Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

link to old races?

all on my HD/media server at home and I just stream to any of my TVs (all networked). they take shitloads of space though, I have quite a few full seasons but we are talking 100s of GB.

yeah I've been enjoying watching chump car lately too. shame they are now heading to ovals for the next little while. all the recent road courses and street circuits have been good to watch. thank jeebus for foxtel.

Season Overtakes

1982 638

1983 607

1984 666

1985 657

1986 581

1987 558

1988 493

1989 547

1990 494

1991 495

1992 406

1993 392

1994 289

1995 297

1996 186

1997 285

1998 207

1999 260

2000 279

2001 230

2002 235

2003 303

2004 277

2005 204

2006 287

2007 270

2008 260

2009 244

2010 547

2011 283+

tell me again why we need DRS & KERS. Last year didn't have enough overtaking? Even the stats nerds can't keep up with it this year! At this rate we'll have 1344++ passes this year. Awesome

Its f**king ridiculous.

Too much time, someone has (not you).

I don't think we should judge DRS on what happened at the sphincter of the universe. I'm not sure if you'd say they got it wrong because I'm not sure what the alternative was (DRS on the front straight instead, perhaps?), but the back straight just gave too much advantage to the passing car. At the end of the day, though, I'd rather see easy, even bogus, overtakes than none at all, because then the faster driver has a fighting chance at using his car's speed.

I admit that DRS + KERS does make F1 a bit Mario Kart, though. That's not going to change unless the FIA can figure out how to make the cars less aero-efficient and -dependent. They've tried, but they haven't quite managed it yet.

More grip than power = boring racing. More power than grip = awesome racing.

So what's the solution? MOAR POWAH!

Too much time, someone has (not you).

I don't think we should judge DRS on what happened at the sphincter of the universe. I'm not sure if you'd say they got it wrong because I'm not sure what the alternative was (DRS on the front straight instead, perhaps?), but the back straight just gave too much advantage to the passing car. At the end of the day, though, I'd rather see easy, even bogus, overtakes than none at all, because then the faster driver has a fighting chance at using his car's speed.

I admit that DRS + KERS does make F1 a bit Mario Kart, though. That's not going to change unless the FIA can figure out how to make the cars less aero-efficient and -dependent. They've tried, but they haven't quite managed it yet.

More grip than power = boring racing. More power than grip = awesome racing.

So what's the solution? MOAR POWAH!

That actually makes a whole lot of sense (to me at least)

Edited by Galois

If the rest of the season was like the sphincter of the universe then DRS will be a failure. In my eyes we had one race where it did nothing. Two where it seemed ok. One bad race.

In past seasons you may have had to wait two or three races for a good battle and pass. To me if you are a few tenths or even a second quicker. Then you have to work to get past and the guy behind should be able to hold you off with some race craft. But in the past there have been cars that are far quickwr caught behind slow cars which is rubbish. If Massa is 18th because of a problem in quali then he should not spend the whole race battling a car that has scored less then 10 points yhe past few seasons...

That's not going to change unless the FIA can figure out how to make the cars less aero-efficient and -dependent. They've tried, but they haven't quite managed it yet.

Actually, there's an easy solution to this: Fan-assisted ground effects that generate 100% of the downforce (no wings allowed). Then the turbulent wake airflow won't matter.

Of course that would also mean finding a way to regulate the amount of downforce, though.

I'm on the fence with DRS still, great idea and would be interesting if it could be used for X seconds per lap wherever the driver liked but as mentioned that's just going to separate the guy in front even further..

What if it to use it you needed to be within the 1 second window from the driver in front plus your last lap was within 0.5 seconds faster than the guy in front. Would help the faster guys to pass the back markers and would mean that there would be less chance of the chasing driver to put in a really shoddy lap then fluke the section near the DRS detection, allowing them straight past the driver in front.. That plus deactivating the DRS as soon as the chasing driver is half way past the driver in front should make some interesting corners and allow the talented drivers to get through rather than anyone who can get within a second of the car in front.

<---happy with it :)

without DRS button and Hammo wouldnt have had the multi lap battle they did. and from what i saw Webber was out of legs anyways by the time he made his DRS overtake. He just had more pace on those tyres and that fuel load than Lonzo did, and was clearly gonna cruise past anyways eventually, as alonzo did to him earlier.

sure it all needs a few tweaks. and the stats as posted previously would suggest its not needed....but, theyre always gonna try and add new unnecessary stuff to keep Bernies mind young and thinking??....lol

Lol'd at Schumacher's comment that his collision with Petrov was "mostly" his fault. Like cutting himself shaving or tripping over his own feet would be "mostly" his fault. I think he's "mostly" taking up a seat that someone should "mostly" have

greece vying for a spot on the calander?

dun make me laugh out loud

A couple of laps around the Acropolis then a bit of nude ancient Olympic grid girl action then a bit of Greek style for SV and Helmut.

Sounds like a goer......if only Greece wasn't bankrupt.

:huh:

:no:

:down:

have to agree there. not sure greek women are up on my 'hottest 5 nationalities' list.... :no: have you seen chicks in greece steveo? granted there's some good ones but the average is not exactly don bradman like....

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...