Did anyone see the Caterham lap on Top Gear?

[cosmicpanda]

It looked crazy! It was moving around and drifting like anything and looked like it was on the edge of control the whole time, yet it was faster than a Veyron.

I want F1 cars to do that. F1 cars look like they're on rails and it's boring. It was more fun watching that lap than it was watching the entire European GP.

[ArrowsFA1]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NQfEO-gIqSg

[MrJan]

Awesome bloody car and the thing just drifted round most of the lap. Call me crazy but if I had the money to spend on a Veyron then I'd probably end up just getting a Caterham, an F430, MK1 Escort Mexico, Beemer M5 and an old Jag, and still have change left over for a house :D

[Knock-on]

It depends if you want to make a statement about how much money you have or want to have fun.

My current project is a pretty standard Super 7 which has no where near the performance of the Catering-Van R500 but am seriously thinking about putting together something more exotic (just thinking about which chassis) with something like a tuned 2l turbo engine that wont be too much off the 500 pace. Do the whole lot for 15 grand :)

1.5% of the cost of a Volkswagen :laugh: If only everything in life was as reliable :D

[MrJan]

It depends if you want to make a statement about how much money you have or want to have fun.

My current project is a pretty standard Super 7 which has no where near the performance of the Catering-Van R500 but am seriously thinking about putting together something more exotic (just thinking about which chassis) with something like a tuned 2l turbo engine that wont be too much off the 500 pace. Do the whole lot for 15 grand :)

1.5% of the cost of a Volkswagen :laugh: If only everything in life was as reliable :D

A 'busa engine's what you really need, lightweight, sequential box, just a shame about the effort of getting a prop made (although I'm told it's not too bad) tweek that bad boy and you'll be flying :D

[aryan]

The Evo magazine people have been running an R500 in their long-term fleet, and they can't stop praising it in every single issue. They recently gave Ceterham a special "life-time award" in their eCoty issue.

Caterham is the ultimate demonstration of proper car design. It is the only 7 (or 7 replica) which handles like it should.

If you are thinking about a Sunday roadster, or a trakcday car, nothing beats a Caterham, any Caterham. Even the basic models are just pure fun, the R400 and R500 are just devilish fun ;-)

[Knock-on]

A 'busa engine's what you really need, lightweight, sequential box, just a shame about the effort of getting a prop made (although I'm told it's not too bad) tweek that bad boy and you'll be flying :D

Turbo Busa in a lightweight or twin Busa's are a possibility that some people have been mooting.

However, I've got other plans ;)

[MrJan]

Turbo Busa in a lightweight or twin Busa's are a possibility that some people have been mooting.

However, I've got other plans ;)

Aaah, want to keep clean pants then ;)

Me and my old man sprint a Locost which is a very basic 7 type thing. Only got a virtually standard 1300 Ford crossflow but is fantastic fun to chuck about, can't even imagine what it'd be like with the extra power. I think that at the minute it only puts out about 76 bhp so you get a rough idea of how slow it actually is [boast mode]although I proudly went quicker than a Hawk Stratos and a Darrian on my last event [/boast mode] ;) I still find it amazing how well the thing will stick when you throw it into a corner and can only imagine what a real Caterham would handle like :eek:

[Knock-on]

My Hoodie only has an old Sierra engine but great fun.

If you want to get a bit more, have a chat with MK engineering. The bloke is the cannines gonads and will drop a R1 lump in your little old Locost without breaking stride giving you more than twice the power with a reduction in weight. (About 430KG all up making it possible to get about 400BHP/T)

Don't know about the engineering but a R1 lump will cost you £500 - £800 with running gear, ECU and carbs.

http://www.mkengineering.co.uk/enginetransplants.htm

[MrJan]

Funds have tightened somewhat recently so even just towing the car to Yorkshire is a bit heavy for us. Also we're trying to keep it as the same spec as the Championship at the minute because it'll have better resale and also means we don't end up spending a fortune on trying to go quicker :mark:

[rob01]

The Evo magazine people have been running an R500 in their long-term fleet, and they can't stop praising it in every single issue. They recently gave Ceterham a special "life-time award" in their eCoty issue.


The R500 on top gear was the EVO long term fleet car

[Daniel]

It looked crazy! It was moving around and drifting like anything and looked like it was on the edge of control the whole time, yet it was faster than a Veyron.

I want F1 cars to do that. F1 cars look like they're on rails and it's boring. It was more fun watching that lap than it was watching the entire European GP.

Thus illustrating the pontlessness of the Veyron. Sure it's an engineering marvel but how many times have you walked past a nice building and said "Phwoar look at the engineering on that!"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Form and function is what it's all about and the Veyron ticks neither of those boxes when you consider how ugly it is and how much power it needs to do what it does. The Caterham as a drivers car does all the Veyron does and more with a lot less power and for a LOT less money. In fact if you still want to pose you could buy a Maserati GranTurismo as well for the times when you want to drive distances. In fact you could have a different Maser and Caterham for every day of the week for less than what a Verywrong will cost you :)

Which brings me to Formula 1 and getting rid of a good deal of the downforce. No one beyond the sad anoraky types would walk past an F1 car and think "Phwoar just think of all the time they needed to spend in a wind tunnel to get all those annoying winglets and appendages and things which create a bit more downforce and a lot more turbulence behind making the car so much harder to pass PHWOAR I'm off to the toilet for a good fap now as that really arouses me so much it's not funny"

I've just never understood people who go for that sort of thing purely because it's the pinnacle of motorsport, pinnacle of snooziness more like!

[ioan]

It looked crazy! It was moving around and drifting like anything and looked like it was on the edge of control the whole time, yet it was faster than a Veyron.

I want F1 cars to do that. F1 cars look like they're on rails and it's boring. It was more fun watching that lap than it was watching the entire European GP.

Nice lap, I bet the time would have been even better if it didn't slide around like a horse sledge.

If you want to see cars racing like that I suggest you watch rally and leave f1 alone.

[Daniel]

Nice lap, I bet the time would have been even better if it didn't slide around like a horse sledge.

If you want to see cars racing like that I suggest you watch rally and leave f1 alone.

Sometimes oversteer can be fast you know :) That and it's spectacular! Do you prefer to watch cars understeering their way round the track? :confused:

[ioan]

Sometimes oversteer can be fast you know :) That and it's spectacular! Do you prefer to watch cars understeering their way round the track? :confused:

Oversteering it's all right up to a limit ;) , than you are getting slower. I hate understeering cars.

[BDunnell]

Nice lap, I bet the time would have been even better if it didn't slide around like a horse sledge.

If you want to see cars racing like that I suggest you watch rally and leave f1 alone.

ioan, rallying is not racing.

I presume that, if you were a rally fan, you would absolutely hate the oversteering Escorts, 131s and so on of years gone by, because 'if you want to see cars racing like that I suggest you go to the Andros Trophy'? I also presume you dislike the F1 cars of old that oversteered visibly?

[ioan]

ioan, rallying is not racing.

That Caterham was not racing either.



I presume that, if you were a rally fan, you would absolutely hate the oversteering Escorts, 131s and so on of years gone by, because 'if you want to see cars racing like that I suggest you go to the Andros Trophy'? I also presume you dislike the F1 cars of old that oversteered visibly?

I actually like rally, and oversteering cars, and also the old oversteery F1 cars. But hey, we need to evolve and ovesteering to such a level has no place in modern F1 IMO.

[ArrowsFA1]

Sometimes oversteer can be fast you know :) That and it's spectacular!
:up:

Wish I could find the classic photos of Fangio, Amon, and Peterson four-wheel-drifting their (very quick) way around :s mokin: Awesome skill. Awesome to see.

[Daniel]

That Caterham was not racing either.



I actually like rally, and oversteering cars, and also the old oversteery F1 cars. But hey, we need to evolve and ovesteering to such a level has no place in modern F1 IMO.
So spectacle has no place in motorsport then? :mark:

[ioan]

So spectacle has no place in motorsport then? :mark:

Not in F1 IMO, have nothing against it in other motorsports that aren't so technologically advanced.
I'm not watching F1 for accidents, for crashes, for slides, oversteers etc...

If I want oversteery cars I watch Rallying.
If I want lots of passes I watch MotoGP.
If I want technological excellence I watch F1.

[aryan]

Nice lap, I bet the time would have been even better if it didn't slide around like a horse sledge.

If you want to see cars racing like that I suggest you watch rally and leave f1 alone.

I beg to differ.

Going through mud and gravel and snow in a time-trial manner in 4wd hatches has nothing in common with driving in a Caterham around a track.

I'm not that old, but from what I've seen, the way that Caterham drove had more in common with the F1 cars of days gone by than anything I've seen.


The R500 on top gear was the EVO long term fleet car
Cool :) I didn't know that.


Nice lap, I bet the time would have been even better if it didn't slide around like a horse sledge.



Well, considering that it only went 0.8 sec slower than the Gumpert, on a very cold day, I'd say all it needed to beat the TG lap record was to run it on a slightly hotter day.




Which brings me to Formula 1 and getting rid of a good deal of the downforce. No one beyond the sad anoraky types would walk past an F1 car and think "Phwoar just think of all the time they needed to spend in a wind tunnel to get all those annoying winglets and appendages and things which create a bit more downforce and a lot more turbulence behind making the car so much harder to pass PHWOAR I'm off to the toilet for a good fap now as that really arouses me so much it's not funny"


:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[Daniel]

Not in F1 IMO, have nothing against it in other motorsports that aren't so technologically advanced.
I'm not watching F1 for accidents, for crashes, for slides, oversteers etc...

If I want oversteery cars I watch Rallying.
If I want lots of passes I watch MotoGP.
If I want technological excellence I watch F1.
My god that's sad.

I'm not talking about the cars drifting like riceboxes or anything. I'm talking about slides like we saw at Silverstone which are an awesome display of a drivers skill.

[BDunnell]

Not in F1 IMO, have nothing against it in other motorsports that aren't so technologically advanced.
I'm not watching F1 for accidents, for crashes, for slides, oversteers etc...

If I want oversteery cars I watch Rallying.
If I want lots of passes I watch MotoGP.
If I want technological excellence I watch F1.

What a joyless level of enthusiasm for F1 you have.

[Daniel]

What a joyless level of enthusiasm for F1 you have.
That's so true. So true. So true it's not funny.

[ioan]

My god that's sad.

Maybe for you.
I'm not dead for show, and circus you know?!
I don't go to cinema to watch Luc Besson movies. In fact I never go to Cineplexxes where you can't find a good movie. I prefer the smaller budget cinema when you can see a good artistic small budget movie that has a message other than the images.
I don't watch TV but for news and motorsport, and rarely for a good classic movie.

I don't search for show and suspense but for things I'm interested about.

I don't say that generally show isn't good for people, only that the kind of entertainment I prefer is pretty well defined and I know where I find what I need.



I'm not talking about the cars drifting like riceboxes or anything. I'm talking about slides like we saw at Silverstone which are an awesome display of a drivers skill.

All of the racing drivers (and most of the better drivers) can do that. It's just that I'm interested more by the result (car performance and lap times) than by the show.

Maybe I'm weird, but I feel OK the way I am.

[ioan]

What a joyless level of enthusiasm for F1 you have.

Who said I don't enjoy F1?
In fact I can enjoy F1 with what it offers without crying out loud about the lack of show like others do!
I always watch the races to the end and I don't feel bored after my fave is out of the race as there is still plenty to see.

[ioan]

That's so true. So true. So true it's not funny.

Fun, like beauty is subjective. And expecting that others enjoy the same thing you do is outright stupid.

[BDunnell]

Maybe for you.
I'm not dead for show, and circus you know?!
I don't go to cinema to watch Luc Besson movies. In fact I never go to Cineplexxes where you can't find a good movie. I prefer the smaller budget cinema when you can see a good artistic small budget movie that has a message other than the images.
I don't watch TV but for news and motorsport, and rarely for a good classic movie.

I don't search for show and suspense but for things I'm interested about.

I don't say that generally show isn't good for people, only that the kind of entertainment I prefer is pretty well defined and I know where I find what I need.



All of the racing drivers (and most of the better drivers) can do that. It's just that I'm interested more by the result (car performance and lap times) than by the show.

Maybe I'm weird, but I feel OK the way I am.

Your view is completely at odds with the reasons why all sports came about, which were all to do with the competition. This may have been diluted to some extent in recent times, now that money, science and technology play such a big part (in many sports other than F1), but it is still there. According to your opinion, F1 would be absolutely fine if it involved cars going round the track with no passing at all, but with each car being the technological peak of what is possible. You may scoff at this, but it is the natural extension of your 'technology over show' view.

[ioan]

I beg to differ.

Going through mud and gravel and snow in a time-trial manner in 4wd hatches has nothing in common with driving in a Caterham around a track.

I'm not that old, but from what I've seen, the way that Caterham drove had more in common with the F1 cars of days gone by than anything I've seen.


As you said, those days are gone, looong time gone.

F1 isn't about sliding around for quite some time already, and I bet that Ascari, Fangio and Co would have been pretty happy with a more stable car that you didn't need to catch at the exist of every turn for a couple of hours.

I think it's easier to watch the right motorsport for what you expect to see instead of wishing them all to be the same and contain everything.
Monotony is not good, is boring and kills everything.

[ioan]

Your view is completely at odds with the reasons why all sports came about, which were all to do with the competition.

Not really.
I enjoy the competition, but I don't think there is need for show in order to have a competition.

Do you think that competition and sport are about achievements (this is my view) or about show (Daniel's and apparently your view too)?!


This may have been diluted to some extent in recent times, now that money, science and technology play such a big part (in many sports other than F1), but it is still there.

I doubt we could have motorsports without technology and money. No money = no technology = no motors = no motorsport.



According to your opinion, F1 would be absolutely fine if it involved cars going round the track with no passing at all, but with each car being the technological peak of what is possible. You may scoff at this, but it is the natural extension of your 'technology over show' view.

My answer to this somewhat exaggerating question is YES, I would find it interesting because technology is why I watch F1.

[Daniel]

I love for Ioan to be banned because.... well I think it's obvious :)

[BDunnell]

Who said I don't enjoy F1?
In fact I can enjoy F1 with what it offers without crying out loud about the lack of show like others do!
I always watch the races to the end and I don't feel bored after my fave is out of the race as there is still plenty to see.

Where did I say that you didn't enjoy F1? I merely stated that, personally, I find the way in which you like the sport to be completely at odds with anything that I think could possibly generate any sort of emotion.

For me, the greatest moments of F1 are those that make the spine tingle with excitement. Have a look at this old (edited — it's considerably shortened compared with reality, until the last bit) clip of the 1967 Italian GP, one of the most memorable finishes of all time — http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JhWyxekzQ. This is what I mean. I don't care about the technological advances of the time contained in the Honda and Brabham that contested the lead around the last corner. Such as the finish of the 1969 Italian GP, the Villeneuve/Arnoux battle at Dijon in 1979, and the whole of the thrilling Australian GP in 1986, Monaco GP in 1996, British GP in 2003 or Japanese GP in 2005, generate the same feeling of excitement in me.

I too watch every race if I'm not away from a TV, and never give up if it's dull. As Denis Jenkinson once wrote, you have to watch every race, because while not every race can be great, if you don't watch them all you will miss the great ones. However, I'd be lying if I said I got any great satisfaction from a dull parade of technologically advanced cars.

[Daniel]

:up:

Wish I could find the classic photos of Fangio, Amon, and Peterson four-wheel-drifting their (very quick) way around :s mokin: Awesome skill. Awesome to see.

Very much so. So it wasn't as fast as F1 is now. It totally misses the point to focus on technology and speed :mark:

[AndyL]

Thus illustrating the pontlessness of the Veyron. Sure it's an engineering marvel but how many times have you walked past a nice building and said "Phwoar look at the engineering on that!"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Form and function is what it's all about and the Veyron ticks neither of those boxes when you consider how ugly it is and how much power it needs to do what it does.

:up: spot on. I remember seeing a couple of parade laps at Brands a while ago by a Veyron, an Enzo and an F40. The F40 easily looked and sounded the most special of the 3, followed by the Enzo. The Veyron just looked like, well, what you'd get if you spent a million Euros on an Audi.

[BDunnell]

Not really.
I enjoy the competition, but I don't think there is need for show in order to have a competition.

Do you think that competition and sport are about achievements (this is my view) or about show (Daniel's and apparently your view too)?!

The use of this word 'show' is a modern thing, and I dislike it. It implies that it is something that can be put on or contrived rather than something that just happens. There is a big difference. To me, though, a dull F1 race (let's not forget here that there have always been many such things) is naturally less memorable and notable than one in which there is a great deal of excitement.

Sport is often dull, let's face it. But it's the chance of seeing something exciting or exceptional (and 'exceptional' can include achievements, of course) that keeps me watching, apart from my natural enthusiasm for the sports I watch, which is what keeps me going through the dull bits.



I doubt we could have motorsports without technology and money. No money = no technology = no motors = no motorsport.

Of course.



My answer to this somewhat exaggerating question is YES, I would find it interesting because technology is why I watch F1.

As I said before, that is a very joyless interpretation of F1 'enthusiasm'.

[ArrowsFA1]

Do you think that competition and sport are about achievements (this is my view) or about show (Daniel's and apparently your view too)?!
I don't think it has to be one or the other. It can be both.

Gilles Villeneuve once said:
"I love motor racing. To me it's a sport, not a technical exercise. My ideal Formula One car would be something like a McLaren M23 with a big normally aspirated engine, 800 hp, 21 inch rear tyres. A lot of people say we should have narrower tires, but I don't agree because you need big tyres to slow you down when you spin. And you need a lot of horsepower to unstick big tyres, to make the cars slide. That would be a bloody fantastic spectacle, I can tell you. We would take corners one gear lower than we do now, and get the cars sideways. You know, people still rave about Ronnie Peterson in a Lotus 72, and I understand that. I agree with them. That's the kind of entertainment I want to give the crowds. Smoke the tyres ! Yeah !

I [care about the fans], because I used to be one of them ! I believe the crowd is really losing out at the moment, and that's bad."

I think we're still losing out today (more than 25yrs later) because we cannot see the drivers express their skills.

[BDunnell]

As a bit of an aside to all this, I have recently become rather interested in robot football. It is a truly fascinating and incredible technological exercise, and thus very impressive to watch in its own way. But as a substitute for 'real' football? No thanks. There is a parallel here with interpretations of what makes F1 special to people.

[Daniel]

As a bit of an aside to all this, I have recently become rather interested in robot football. It is a truly fascinating and incredible technological exercise, and thus very impressive to watch in its own way. But as a substitute for 'real' football? No thanks. There is a parallel here with interpretations of what makes F1 special to people.

Real football is exciting? :mark:

[BDunnell]

Real football is exciting? :mark:

Some would, and do, say the same about F1.

[ioan]

Where did I say that you didn't enjoy F1?

Here:



What a joyless level of enthusiasm for F1 you have.

[wedge]

If you are thinking about a Sunday roadster, or a trakcday car, nothing beats a Caterham, any Caterham. Even the basic models are just pure fun, the R400 and R500 are just devilish fun ;-)

I have a friend who dumped my sister for a Caterham (from a Scooby Impreza STI)


I think we're still losing out today (more than 25yrs later) because we cannot see the drivers express their skills.

It's different these days. Tyre technology, downforce. In the 'great days' the way to be quick was to 4 wheel drift. More recent times, unless your name's Hamilton, Senna or M Schumacher if the car snaps sideways it will cost you a couple of tenths.

Another problem I find is that spotting a driver keeping the car under control is quite difficult to spot on TV.

For example in the Spanish GP this year I vividly remember onboard shot of a car chasing Barrichello that you could see how horrendous the Honda was - the rear was moving around all over the place but it didn't seem to come out quite well on the normal TV angles.

All it goes back to is that (and in my firm belief) a race car should have more power than grip - which is an asset to the Caterhams.

[ioan]

For me, the greatest moments of F1 are those that make the spine tingle with excitement. Have a look at this old (edited — it's considerably shortened compared with reality, until the last bit) clip of the 1967 Italian GP, one of the most memorable finishes of all time — http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JhWyxekzQ. This is what I mean. I don't care about the technological advances of the time contained in the Honda and Brabham that contested the lead around the last corner. Such as the finish of the 1969 Italian GP, the Villeneuve/Arnoux battle at Dijon in 1979, and the whole of the thrilling Australian GP in 1986, Monaco GP in 1996, British GP in 2003 or Japanese GP in 2005, generate the same feeling of excitement in me.

I totally understand your point of view and the reasons why you enjoy the races.

I don't dispute your or Daniel's need for spectacular, suspense and show (in his case).
I only say that I enjoy other aspects of it, without booing your likeness for the other aspects. There is no need for us to be all alike and especially not for belittling the preferences of those who don't think or feel alike (and I talk about Daniel's response here)
What is so complicated to understand?!

[BDunnell]

Here:

ioan, that post of mine does not say that you do not enjoy F1. What it says, quite obviously, is that I find the way in which you enjoy F1 to be joyless, and I stand by that. If I wanted to say that you do not enjoy F1 I would just say so. Instead, I was quite specific about what I said.

[BDunnell]

I totally understand your point of view and the reasons why you enjoy the races.

I don't dispute your or Daniel's need for spectacular, suspense and show (in his case).
I only say that I enjoy other aspects of it, without booing your likeness for the other aspects. There is no need for us to be all alike and especially not for belittling the preferences of those who don't think or feel alike (and I talk about Daniel's response here)
What is so complicated to understand?!

What I find so hard to understand is how you can gain any enjoyment from watching F1 for the reasons you do so. I simply do not get it. This is not out of a lack of respect for your opinions.

[ioan]

All it goes back to is that (and in my firm belief) a race car should have more power than grip - which is an asset to the Caterhams.

What's the benefit having more power than you can use?

[BDunnell]

It's different these days. Tyre technology, downforce. In the 'great days' the way to be quick was to 4 wheel drift. More recent times, unless your name's Hamilton, Senna or M Schumacher if the car snaps sideways it will cost you a couple of tenths.

Another problem I find is that spotting a driver keeping the car under control is quite difficult to spot on TV.

For example in the Spanish GP this year I vividly remember onboard shot of a car chasing Barrichello that you could see how horrendous the Honda was - the rear was moving around all over the place but it didn't seem to come out quite well on the normal TV angles.

All it goes back to is that (and in my firm belief) a race car should have more power than grip - which is an asset to the Caterhams.

This is interesting, because one of the best drivers I have ever seen in any form of motorsport is rally driver Walter Röhrl, and he was a master of controlled aggression at a time when several other top drivers sometimes found it hard to exercise that control. This was even true when he drove the Quattro. This, to me, remains a very impressive trait even though he was far from being the most spectacular driver.

I almost think that the drivers can be separated from this discussion because they will always have to contend with the type of car they are given. For instance, by today's standards, almost every top rally driver of the pre-Quattro era looks spectacular because of the nature of those cars when they were driven at speed.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I love the Caterham and all the 'seven' replicas. My brother had a Westfield Kit car (and he wrapped it around a lamp post :\ )

If you don't find F1 exciting why don't you just watch the Caterham challenge?

[Ranger]

What's the benefit having more power than you can use?

Looks better, sounds better, fans enjoy it more, drivers enjoy it more, and it promotes better racing.

[ioan]

ioan, that post of mine does not say that you do not enjoy F1. What it says, quite obviously, is that I find the way in which you enjoy F1 to be joyless, and I stand by that. If I wanted to say that you do not enjoy F1 I would just say so. Instead, I was quite specific about what I said.

OK, I see what you meant to say.


What I find so hard to understand is how you can gain any enjoyment from watching F1 for the reasons you do so. I simply do not get it. This is not out of a lack of respect for your opinions.

We are not all alike. people are very different. As I said I understand what you enjoy in F1, but it's different for me.
For sure I did also come across people who were enjoying F1 for reasons that I couldn't understand either (like for example crashes), and even if it was sick, IMO, I let them be.

PS: What are you doing for a living? I don't need the name of your job or position, only the domain.

[ioan]

Looks better, sounds better, fans enjoy it more, drivers enjoy it more, and it promotes better racing.

And you have less chances to win! Ever thought that those teams design and build cars to win the competition not to please our eyes, ears and brains?

[BDunnell]

For sure I did also come across people who were enjoying F1 for reasons that I couldn't understand either (like for example crashes), and even if it was sick, IMO, I let them be.

Personally, I wouldn't leave be those who like motorsport for the crashes. I find this extremely distasteful.



PS: What are you doing for a living? I don't need the name of your job or position, only the domain.

Journalism.

[Ranger]

And you have less chances to win! Ever thought that those teams design and build cars to win the competition not to please our eyes, ears and brains?

o rly? :rolleyes:

No, actually that thought never ever occurred to me. I am so glad you instantly assumed I did not know that because indeed I did not.

...

I am kidding. I was talking about the rules that govern all teams.

The TC ban in 2008 partially addressed that power/grip issue and hence the season saw much better racing than the past few years IMO, because the available grip was reduced.

As a fan of racing, I enjoyed that.

Cheerio then.

[ioan]

I am kidding. I was talking about the rules that govern all teams.

The TC ban in 2008 partially addressed that power/grip issue and hence the season saw much better racing than the past few years IMO, because the available grip was reduced.

As a fan of racing, I enjoyed that.

Sarcasm aside, TC only removed a means of controlling the way the power is put on the ground, it didn't change the grip level.
Next year, maybe the grip levels will be lower, but this totally depends if the supplementary amount of mechanical grip supplied by the slicks will be inferior or superior to the amount of grip lost due to the aero rule changes.

I think that the teams will try to get as much grip as possible with the new rules in order to be able to use all the power delivered by the engine in the best possible way.
And this even more in 2010 when they will have to do the full race without refueling, and they will not allow themselves to lose any bit of energy through slides or wheel slips.

[ioan]

Personally, I wouldn't leave be those who like motorsport for the crashes. I find this extremely distasteful.

They are long lost to the society. They need a doctor.



Journalism.

Mechanical engineering here. And I became interested in F1 because of the technology involved not because of the drivers.
This might explain our different views about motorsport and especially about F1. :)

[Daniel]

Sarcasm aside, TC only removed a means of controlling the way the power is put on the ground, it didn't change the grip level.

Well yes but no. In the past you could mash the throttle and you had only as much power as the car could put down. This year was different.

[Daniel]

I love the Caterham and all the 'seven' replicas. My brother had a Westfield Kit car (and he wrapped it around a lamp post :\ )

If you don't find F1 exciting why don't you just watch the Caterham challenge?

What a silly post :) F1 has become something that a lot of people don't like. So rather than admit that there's a problem you tell the people that they should go and watch something else? :laugh:

[BDunnell]

Mechanical engineering here. And I became interested in F1 because of the technology involved not because of the drivers.
This might explain our different views about motorsport and especially about F1. :)

Possibly.

[wedge]

This is interesting, because one of the best drivers I have ever seen in any form of motorsport is rally driver Walter Röhrl, and he was a master of controlled aggression at a time when several other top drivers sometimes found it hard to exercise that control. This was even true when he drove the Quattro. This, to me, remains a very impressive trait even though he was far from being the most spectacular driver.

I almost think that the drivers can be separated from this discussion because they will always have to contend with the type of car they are given. For instance, by today's standards, almost every top rally driver of the pre-Quattro era looks spectacular because of the nature of those cars when they were driven at speed.

People tend to forget that JYS, Clark, Fangio, they drove with smoothness, precision and elegance. They made it look so easy that it was difficult to comprehend - Clark especially - when everyone else were shuffling their steering wheels more erratically by comparison.

Today you look Hamilton and think 'how did you get pole and yet the backend kept snapping?'

I'm not saying one driving style is better than the other because that simply isn't the case (eg. Prost & Senna) but alluding to controlled aggression


What's the benefit having more power than you can use?

EXACTLY!

Which is my TC is banned.

[ArrowsFA1]

All it goes back to is that (and in my firm belief) a race car should have more power than grip
:up: :up: :up:

What's the benefit having more power than you can use?
Because it allows drivers to use their skills (it is called the World Drivers Championship after all) and allows us to see them doing so.

Looks better, sounds better, fans enjoy it more, drivers enjoy it more, and it promotes better racing.

And you have less chances to win!
Why :confused:

[BDunnell]

People tend to forget that JYS, Clark, Fangio, they drove with smoothness, precision and elegance. They made it look so easy that it was difficult to comprehend - Clark especially - when everyone else were shuffling their steering wheels more erratically by comparison.

Today you look Hamilton and think 'how did you get pole and yet the backend kept snapping?'

I'm not saying one driving style is better than the other because that simply isn't the case (eg. Prost & Senna) but alluding to controlled aggression

I couldn't agree more. This sort of variety of styles helps keep watching F1 interesting.

[ioan]

Well yes but no. In the past you could mash the throttle and you had only as much power as the car could put down. This year was different.

That has nothing to do with grip.

[ioan]

Why :confused:

Because you can only get a limited amount of HP from a very restricted engine configuration, and the one that uses most of it to make the car go in the right direction (i.e. ahead) is the one that is going to finish the races faster and thus win.
That's why.

[aryan]

What's the benefit having more power than you can use?

Well, according to all the reports I've read, you CAN use all the power a R500 gives you. Apparently, those tyres are really sticky.

I agree with you. Road-legal cars should not have more power than grip, which is why I don't like, say a Focus ST, or most American muscle cars.

[Daniel]

Well, according to all the reports I've read, you CAN use all the power a R500 gives you. Apparently, those tyres are really sticky.

I agree with you. Road-legal cars should not have more power than grip, which is why I don't like, say a Focus ST, or most American muscle cars.

Thing is in very normal conditions a lot of normal cars can have more power than grip. It's down to the driver and TC as to how they put that power down.

[Daniel]

Because you can only get a limited amount of HP from a very restricted engine configuration, and the one that uses most of it to make the car go in the right direction (i.e. ahead) is the one that is going to finish the races faster and thus win.
That's why.

What about when a car wants to turn? Sometimes oversteer is good for that you know....


That has nothing to do with grip.

It has everything to do with the engine not overwhelming the available grip....

[Knock-on]

What's the benefit having more power than you can use?

That's a bit like saying more than a handful is a waste :D

Some people like Veyrons, 911's, Enzo's etc and jolly good luck to them. No problem at all with their choice as they are marvels of technological excellence.

For me, give me as few electronics as it takes to create a spark, a sodding powerful engine, a nibble chassis, suspension you can shave with as as much lightness as you can afford.

Then you have what I call fun.

[BDunnell]

What's the benefit having more power than you can use?

Do you think that all cars should be limited to the top speed of the country in which they are sold, then?

[aryan]

Thing is in very normal conditions a lot of normal cars can have more power than grip. It's down to the driver and TC as to how they put that power down.

Well call me old-fashioned, but I don't like TC. I make it a mission to only buy cars whose TC can be completely disabled.

TC should not be a manufacturer's excuse for putting in much more powerful engines into a chassis that can't handle it (Yes, I'm talking about the previous generation Focus ST).

In normal passenger cars (that excludes supercars), torque steering is a sin.

[ioan]

Do you think that all cars should be limited to the top speed of the country in which they are sold, then?

No they shouldn't because you can also go to a country where the allowed speed limit is higher and you will be a danger on the road between the faster cars.

What I was saying is that more power than grip is useless because you just can't use it in a rational way.
Even properly powered cars can be driven very fast if you are a good driver. Doing all kind of stunts just because you have an overpowered car is simply childish.

And in a racing car is just a loss of competitiveness, if you have more power than grip cause you simply can't use it and this while it empties your fuel cell at a higher rate.

[ioan]

That's a bit like saying more than a handful is a waste :D

Let's put it: "more than you need is a waste!" and I think it's the right moment to consider such sayings in motorsport and real life.

[BDunnell]

No they shouldn't because you can also go to a country where the allowed speed limit is higher and you will be a danger on the road between the faster cars.

In which case, surely, slow cars ought not to be sold in those countries with higher speed limits because they might endanger the faster cars? Your argument simply doesn't add up.

[Daniel]

Well call me old-fashioned, but I don't like TC. I make it a mission to only buy cars whose TC can be completely disabled.

TC should not be a manufacturer's excuse for putting in much more powerful engines into a chassis that can't handle it (Yes, I'm talking about the previous generation Focus ST).

In normal passenger cars (that excludes supercars), torque steering is a sin.

Oh I agree. I was talking about F1 pre-TC ban though :)


That's a bit like saying more than a handful is a waste :D

Amen to that :up: :cheese:

[ArrowsFA1]

What I was saying is that more power than grip is useless because you just can't use it in a rational way.
Who said anything about racing being rational :)

ioan, I respect your viewpoint, but I don't agree with it. Seeing motorsport as a technical exercise seems...clinical...devoid of soul...lacking an appreciation of the skills of the drivers :dozey: More power than grip allows the drivers to show their skill IMHO.

And another thing...As Steve McQueen said: "Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." :s mokin:

[BDunnell]

Seeing motorsport as a technical exercise seems...clinical...devoid of soul...lacking an appreciation of the skills of the drivers :dozey: More power than grip allows the drivers to show their skill IMHO.

:up:

[MrJan]

I've got to say Ioan that I too find your view of F1 baffling, probably because I was raised watching motorsport so it's in my blood rather than being attracted to it in another way. I do see how you can appreciate the sheer technological aspect of it and some of your opinions make a bit more sense now :)

However as an engineer, albeit in a completely different field, I'd have thought that you would appreciate the Caterham as a piece of work. Here is a vehicle which can trounce the pants off of supercars that can cost many times more. Okay so it's sideways but it does so in a fast way, a drifting rather than full blown tail out way and in my mind it is truly beautiful.

I don't think that I'll ever be able to consider motorsport in the same way as you do, it's not the technology that excites me but the noise, the smell and when you see a driver really trying hard to go quickly. That's why I'm a Hamilton fan, because he throws the car about a bit, and likewise loved watching McRae. It's also why I was disappointed when someone told me that my driving looked neat, it sure as s*** didn't feel neat ;) :D

[BDunnell]

I don't think that I'll ever be able to consider motorsport in the same way as you do, it's not the technology that excites me but the noise, the smell and when you see a driver really trying hard to go quickly. That's why I'm a Hamilton fan, because he throws the car about a bit, and likewise loved watching McRae. It's also why I was disappointed when someone told me that my driving looked neat, it sure as s*** didn't feel neat ;) :D

:laugh:

To play devil's advocate ever so slightly here (and go a bit off topic too), do you not also, as an enthusiast, appreciate those who manage to be seriously quick but also incredibly smooth. Alain Prost is the best example of this I can think of in F1. The reason I referred to going off topic is that, as a child, my first favourite drivers in motorsport were Jimmy McRae and Tony Pond. McRae tended to look like he wasn't trying too hard, but of course he was right on the pace more often than not. Pond was often made to look more spectacular by having to hustle cars that weren't the quickest out there, like the Nissan 240RS in Corsica or the Group A Rover Vitesse on the Manx, but he was really a very smooth, quick driver. I think there's a lot to be said for that as a driver's style if it delivers the results.

[MrJan]

:laugh:

To play devil's advocate ever so slightly here (and go a bit off topic too), do you not also, as an enthusiast, appreciate those who manage to be seriously quick but also incredibly smooth...

Absolutely. Loeb has done it in rallying to such a point that the sport has changed. I'm not saying that I can't see the technical side of the sport, I am frequently astonished on rallies by how quick some of the drivers can be without actually looking fast, but I don't find it that exciting. It's the drivers who look like they are trying to rip the wheels off the car that I like. That's why I like that Caterham lap, it looks so bloody quick :D

[ioan]

Absolutely. Loeb has done it in rallying to such a point that the sport has changed. I'm not saying that I can't see the technical side of the sport, I am frequently astonished on rallies by how quick some of the drivers can be without actually looking fast, but I don't find it that exciting. It's the drivers who look like they are trying to rip the wheels off the car that I like. That's why I like that Caterham lap, it looks so bloody quick :D

There's the difference between you and me, you like them when they look quick, I like them when they are quick, no matter if they are or not. You go for the looks I go for the performance.

As for the Caterham being so quick, well it's a very lightweight car with a powerfull engine, while those supercars you are trying to compare it too are easily 2 and even 3 times heavier. It's ok on twitchy circuits with sharp corners where it's size gives it an advantage but try it on a quick and flowing circuit and those supercars will trash it! ;) There is no question about that.

[ioan]

And another thing...As Steve McQueen said: "Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." :s mokin:

Each to his own, I guess. I have plenty of other things that make me feel alive.

[cosmicpanda]

As for the Caterham being so quick, well it's a very lightweight car with a powerfull engine, while those supercars you are trying to compare it too are easily 2 and even 3 times heavier. It's ok on twitchy circuits with sharp corners where it's size gives it an advantage but try it on a quick and flowing circuit and those supercars will trash it! ;) There is no question about that.

Caterham's a lightweight and powerful car... remind you of an F1 car at all?

[MrJan]

As for the Caterham being so quick, well it's a very lightweight car with a powerfull engine, while those supercars you are trying to compare it too are easily 2 and even 3 times heavier. It's ok on twitchy circuits with sharp corners where it's size gives it an advantage but try it on a quick and flowing circuit and those supercars will trash it! ;) There is no question about that.

I know why it is quick, it's technologically better at cornering. The supercars just use their power on open circuits to beat it into submission :)

[ioan]

Caterham's a lightweight and powerful car... remind you of an F1 car at all?

And? Is there any use comparing a F1 car with a luxury supercar?

[cosmicpanda]

And? Is there any use comparing a F1 car with a luxury supercar?

I wasn't comparing an F1 car with a luxury supercar, Ioan.

[Mark]

And? Is there any use comparing a F1 car with a luxury supercar?

No the comparison was with a Caterham and an F1 car, both supposedly built purely for speed and lightweight.

I think F1 has lost sight of that in recent years. IMO F1 cars should be very light, and very powerful but in essence be quite simple machines that need driver skill alone to keep them on track.

[Knock-on]

No the comparison was with a Caterham and an F1 car, both supposedly built purely for speed and lightweight.

I think F1 has lost sight of that in recent years. IMO F1 cars should be very light, and very powerful but in essence be quite simple machines that need driver skill alone to keep them on track.

Burn the witch, Burn The Witch

[Daniel]

No the comparison was with a Caterham and an F1 car, both supposedly built purely for speed and lightweight.

I think F1 has lost sight of that in recent years. IMO F1 cars should be very light, and very powerful but in essence be quite simple machines that need driver skill alone to keep them on track.

What a ridiculous argument! :p

What would James Allen have yammered on about for the last god knows how many years if there wasn't such a high level of spectacle destroying technology involved in F1? :p

Actually that's a fantastic argument! :D

[ioan]

No the comparison was with a Caterham and an F1 car, both supposedly built purely for speed and lightweight.


Well, there was a comparison between the Caterham and the Supercars going on and than he likened the Caterham to an F1 car (because of the weight power ratio). Logically you can say that comparing the Caterham to a state o the art luxury supercar is as poinless as comparing those supercars with an F1 car. That was my point. :)

Even those at the Top Gear are missing the point with their useless comparisons, or maybe they are just doing for the sake of the contrivied surprising results. I would go for the later, but that implies that they take their viewers for dummies.

[MrJan]

No one is comparing anything to an F1 car, they are stating similarities which isn't the same as saying that they are equal. As for Caterham and a supercar, well they were compared upon the basis of cost and the speed around a track, okay so the supercar is more planted, better looking, more prestigious and would be easier to live with but that isn't the point. That Caterham went faster than a lot of serious cars around that track and costs a whole lot less.

Top Gear see this too, they do pieces on the positives and negatives of cars and they have a track which has some big open bits (the run down to the first corner and the bit up to and through the tyres). I'm not sure whether you just have it in for the Caterham or don't realise how quick those things are but unless you have a long straight or a power circuit then you will struggle to find many cars which can keep up with it.

[airshifter]

I can't see why everyone is so upset about Ioan's view simply because he enjoys the sport for a different reason than some others. You all seem to be forgetting what the sport would lose if the cars didn't handle as well. Sure it might make the racing tighter, but many of the good passes we enjoy now would be accidents instead. The straight on view of the harbor chicane at Monaco wouldn't show the brutal handling of the cars, nor would we enjoy the increasingly fast laps these cars have put out over the years.

I can wet down the track at the local go cart place and see driver skill and spectacle. But we would lose a lot of racing spectacle we have now if F1 technology is dumbed down too much. Be careful what you wish for, or F1 might start looking like NASCAR road courses.

[ShiftingGears]

I can't see why everyone is so upset about Ioan's view simply because he enjoys the sport for a different reason than some others. You all seem to be forgetting what the sport would lose if the cars didn't handle as well. Sure it might make the racing tighter, but many of the good passes we enjoy now would be accidents instead.

I don't see the logic. The drivers always drive on the limit, whatever car they are in.


The straight on view of the harbor chicane at Monaco wouldn't show the brutal handling of the cars, nor would we enjoy the increasingly fast laps these cars have put out over the years.


I don't think the majority of F1 fans are overly concerned with increasing speeds of fastest laps, personally.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That Caterham was not racing either.



I actually like rally, and oversteering cars, and also the old oversteery F1 cars. But hey, we need to evolve and ovesteering to such a level has no place in modern F1 IMO.

Interesting that you say that you don't like oversteering cars in F1 yet hate Jenson Button, who's driving style is the smoothest and far less oversteery when compared with Massa and M.Schumacher.

[hmmm - donuts]

Some years back I had a passenger ride round silverstone in a Caterham superlite - very very exciting indeed - and that in something not as fast as the Top Gear machine, and presumably not driven on the raggedy edge...

[BDunnell]

EDIT — unnecessary post.

[ShiftingGears]

Speaking of oversteer, I just found an onboard lap of Juan Manuel Fangio at Monaco.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MRc18SfbnIM&feature=related

Great video.

[airshifter]

I don't see the logic. The drivers always drive on the limit, whatever car they are in.



I don't think the majority of F1 fans are overly concerned with increasing speeds of fastest laps, personally.


If F1 is dumbed down to the speeds set by other series, then why aren't the F1 fans already watching those instead? When CART raced in Canada, how many F1 fans watched it?

I enjoy both views expressed, being on the edge driving and fast laps. But if we lose fast lap times, we lose part of what is F1 right now.

[ShiftingGears]

If F1 is dumbed down to the speeds set by other series, then why aren't the F1 fans already watching those instead? When CART raced in Canada, how many F1 fans watched it?

I enjoy both views expressed, being on the edge driving and fast laps. But if we lose fast lap times, we lose part of what is F1 right now.

Firstly because the level of talent in F1 is superior to that of American Open Wheel racing.

The DP-01 could post lap times similar to an F1 car when driven at Laguna Seca, on a comparitively small budget. No influx of viewers there.

[aryan]

Speaking of oversteer, I just found an onboard lap of Juan Manuel Fangio at Monaco.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MRc18SfbnIM&feature=related

Great video.

Wow! Just wow! Awesome!

One question though... this is 50s, right? How did they have on-board cameras back then? In Colour? Maybe the on-board scenes were reconstructed in Studio?

[ShiftingGears]

I suspect that it is from the 1960's. I doubt they would've reconstructed the scenes in studio, so I think its very unlikely it's from the 50's.

[ioan]

Interesting that you say that you don't like oversteering cars in F1 yet hate Jenson Button, who's driving style is the smoothest and far less oversteery when compared with Massa and M.Schumacher.

More interesting is that you can't read properly or you don't understand plain old English. I said oversteer is OK up to a certain level. :rolleyes:

If you want to have a discussion or even argue with me, no problem, but don't twist my words. :mad:

[BDunnell]

More interesting is that you can't read properly or you don't understand plain old English.

ioan, I think you should at least try to be civil sometimes, rather than putting on this unnecessary aggression. It does your arguments no favours whatsoever.

[ioan]

ioan, I think you should at least try to be civil sometimes, rather than putting on this unnecessary aggression. It does your arguments no favours whatsoever.

I'm having difficulties talking in a civilized matter to people who do what BJB did.
They don't care what you said, they don't even read what you wrote but they need to say something untrue about you in order to start a dispute.

Honestly if it would have been a face to face discussion I'm not sure if he would have dared to be so cocky in his stupidity.

[BDunnell]

I'm having difficulties talking in a civilized matter to people who do what BJB did.
They don't care what you said, they don't even read what you wrote but they need to say something untrue about you in order to start a dispute.

Honestly if it would have been a face to face discussion I'm not sure if he would have dared to be so cocky in his stupidity.

There we go again. Your reaction seems completely out of proportion to me.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm having difficulties talking in a civilized matter to people who do what BJB did.
They don't care what you said, they don't even read what you wrote but they need to say something untrue about you in order to start a dispute.

Honestly if it would have been a face to face discussion I'm not sure if he would have dared to be so cocky in his stupidity.

I probably would have.

I was making a fair point.

Nice lap, I bet the time would have been even better if it didn't slide around like a horse sledge.

If you want to see cars racing like that I suggest you watch rally and leave f1 alone.

You said that driving smoother with less sliding is faster, so in that case logic suggests you should be a Jenson Button fan. :confused:

[ioan]

There we go again. Your reaction seems completely out of proportion to me.

I don't deny that it isn't, but I don't think it is totally unjustified.

[ioan]

I probably would have.

I was making a fair point.


You said that driving smoother with less sliding is faster, so in that case logic suggests you should be a Jenson Button fan. :confused:

Look, I think you are trying to make a point where there is no point to make.
I always was a Schumacher and now I mainly support Massa and Vettel, they are incredibly fast drivers without being sideways in every 2nd corner. Sure the odd slide happens but rarely.
In fact they are all mostly very clean drivers, Hamilton being the only one who pushes the car to far to often, and I don't really like his ragged style.

Button isn't a smooth driver, he is a smooth and slow driver.

[MrJan]

No Button is a smooth driver in a slow car, there's a difference :D I've got to say that from the statement you made before it seems logical to make the assumption that BJB did. OKay so we all know that you don't like the British drivers but you seem to contradict yourself a lot of the time and that can be confusing.

Personally I find it more amazing that Hamilton is ragged and fast. You say yourself that smooth is often quicker so surely it's even more impressive that Lewis can be sideways and quick at the same time?

[ioan]

Personally I find it more amazing that Hamilton is ragged and fast. You say yourself that smooth is often quicker so surely it's even more impressive that Lewis can be sideways and quick at the same time?

I would be much more impressed if he was smoother and quicker. being ragged and still up there is rather due to having the chance to sit in a fast and forgiving car. If he was in a mid-grid car he would be nowhere in terms of performance with such a driving style. Also his style is killing his tires and takes a lot away from the awesome car Mclaren produced this year, and this explains why Ferrari were able to best them in many races even when the Mac looked faster in qualis.

[Knock-on]

I would be much more impressed if he was smoother and quicker. being ragged and still up there is rather due to having the chance to sit in a fast and forgiving car. If he was in a mid-grid car he would be nowhere in terms of performance with such a driving style. Also his style is killing his tires and takes a lot away from the awesome car Mclaren produced this year, and this explains why Ferrari were able to best them in many races even when the Mac looked faster in qualis.

I'm sorry ioan but I'm having difficulty following your logic here?

Lewis has changed his style slightly to be smoother on the car to the extent that earlier in the season, he was chewing tyres and now his team mate is.

This suggests the driver is doing something that people like Kimi are struggling with and adapting to the car.

You say ragged but I suggest it's racing on the limit. He makes less mistakes than people like Massa because of his driving.

Also, I think JB is justified in the assumptions he made and suggest you might owe him an apology?

[ArrowsFA1]

IMO F1 cars should be very light, and very powerful but in essence be quite simple machines that need driver skill alone to keep them on track.
Like this you mean?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hfW-WiRGml4

[ioan]

I'm sorry ioan but I'm having difficulty following your logic here?

It wouldn't be the first time! :D



Lewis has changed his style slightly to be smoother on the car to the extent that earlier in the season, he was chewing tyres and now his team mate is.

Never heard or read about this. Any chance to give a link to a story stating that?



You say ragged but I suggest it's racing on the limit.

I rather think it's because he has a defect between his ears. It might go away with age, but I have my doubts.

[Knock-on]

It wouldn't be the first time! :D


Me and 90% of the planet i guess :D


Never heard or read about this. Any chance to give a link to a story stating that?

No links I'm afraid but it was common knowledge that Lewis was wearing his tyres out last year and the first couple of races.

It's also common knowledge (I thought) that HK was wearing his a bit faster towards the end of the season and LH was getting better wear.


I rather think it's because he has a defect between his ears. It might go away with age, but I have my doubts.

Unfortunately old son, I think it's only going to get worse.... for Ferrari fans :laugh:

;)

Lewis has changed his style slightly to be smoother on the car to the extent that earlier in the season, he was chewing tyres and now his team mate is.

Which, according to the latest Autosport, Mclaren's own in-house fanzine, is utter bollocks.

Within its pages there is an article which notes that the MP4/23 was made to suit Hamilton's style as the season went on to the detriment of his team-mate, who could not perform as well in the latter half of the season because of this.

Hamilton had the car changed to suit him. He did not change.

Oh, and it quotes him.

[Bagwan]

Which, according to the latest Autosport, Mclaren's own in-house fanzine, is utter bollocks.

Within its pages there is an article which notes that the MP4/23 was made to suit Hamilton's style as the season went on to the detriment of his team-mate, who could not perform as well in the latter half of the season because of this.

Hamilton had the car changed to suit him. He did not change.

Oh, and it quotes him.

Oh , way to pee in the corn flakes , Tam .
Then , Heikki has more to complain about than just heavy fuel ?

It must be a drag , working for someone who is working against you .
At least , that's what Coulthard thought , and Juan Pablo , and Fernando .
Those who thought that another Finn would be the favourite son are sorely disappointed .

[MrJan]

I rather think it's because he has a defect between his ears. It might go away with age, but I have my doubts.

Perhaps. He's certainly got himself a nice shiny trophy though :D Says something along the lines of 'World Drivers Champion' on it which I assume counts for something.

[BDunnell]

Perhaps. He's certainly got himself a nice shiny trophy though :D Says something along the lines of 'World Drivers Champion' on it which I assume counts for something.

:laugh:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Also, I think JB is justified in the assumptions he made and suggest you might owe him an apology?

Which JB?
Jenson Button or Jon Brown? :p

[Knock-on]

Which, according to the latest Autosport, Mclaren's own in-house fanzine, is utter bollocks.

Within its pages there is an article which notes that the MP4/23 was made to suit Hamilton's style as the season went on to the detriment of his team-mate, who could not perform as well in the latter half of the season because of this.

Hamilton had the car changed to suit him. He did not change.

Oh, and it quotes him.

Leaving your customary rudeness aside, would you care to supply a link.

I don't doubt you but haven't come across a story where Lewis says the MP4/23 was made to suit his style to the detriment of his Team mate.

Many thanks

Leaving your customary rudeness aside, would you care to supply a link.

I don't doubt you but haven't come across a story where Lewis says the MP4/23 was made to suit his style to the detriment of his Team mate.

Many thanks

It's available in all leading newsagents.

Perhaps you could spend one of your christmas book vouchers on it?

[markabilly]

Which, according to the latest Autosport, Mclaren's own in-house fanzine, is utter bollocks.

Within its pages there is an article which notes that the MP4/23 was made to suit Hamilton's style as the season went on to the detriment of his team-mate, who could not perform as well in the latter half of the season because of this.

Hamilton had the car changed to suit him. He did not change.

Oh, and it quotes him.


And a point well made.....something that has been overlooked in all of the many many debates as to who is the better driver, is the fact that at this level of competition, micro-changes in the car can vastly decrease the lap times of one driver over his team mate

Note the thread about ferrari and understeer and the brakes on Kimi's car under the race engineer thread..

But in this particular case, I thought it was the two laps of extra fuel being dumped into HK's car that always gave Lewis the advantage in qualifying and the race.....guess that was not enough and he needed a little extra, after all

[markabilly]

Wow! Just wow! Awesome!

One question though... this is 50s, right? How did they have on-board cameras back then? In Colour? Maybe the on-board scenes were reconstructed in Studio?


I suspect that it is from the 1960's. I doubt they would've reconstructed the scenes in studio, so I think its very unlikely it's from the 50's.


Color film (for photos and movies) was available in the 1930's and used regularly in the 1940's

Most printing of photos in newspapers and then later in television, only used black and white, until the 1960's--indeed due to costs, many movies were filmed in black and white through the 1950's----hence the perception that if it were color, it must be something from a later time period such as the 1960's (because it was in the 1960's that color in tv became available and colored movies were used almost exclusively due to decreased costs)

It is awesome and looks to me to be totally the real deal....

[ioan]

Perhaps. He's certainly got himself a nice shiny trophy though :D Says something along the lines of 'World Drivers Champion' on it which I assume counts for something.

IMO it's worth nothing! :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

IMO it's worth nothing! :p :
Mmmmmmm...Nothing will become of nothing :s mokin:

[cosmicpanda]

Ioan, if you knew that the F1 cars had lots of technology, yet they drove like the Caterham did, would you be happy to watch then?

This question comes from the viewpoint that technology doesn't have to equal being on rails. Admittedly, the tech in a current F1 car does, but I'm sure you could have advanced engines, advanced chassis design (ie. safety, materials, geometry), advanced brakes, energy recovery systems etc, without the cars having to drive like they currently do.

[ioan]

Ioan, if you knew that the F1 cars had lots of technology, yet they drove like the Caterham did, would you be happy to watch then?

This question comes from the viewpoint that technology doesn't have to equal being on rails. Admittedly, the tech in a current F1 car does, but I'm sure you could have advanced engines, advanced chassis design (ie. safety, materials, geometry), advanced brakes, energy recovery systems etc, without the cars having to drive like they currently do.

Your question is nonsense as you point it out yourself.

BTW we already have technology packed cars running sideways, that's what rally cars are for! :)

I like F1 for technological excellence aimed to achieve the ultimate performance given a set of rules, otherwise I would watch only space ship launches at Cape Canaveral! ;)

[Daniel]

BTW we already have technology packed cars running sideways, that's what rally cars are for! :)

You haven't been watching the WRC for the last 2 or 3 years by the sounds of it :)

[ioan]

You haven't been watching the WRC for the last 2 or 3 years by the sounds of it :)

Certainly not as close as F1. Are you trying to tell me that rally cars are going on rails like F1 cars?

[ShiftingGears]

Certainly not as close as F1. Are you trying to tell me that rally cars are going on rails like F1 cars?

They're certainly unspectacular.

[cosmicpanda]

Your question is nonsense as you point it out yourself.

BTW we already have technology packed cars running sideways, that's what rally cars are for! :)

I like F1 for technological excellence aimed to achieve the ultimate performance given a set of rules, otherwise I would watch only space ship launches at Cape Canaveral! ;)

How is it nonsense?

If the ultimate performance given a set of rules resulted in sideways F1 cars, would you watch it then?

[Daniel]

Certainly not as close as F1. Are you trying to tell me that rally cars are going on rails like F1 cars?

Pretty much. They were quite sideways at Rally GB but that was because of the silly tyre rules. Think F1 car on intermediates when there is standing water and you have some idea of how unsuitable the control tyres were .......

[ioan]

If the ultimate performance given a set of rules resulted in sideways F1 cars, would you watch it then?

If, defying the laws of Newtonian physics, that would be the case, yes I would watch it! :)

PS: Happy new year to everyone! :)

[ioan]

Pretty much. They were quite sideways at Rally GB but that was because of the silly tyre rules. Think F1 car on intermediates when there is standing water and you have some idea of how unsuitable the control tyres were .......

Yeah, you are right on that one.
However on gravel tracks they still do slide enough to make it more spectacular than F1! ;)