying to predict outcomes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LabradoRacer 2 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 The bible: http://scarbsf1.com Is Scarbs full of nonsense & outlandish lies? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quiet One 15 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 Ultimately though, I wouldn't place too much faith in anybody's (even Scarbs who really is great) predictive ability in these things. I think technical analysis is more interesting and has much better explanatory power in hindsight rather than in trying to predict outcomes. Yup. I love predictions, but I don't take them too seriously. The technical explanations are fascinating, but even the most knowledgeable petrohead's guesses seem as good as Yalla's ones or mine... What? Why can't the Harlem Globetrotters win this one huh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Massa 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2013 He's a journalist (now, don't care what he was before) so his stuff's probably not worth reading. I've grown less fond of expert analysis, opinions, or predictions over the years. More fun for me to just see it as it happens than to try to figure it all out before the season begins. These days, I just like to watch the race and not think much about it. Might even lead to me making shorter posts once in a while. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted March 6, 2013 In defence of our Gary, there's a big difference between the launch cars, and the information any observer has at the launch, compared with the cars that appear in subsequent tests, and the information you have following the tests. What I mean to say by that, is that it's entirely possible the Merc really did not look technically impressive in its launch spec and now appears to be, and that the Mclaren has followed the opposite trajectory of looking impressive but then encountering various problems in testing. That is an entirely possible option with such a quickly changing prototype as an F1 car. Ultimately though, I wouldn't place too much faith in anybody's (even Scarbs who really is great) predictive ability in these things. I think technical analysis is more interesting and has much better explanatory power in hindsight rather than in trying to predict outcomes. There's no defending your Gary :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rainmaster 7 Report post Posted March 6, 2013 Glitter? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandyNZL 1 Report post Posted March 6, 2013 Him neither. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dribbler 6 Report post Posted March 6, 2013 Ah...I recognize that razor sharp style Welcome back, I was starting to get worried. And yes, I've noticed that commentators have almost every base covered, so much that I wonder why are they paid for if they are as clueless as we are. It was noticeable t his off season how, based on the same facts, two pundits would arrive to opposite conclusions. And, frankly, to say; "Either RBR is sandbagging or they are struggling" is the same as saying "they are either good or not so" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Senna's Ghost 0 Report post Posted March 13, 2013 I like Anderson and his analysis. So what if he appears to have contradicted himself with regards to the Mercedes car. The guy makes understanding the design and concept of a car easy. He describes in simple terms the modern principles of car design and application. All hail Anderson!! Salute. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
