The 'they come too close together' Mexican GP chat & prediction.
- Thread starter Big Ern
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
supposedly, but they have it, it's just not in the ECU like it used to be, it'll have another function so as to get around the wording of the rule traction control rule, either with the engine mapping as Smithers says, 'fuel consumption', or linked to the ERS 'harvesting energy', or some other way.
In my experience pretty much everyone in motor-racing 'cheats'. Everyone knows what the rules are, and the spirit in which they're made, but everyone (not just Ferrari) tries their hardest to break them and stay within the law.
Haha, I'm amused at the conversation.
As mentioned by BLS, traction control per se (i.e. under the definition of its meaning) is indeed banned. Completely. In the purest sense, it does not occur. Furthermore, all teams are supplied with identical PCUs, in part to pro-actively ensure that it CANNOT occur.
However, F1 is – and always has been – at the absolute zenith of four-wheeled vehicle innovation. And knowledge can not be unlearned. There are very clever people being paid serious bucks in this business. Some of them are being paid what others quite rightly see as fortunes, small and not so small. These people are innovators; they are hand-picked from the cream of the crop before they even get a chance at F1. And some of them are even considered 'geniuses'…
The fact is though, that the banning of TC and associated technologies such as 'launch-control' has imposed a substantial increase in responsibility upon drivers, just as desired.
Nevertheless, F1 will always have the likes of Colin Chapman and Adrian Newey – and and a whole host of others wanting not only to emulate but to beat them at their own game! That's what F1 is about.
It is commonly accepted that the observable universe is expanding in all directions, and that the further away one looks, the faster is the rate of this expansion. It is exponential. Yet on the small scale, we see do not see expansion but contraction, with objects bound together to form huge islands of galaxies in mutual 'localised' gravitational attraction. "Huge islands of galaxies" (not just galaxies but loads of them connected together at virtually unimaginable distances) is still small scale when considered as part of a FAR larger whole.
On the large scale then, the banning of technology(s) within F1 tends to coincide with Ferrari being less capable of it/them, and a corresponding (coincidental, one must ask!? ;-) ) tendency to implode at or around the same time…
As mentioned by BLS, traction control per se (i.e. under the definition of its meaning) is indeed banned. Completely. In the purest sense, it does not occur. Furthermore, all teams are supplied with identical PCUs, in part to pro-actively ensure that it CANNOT occur.
However, F1 is – and always has been – at the absolute zenith of four-wheeled vehicle innovation. And knowledge can not be unlearned. There are very clever people being paid serious bucks in this business. Some of them are being paid what others quite rightly see as fortunes, small and not so small. These people are innovators; they are hand-picked from the cream of the crop before they even get a chance at F1. And some of them are even considered 'geniuses'…
The fact is though, that the banning of TC and associated technologies such as 'launch-control' has imposed a substantial increase in responsibility upon drivers, just as desired.
Nevertheless, F1 will always have the likes of Colin Chapman and Adrian Newey – and and a whole host of others wanting not only to emulate but to beat them at their own game! That's what F1 is about.
- - -o0o- - -
Back to the amusement, I'd like to throw in another heterodox tongue-in-cheek… Please indulge my (probably unnecessary) analogy:It is commonly accepted that the observable universe is expanding in all directions, and that the further away one looks, the faster is the rate of this expansion. It is exponential. Yet on the small scale, we see do not see expansion but contraction, with objects bound together to form huge islands of galaxies in mutual 'localised' gravitational attraction. "Huge islands of galaxies" (not just galaxies but loads of them connected together at virtually unimaginable distances) is still small scale when considered as part of a FAR larger whole.
On the large scale then, the banning of technology(s) within F1 tends to coincide with Ferrari being less capable of it/them, and a corresponding (coincidental, one must ask!? ;-) ) tendency to implode at or around the same time…
<frantically searches google for meaning of unfamiliar large word..............>
heterodox
ˈhɛt(ə)rə(ʊ)dɒks/
adjective
adjective: heterodox
- not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs.
"heterodox views"
synonyms: unorthodox, heretical, dissenting, dissident, blasphemous, nonconformist, apostate, freethinking, iconoclastic, schismatic, rebellious, renegade, separatist, sectarian, revisionist
Some time around dawn of the Australian GP the year they come in. Assuming they stop bickering.
Large? It's only nine letters!
– Yes, 'heretical' might have sufficed. But it seemed lacking; not quite the most apt conjugation when contrasted with orthodoxy; yet stronger and far less cumbersome than 'unorthodoxy'. Enough…
More importantly, I hope the post was understood in the context of Ferrari's difficulty in being truly expansive despite a persisting 'advantage', and why Ferrari rules (sic).
Last edited:
Similar threads
