- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 1742 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
118 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 3181
Red Bull look boss, as usual.
Mclaren looked shite in testing (but as of now as fast in practice at the first gp)
Ferrari look about the same.
Tyres probably key to the whole deal this year.
Anyone else watching?
|>>|| No. 7095
>In defence of EJ, Bianchi really was a very talented driver
I don't disagree with that. Brundle's comments to the effect that he could've won races in a better car did the guy justice. It's the needless comparisons to Schumacher and Ayrton fucking Senna that annoyed me.
|>>|| No. 7389
The BBC have cancelled their F1 contract early. I think this means the only live sports they have is the FA Cup, which they've spoiled this year with their Salford love in.
|>>|| No. 7390
Who didn't see this coming when they first agreed the split with Sky?
|>>|| No. 7391
I didn't see channel 4 coming. This could be interesting, or it could be dire. Still, the BBC haven't exactly been stellar, so I'm fine with a change. Still not going to pay Sky, though.
|>>|| No. 7395
II would recommend Kodi in general, without naming names of repos/addons so as not to risk bringing heat down on them. There is at least one lad here who has grassed up streaming sites in the past, namely Taimatube.
It's a great resource for Sports and films, if you know what you're doing with it.
|>>|| No. 7398
Yes lad, the man is incapable of finding out the names of streaming sites through anything but imageboard posts.
|>>|| No. 7401
Their entire sports streaming channel lost all of its streams no more than two days after a thread was posted here by me in /spo/ advertising it.
|>>|| No. 7402
The Fire TV is a decent option if you know what you're doing, but the cheap Chinese boxes are all set up and ready to go.
|>>|| No. 7403
There's a chap at the Thameslink project who makes a tidy line selling 'hacked' Fire TVs - presumably just with different firmware flashed n them or something, that unlocks a load of stuff you had to pay for by default.
I don't ask about it as I'm not bothered but you may be interested.
|>>|| No. 7405
Interesting. I think he sells them for £50. Is there a feasible way to 'hack' several of them at once without special equipment, or could you only make one at a time?
|>>|| No. 7406
Lads. I have no idea what you lot are talking about but I am really interested. Googling some of the obscure words here is just confusing me more. Is there anywhere you could point me to do a preliminary reading to understand everything?
Android box? kodi? Banning? Addons?
|>>|| No. 7407
Sideloading Kodi is piss easy, it doesn't need special equipment.
An android box is just a set top box that runs the android OS. The most well known and widely available is the Amazon Fire TV, but as posted above there are cheap Chinese boxes that come with Kodi preinstalled.
As for Kodi, there's a handy wiki: http://kodi.wiki/view/XBMC_Quick_Start_Guide
|>>|| No. 7500
Of course it is.
I made it 6 months ago so there is a lot to update
>Jenson had an affair with a playboy model which caused the divorce
>KMag has a GF now
>Rossi has a GF
>Verstappen has a new GF
>Claire Williams should be on there
>Fabiana Ecclestone should be on there
|>>|| No. 7561
I can't believe it's taken the FIA this long to act. If they had taken the issue seriously after Massa's accident, several lives could have been saved. I suspect it'll take at least one more death for cockpit protection to become mandatory.
Kudos to Mercedes for doing most of the legwork on this idea. If they hadn't unilaterally proposed a design, the FIA would probably still be dragging their heels.
|>>|| No. 7562
I'm mostly in favour, but I'm not sure about the need for the vertical bit in the front . That much carbon fibre will be damn near indestructible, and I can't think where the loading could come from that'll push the front of the halo down. Even if the front does get pushed down, won't it act as a ramp and launch whatever is inbound into the airbox and roll hoop, rather than the driver's face?
If there's a need to avoid something scything through the gap, wouldn't A pillars be less intrusive?
Nothing's going to help a repeat of Bianchi, and nothing short of a thick windscreen's going to help a repeat of Massa. I'm hoping that they won't exacerbate any injuries or keep someone in an upturned car. It's hard to flip a formula car over - nowhere to really get a grip, and if it's rammed under a barrier or something, I imagine it's almost impossible.
Buggered if I know, Good luck to them all. Motorsport's never going to be 100% safe, and the energies in F1 are huge.
Is 2016's season going to suck as much as it would appear? Ferrari going to challenge? McHonda going to get/keep it together? Haas going to score? Renault going to suck? RB going to whine fucking relentlessly while getting dicked by TR?
|>>|| No. 7563
>I can't think where the loading could come from that'll push the front of the halo down
Given the length of the halo from where it joins the cockpit, the leverage would mean much less force would be needed to break it than you expect.
>Even if the front does get pushed down, won't it act as a ramp and launch whatever is inbound into the airbox and roll hoop, rather than the driver's face?
The carbon fibre would suffer a brittle failure and snap-off entirely, not just bend down.
Either way, the main protection is needed more for cases where the car goes underneath something, rather than rolling onto its roof.
>wouldn't A pillars be less intrusive?
I assume the design decision for this is that seeing directly in front is less critical, it's most important to have an unobstructed view in the direction you're steering into.
|>>|| No. 7564
I'm going to be bold and assume that a bunch of motorsport's top engineers might know better than some random bloke off of the interwebs.
|>>|| No. 7565
>>7563 Given the length of the halo from where it joins the cockpit, the leverage would mean much less force would be needed to break it than you expect.
My pondering is - how much do you care if the front collapses downwards? You don't want it in the down position all the time, for visibility reasons, but if it drops down and turns into a ramp, would that be better? Clearly you want to think hard about the load that'll trigger the collapse - my first guess is that you want it to be able to survive a wheel at 250mph or so. Anything more than that, engage ramp mode and try to launch whatever it is over the driver's head.
You do want to stop it swinging upwards or sideways, of course.
Maybe, maybe not. They're just people, I know some of them. Me wibbling on t'internet is just wibbling. I'm not being paid for this, so I don't feel obliged to do a full FEA job. The reason that F1 cars tend to converge towards a single solution isn't because they all get there from first principles. Someone comes up with a solution that others didn't and there's a flurry of investigation and (generously) homage.
|>>|| No. 7567
The front pillar doesn't add any significant obstruction, because there are already antennae and pitot tubes in that plane. Front visibility isn't very important in motorsport, because drivers spend most of the lap looking at an angle to spot the apex. LMP1 drivers have to deal with atrocious visibility caused by the front roll structure (see next post).
The structural role played by that strut can't really be intuitively reasoned about. CFRP is fiendishly complex even by the standards of composites, because of the very wide range of fibre properties and the sophisticated layup techniques available to F1 teams. The prototype looks fairly clumsy, but it could be substantially refined if it was integrated into the tub. Bear in mind that they'll be simultaneously optimising for strength, weight, aero and visibility.
My fag-packet maths say that hitting rear wheel at top speed equates to an 85kJ impact. For comparison, a brick falling at terminal velocity would be carrying 3.5kJ of kinetic energy.
|>>|| No. 7569
>My pondering is - how much do you care if the front collapses downwards? You don't want it in the down position all the time, for visibility reasons, but if it drops down and turns into a ramp, would that be better? Clearly you want to think hard about the load that'll trigger the collapse - my first guess is that you want it to be able to survive a wheel at 250mph or so. Anything more than that, engage ramp mode and try to launch whatever it is over the driver's head.
You do want to stop it swinging upwards or sideways, of course.
It Wont Gently Collapse Down Into A Nice Little Ramp.
It'll most likely snap off completely and fly away, (if it doesn't itself hit the drivers face).
But the more important point I want to reiterate: I doubt they're worried about the cars flipping over. The biggest danger is objects approaching from head on, where there would be a risk of debris simply going underneath the halo if there wasn't that extra piece at the front.
|>>|| No. 7570
They'll be worrying about cars flipping and then hitting something (like a barrier) - like an inverted Bianchi. But yes, a straight flip or tumble is already dealt with by the roll hoop and the rest of the cockpit.
I'm still not done with the ramp idea - having the halo inclined might also reduce the few times when the roll hoop has dug into gravel or caught on a barrier. If you land it slightly less far forwards than the two halos shown, it mostly just turns into a relatively conventional roll cage, albeit one with sloping and close together A pillars, which fattens out into a halo to allow extraction.
A downside, though, would be its tendency to convert a horizontally travelling escaped wheel into a vertical one, which nobody likes.
Or you end up with an abomination like https://twitter.com/RaymondWintonyk/status/126120549930893312/photo/1
which I can't see how to make strong enough to still work after an accident.
Visibility in LMP is a problem to be solved, not a solution. They've enforced new rules for each of the last 2 races, since it was intolerably bad. Can't be long before they get stitched-together cameras like BMW's surround view, instead of mirrors.
|>>|| No. 7571
This all smacks of 'something must be done - this is something', too.
Protecting drivers from flying springs and wheels really needs a windscreen / cockpit. Protecting drivers from such sudden stops that mush their brains needs crumple zones or lower speeds. If Bianchi had rammed a halo into that truck, rather than his roll hoop, he'd have stopped pretty much as fast. Having wheels sticking out is daftly dangerous, too. How far should 'we' go to make F1 safer?
While looking for pics of roll cages, I found this beauty. Sure, ovals are degenerate, but how can you not love bonkers asymmetry like this.
|>>|| No. 7572
To me it smacks of a group of young people who keep seeing their mates die. The big push for this hasn't been from public outrage, it's from the drivers.
I think it's pretty clear that the halo system would have made the incidents that killed Justin Wilson, Dan Wheldon and Henry Surtees far less dangerous, even if it wouldn't have saved Bianchi. It might even have saved María de Villota, considering she was at a low speed.
They're continuing to go forward with enclosed cockpits, from everything I've heard, it's just not something that will be ready for 2017.
|>>|| No. 7573
The Halo device is a fundamental first step in the transition to closed cockpits. The difficult engineering task is building a structure capable of withstanding high-energy impacts from wheels, suspension components and large pieces of bodywork. Any transparent screen you might choose to add is just icing on the cake.
|>>|| No. 7574
The biggest difficulties are political, not technical, really. They did extensive testing and concept cars were developed around 2011, but when it came to discussions around the implementation, the main players failed to agree, quelle surprise.
Seems like it took Bianchi's death to get them to take it seriously.
|>>|| No. 7575
I wonder if Formula E could bring canopies in before F1? They're more in thrall to the FIA and would do what the were told. Might be some aero improvement which they can certainly do with, and they might look rather good.
Easier to try out the engineering on a lower energy formula, than jump straight into the insanity of F1?
|>>|| No. 7576
The aero impact of a canopy is slightly tricky. Overall drag increases because you've got more frontal area. You improve laminarity of flow to the rear wing and so can get more downforce from a smaller and more efficient wing.
A canopy would improve overtaking in most open-wheel formula because the air behind the car would be cleaner, but it probably wouldn't be significantly beneficial in terms of overall efficiency in Formula E.
|>>|| No. 7577
A (sanely) designed canopy should smooth out the annoyance that is the cockpit, though. I imagine that proper formulae have sorted the problem, but air tumbling into the cockpits of lesser cars is a real drag. A tonneau on the passenger side can help substantially.
I'm not sure how much extra area a roof needs to add - and whether there'll be the asme squshy padding around the helmet as there currently is around the sides of the cockpit. The roll hoop (or air intake/hoop) is already substantially bigger than the driver's head, so the effect might not be too big. Formula E's got such risibly low top speeds that it feels like an ideal place to try this aero stuff out, before the chassis start to diverge.
|>>|| No. 7589
Total clusterfuck. It's like Bernie is torching F1 for the insurance money or something. I wonder if he has a research team figuring out new ways of making F1 shit, or if he's just some kind of anti-Midas.
|>>|| No. 7596
I've given up moaning about F1 but this latest Sky announcement takes the biscuit. It's obvious they don't care anymore.
|>>|| No. 7873
It's actually a ploy by Bernie himself. They're going to demand double points be brought back and sprinklers put on the tracks and Bernie will pretend that his hand has been forced.
|>>|| No. 7874
He's already lost the nomination, a faked mother-in-law kidnapping just reeks of desperation.
|>>|| No. 7876
The papers were on about how close the points are and all that, so I thought I'd watch the race today. Turns out it's only on Sky or some shite. Since when did this happen?
Nice. Kill your dying sport
|>>|| No. 7877
You can always watch a near flawless 6000kbps Sky restream on Ace Player. /u/hennogarvie1 gives out the address each weekend.
|>>|| No. 7878
I believe some races have been exclusive to Sky since 2012, and all will be starting from 2018.
While I'd much prefer the whole season to be free to view personally, it's not killing the sport, they're making shitloads more money this way.
|>>|| No. 7879
>it's not killing the sport, they're making shitloads more money this way.
Hockenheim might be off the calendar soon, because they're not selling enough tickets. Bernie's strategy of milking the sport dry isn't sustainable. The F1 fanbase is rapidly ageing and there aren't enough young fans coming into the sport. The end of free-to-air broadcasts is one of many short-sighted moves that jeopardise the future of F1.
|>>|| No. 7881
There aren't enough young fans coming in into the sport for... what? Keeping the viewership figures where they used to be? Doesn't matter. The revenue streams have changed so that advertising revenue isn't what's keeping the whole thing afloat as it was back in the tobacco days.
Bernie and the FIA have done and will continue to do things which I, as a fan, detest. But it's really stupid to confuse your personal feelings with the business being in any sort of real jeopardy. It's not.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]