DOF_power

Top Gear - Richard Hammond Drives A Renault R25 F1

26 posts in this topic


Thanks for posting the link DOF.

It shows just how hard they are to drive when a amature jumps behind the wheel. I looks oh so easy on the TV and at the track, it certainly is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If proof were needed that he actually has brain damage.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

^ Well the unrestricted V10s were more difficult to control than the current restricted V8s.

And by now the V10s would have pumped 1100+ hp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>

^ Well the unrestricted V10s were more difficult to control than the current restricted V8s.

And by now the V10s would have pumped 1100+ hp.

I don't think that the power makes an F1 car difficult to control, it's the fact that the brakes and the aerodynamics do not work properly until you are going proper fast, faster than mere mortals are prepared to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that the power makes an F1 car difficult to control

Yes it does.

The V10s required throttle modulation before and in some corners, whereas the V8s require simply to keep the foot to floor, acording to the drivers.

it's the fact that the brakes and the aerodynamics do not work properly until you are going proper fast, faster than mere mortals are prepared to go.

This part is true, but you forgot the G-forces.

That part about Richard's neck going, and other stuff, is exactly what F1 drivers first started to experience in the ground-effects/wing car era, because they had no preparation/fitness.

Drivers hated the wing cars, because of their cornering speeds, G-forces and superfast/violent reflexes they required. In the words of Niki Lauda in such cars "“Cornering” was a euphemism for rape practised on the driver".

Now the cars are even faster and more G-force intensive in the corners.

Edited by DOF_Renault_BMW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, DOF. Another often overlooked skill of the drivers is what Hammond commented on when he said he couldn't think fast enough to react to the track. These cars go so damned fast that if you're a fraction of a second behind in timing when to turn you will miss the apex and hose the lap. Drivers have got to be mentally 'on it' for 2 hours...that's alot of intense concentration that very few people can manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but pro drivers presumably have a lot of that from instinct/experience, whereas Hammond was consciously having to think what to do, which I'm sure would be impossible for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True but pro drivers presumably have a lot of that from instinct/experience, whereas Hammond was consciously having to think what to do, which I'm sure would be impossible for anyone.

Again I wonder why you bother following this sport when you clearly see drivers as the smallest part of the equation, mattering little in what ultimately happens on track. Does the human element puzzle you so that you must disregard it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True but pro drivers presumably have a lot of that from instinct/experience, whereas Hammond was consciously having to think what to do, which I'm sure would be impossible for anyone.

Instinct, talent and experience alone won't be enough for an F1.

You need thorough preparation.

For the "biological computation" to be maintained for several hours without problems some brain conditions need fulfilled: oxygen and carbohydrate availability, adequate hydration and constant internal temperature, between 37 and 38

Edited by DOF_Renault_BMW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again I wonder why you bother following this sport when you clearly see drivers as the smallest part of the equation, mattering little in what ultimately happens on track. Does the human element puzzle you so that you must disregard it?

:lol: You and DOF both assumed I was demeaning the drivers again! I actually didn't mean to - it's just that Hammond would obviously improve enormously with practice. Driving F1 cars is largely a skill that can be learnt. Getting the last and hardest few seconds/lap out of the machine takes talent, but I think someone like Hammond could probably drive it quite quickly, probably 10s/lap slower than the experts for a few practice laps, if he spent 6 months training and practising. The same is true of any activity. Chess grandmasters don't think consciously about any of the things we would have to explicitly calculate when playing chess. They free up their conscious mind by making the basics instinctive. That's really the definition of skill.

Instinct, talent and experience alone won't be enough for an F1.

You need thorough preparation.

For the "biological computation" to be maintained for several hours without problems some brain conditions need fulfilled: oxygen and carbohydrate availability, adequate hydration and constant internal temperature, between 37 and 38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually didn't mean to - it's just that Hammond would obviously improve enormously with practice. Driving F1 cars is largely a skill that can be learnt. Getting the last and hardest few seconds/lap out of the machine takes talent, but I think someone like Hammond could probably drive it quite quickly, probably 10s/lap slower than the experts for a few practice laps, if he spent 6 months training and practising.

I agree that practice and fitness, exercises (breading and neck in particular) and diet would obviously improve his time.

Interesting. Do you have references for that? I'd like to read them.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1517-...ext&tlng=en

http://www.neurosurgeon.org/publications/c...00106000145.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport...one/6980337.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understeering seems another big issue from what I could see. Is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Understeering seems another big issue from what I could see. Is that correct?

I think Steve explained the understeering above, but basically since Hammond wasn't going fast enough to really get the front wing to provide downforce, there was no front grip. Add to that the cold tyres because Hammond, again, wasn't going fast enough to heat them up and you get a very understeery car. Somewhat smaller factors would be the lack of heat in the brakes and Hammond missing the proper braking/turn-in spot.

Murray, my apologies! I did indeed think you were diminishing the driver's skill! Your follow-up was pretty close to how I think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it does.

The V10s required throttle modulation before and in some corners, whereas the V8s require simply to keep the foot to floor, acording to the drivers.

More power normally demands a greater level of skill but you are forgetting that traction control has cancelled out the difference. I don't remeber V10 pilots spinning the back end out of slow corners more than we have now. In fact, i would argue that for a pure driver no traction control and more power makes it easier to manipulate the balance of the car. In the rain because it's easier to break traction this is why we see talented hands excel.

This was not my point though. What i was saying is that Hammond did not find the car difficult to drive because of its power. The 'offs' he had were all under braking or turning in. He never lost the back end on the exit of a corner.

I forget who said it now (it may have been here or in the 'Hamilton on Top Gear' thread) i think it was Mike, but it just demonstrates how tricky and knife edge like modern F1 cars are. In the days of Fangio and Moss, F1 cars were primitive beasts. I bet they were much more predictable to drive. There would have been signs when the limit of adhesion was approaching because there was a reliance purely on mechanical grip. These days there are far greater variables. Too slow in a corner? you may spin. Same speed in that corner but with heat cycled tyres? you may be okay. More wing? You're okay again.

I bet Hammond was shocked. The standard rules for dealing with over and understeer went out of the window because of the constantly changing variables and his inability to deal with them.

Edited by dribbler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the temperature of 37 degrees is not maintained then anything from loss of reaction time to unconsciousness or even coma or death can occur.

You know I think you have something there - I believe that this has happened to most of my work-mates!!! :)

Mental note: must remember to turn the air conditioning down :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I forget who said it now (it may have been here or in the 'Hamilton on Top Gear' thread) i think it was Mike, but it just demonstrates how tricky and knife edge like modern F1 cars are. In the days of Fangio and Moss, F1 cars were primitive beasts. I bet they were much more predictable to drive. There would have been signs when the limit of adhesion was approaching because there was a reliance purely on mechanical grip. These days there are far greater variables. Too slow in a corner? you may spin. Same speed in that corner but with heat cycled tyres? you may be okay. More wing? You're okay again.

I seem to recall that this knife-edgeness kicked in when they introduced grooved tyres, which bodes well for slick racing.

It may take some of the drivers some time to adjust to the extra grip - i.e. knowing the car's limit and will be interesting to see if they are still so edgy.

For me what was also interesting in Hammond's piece was the discussion about the engine, how it essentially starts off siezed up and they have to pump warm oil/water around it to get it going. Can't see many modern F1 cars under up in the Boss series (or whatever it is called these days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was brilliant piece and helped us synical fans to see just how much hard work it is.

For Hamilton to get used to it all in such a quick time, as much as I despise him is darn impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More power normally demands a greater level of skill but you are forgetting that traction control has cancelled out the difference.

No it didn't.

TC to begin with, is only a second fiddle "aid" when compared to the EBS; and there are a lot of other "aids" witch are mechanic or hydraulic or aerodynamical in nature (and let's not forget the suspensions and tire compund) all witch influence the car's behaviour.

To cancell out the difference you need a universal TC, a universal car with a universal setup, and a universal driving style used by equally skilled/talented/adaptable/competent drivers.

And there are no such things.

I don't remeber V10 pilots spinning the back end out of slow corners more than we have now.

But the pedal play/throttle modulation before entering a fast/superfast corner and also even during it, required greater work and skill. The V10s were more demanding cars and there's far more than just corner exit in dealing powerfull cars.

In fact, i would argue that for a pure driver no traction control and more power makes it easier to manipulate the balance of the car.

I would call this a classical driver.

In the rain because it's easier to break traction this is why we see talented hands excel.

There's a lot of factors that influence this. Easy loss of traction happens often happens during practice sesions as the drivers don't have the right setup yet; or in high compromise tracks like Monza or Indy (straight line top speed vs. corners).

This was not my point though. What i was saying is that Hammond did not find the car difficult to drive because of its power. The 'offs' he had were all under braking or turning in. He never lost the back end on the exit of a corner.

But power isn't used just in the straight line.

And yes he did lost the back end in his first try.

Also remember that the R25 (due to tire adaptation) is an understeering car with a very heavy/stable/well-planted rear; and they also gave Hammond a Monaco setup (as is the case in such situations). If he would have had a Monza or Indy setup things would have been (very) different.

I forget who said it now (it may have been here or in the 'Hamilton on Top Gear' thread) i think it was Mike, but it just demonstrates how tricky and knife edge like modern F1 cars are. In the days of Fangio and Moss, F1 cars were primitive beasts. I bet they were much more predictable to drive. There would have been signs when the limit of adhesion was approaching because there was a reliance purely on mechanical grip. These days there are far greater variables. Too slow in a corner? you may spin. Same speed in that corner but with heat cycled tyres? you may be okay. More wing? You're okay again.

I bet Hammond was shocked. The standard rules for dealing with over and understeer went out of the window because of the constantly changing variables and his inability to deal with them.

The old cars were nicely balanced so that someone like Fangio could put then into a controled 4 wheel drift to get around fast.

That all changed with the Lotus 72, witch was no longer a car designed around the driver's balance need, but was designed around the new wide/slick tires. Meaning that the Lotus 72's weight distribution and aero balance and some mechanical systems were so made so as to get the most out of the tires. The drivers would now have to modify their technique so as to "drive the tires".

That's why some old drivers prefer the pre-slicks/pre-wings cars and consider their balance/handling best.

From that moment on, anything (mechanical, aerodynamic, hydraulic, electronic) that would reduce/eliminate the slip-angle/spin/lock/power-loss would go into the cars to make then faster.

This reduced/eliminated some old challenges, but created new ones and even amplified others.

Drifiting/sliding went from being the fastest, most efficient cornering technique to being an artistic, entertaining, crowd-pleasing technique but slow, ineffective and thus absolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He really needs to work out on his arm & muscle strength if he wants to do well in an F1 car, especially with his impressive full throttle time of 0.2 of a second :lol: !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now