Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 197 posts

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#181

Post by protomyth »

ericcumbee wrote: post #158
protomyth wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rusty Wallace did 228 mph at Talladega Superspeedway without a restrictor plate in 2004. The new car probably could do a bit more than that. Racing at that speed would be insane and all the safety advances since wouldn't be effective. Further, they were implemented because Bobby Allison crashed into a retaining fence at around 210 mph. This is big no-no in NASCAR because fan's shouldn't be in danger[1]. Looking at wh…

Yeah the cars needed to be slowed down. However the Restrictor plates were the wrong way to do it.

What would you propose?

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#182

Post by Spearchucker »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #130
Spearchucker wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but up until 10 years ago the best driver still had a chance. Schumacher turned Ferrari around, proving it. And that's when they really started changing the rules to promote random outsider wins.

You're posting as fact about something which you've admitted being out of touch with for a decade. Do you not think Vettel is the best driver in F1? How is the fact that he has now won 4 consecutive championships aligned with your statement that the rules promote random outsider wins?

The best F1 driver was Schumacher. The greatest F1 driver was Senna. My favourite is Jodie Sheckter. Greatest car is the McLaren MP44 - an unmitigated beast. Favourite car the Tyrell P34. Race commentary isn't the same without Murray Walker. One of my greatest moments was watching Keke Rosberg do a 360 and keep going[1]. That was at the US GP in 1983, when I was 13 and thought those drivers walked on water.

F1 is not what is once was - the romance is gone. Vettel? He's a n00b that does it for the money.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMHi8JUBMG8

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#183

Post by ryguytilidie »

fduran wrote: post #127

I just want to mention the great safety advances in car (and race) security in the last 20 years; since 1994 and the deaths of Ratzenberger and Senna there has been no driver fatalities in F1 racing. edit "Following Senna's death in 1994, no driver had died from injuries sustained in a World Championship-related accident until María de Villota died in 2013 from complications of injuries she sustained in a testing acc…

Even the de Villota death was a huge huge fluke. She lost control of the car outside of the track (no idea why she was driving outside of the track) and hit a moving trucks lift face first. If she had just ran into a wall on the track there is basically no chance she would have died.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#184

Post by ryguytilidie »

001sky wrote: post #81
Spearchucker wrote: post #61

I stopped watching F1 about 10 years ago, and these new changes just reaffirm that decision. It's no longer about best car + best driver. It's about mixing it up, making it random, to maximise viewer numbers. Not the kind of racing I go for.

I agree. The silly cost and stil 840 hp @ 1x,000 rpm is just a bunch of window dressing for the Lefties. The entire enterprise of F1 will never be "green", once you take into account the production of the cars, the crash repleacements, fuel used in training and lower Fxx series, and...the fact that these clowns fly all of this junk around the WORLD to drive. They are doing to f1 what they did to the America's cup. Ba…

Wait you seriously are blaming liberals here? Hey why not i guess...?

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#185

Post by bronson »

masklinn wrote: post #56
exDM69 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brief in the sense that for most of the history of F1, refueling has not been allowed.

Refueling was only banned in 1984, it was allowed before that. So using the historical argument, it's the refueling ban whose stint has been brief (1984 - 1993, and 2010 - ?)

Sounds like a disagreement over whether one is referring to the act of refueling or the refueling rule.

Both mid-race refueling and the refueling rule have had brief stints.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#186

Post by gaius »

dagw wrote: post #94
joosters wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the turning could be improved if jets were used for steering as well? But by this point, you are effectively left with a rocket that just happens to have some circular things that touch the ground.

Just make the wheels optional and set a 1.5 meter flight ceiling.

And you've got Wipeout :-)

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#187

Post by thrownaway2424 »

gambiting wrote: post #176
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "a lot"? Here in Switzerland at least diesel is more (by about 7%, not a lot). Since most of the cost of fuel here is taxes, I assume the difference between petrol and diesel is also due to differential taxation. One of the things that has kept diesel out of the USA until recently is the diesel fuel was good enough for heavy trucks to meet truck emissions standards but wasn't good enough for diesel cars to mee…

>>Most EU countries >Here in Switzerland The last time I checked Switzerland was not in the EU.

Well you got me there.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#188

Post by Shivetya »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #111
bliti wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. My point was that there not many petrol or gasoline powered turbocharged autos. Diesels powered autos are commonly turbocharged. In the USA, diesel autos are not common. Thus, turbos are mostly seen in high-performance vehicles (like the 911, WRX, etc.).

In reply to cjrp (whom I can't reply to directly, strangely enough) -- it's harder to find diesel in the US than plain gasoline/petrol, but not that hard. Most trucks here use diesel, after all, and many gas stations have at least one diesel pump. It's mostly the gas stations along the commuter corridors to little bedroom communities which are gasoline-only.

truck pumps should not used to fuel cars, their flow rate is way to high and will cause damage if not bathe you in fuel. I haven't ever had an issue find low sulfur diesel on my travels, however I am mostly doing than East of the Mississippi.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#189

Post by 001sky »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #184
001sky wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The silly cost and stil 840 hp @ 1x,000 rpm is just a bunch of window dressing for the Lefties. The entire enterprise of F1 will never be "green", once you take into account the production of the cars, the crash repleacements, fuel used in training and lower Fxx series, and...the fact that these clowns fly all of this junk around the WORLD to drive. They are doing to f1 what they did to the America's cup. Ba…

Wait you seriously are blaming liberals here? Hey why not i guess...?

You're equating 'responding to' with 'blame'. The former is factually true as an antecedent point of history. The latter is at once both unknowable and irrelevant.

Re: F1 2014: All aboard the 'power train' - new rules explained

#190

Post by codfrantic »

bliti wrote: post #164
JanezStupar wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice but AFAIK unreliable.

Not due to the twin charging, but due to it being a VAG auto.

Do VW and Audi cars have the name of being unreliable in the US? Can't imagine that really..
Post reply on HN