Button needs to finish on the podium for all of the six remaining races to guarantee winning the championship.
Of course, that's assuming Rubens wins all the remaining races, which he is highly unlikely to do. So realistically I think another 3 or 4 podium finishes should pretty much wrap it up for Button.
Of course, that's assuming Rubens wins all the remaining races, which he is highly unlikely to do. So realistically I think another 3 or 4 podium finishes should pretty much wrap it up for Button.
Indeed, it's very much the exception rather than the rule.
Don't think that is what Intrepid was trying to say exactly, (well not just that maybe).
Well however many times it is, that particular ruling is about unsporting "blocking" whilst in front of the other car.
I'm asking in what way and when is squeezing a car out, (ie giving them the option of either braking or getting run off the circuit to avoid contact), when beside them ever legitimate??
I'm not talking about drivers attempting overtaking in to gaps that they know full well are diminishing due to the normal racing line of the driver in front. I'm refering to the movement across a straight section of the track of one driver whilst substantially overlapped with another in order to force them to "back off" or end up off the track.
Wasn't sporting when Hamilton did it to Webber, so I don't see how it was when Vettel did it to Button. And no I don't see it as a matter of degrees. To my mind unless you are fully infront of the car in question and it can be considered a legitmate blocking move, it's not acceptable behaviour.
Due to the higher energies involved at higher speeds the brakes can't generate the required deceleration in the wheel to cause the tyres to loose grip. Any brake system has a maximum amount of frictional force it can produce. At higher speeds this means the brakes just don't produce enough force to slow the wheel down quickly enough to cause the wheel to lock.
It's as simple as that in laymans terms.
What exactly IS "legitimate squeezing"?
In 28 Days later they haven't died. They are living humans with an infection that makes them extremely aggressive, more akin to rabid dogs.
Definition of Zombie is the "living dead" ie they must be dead. In 28 Days later they are not dead, just infected. Eventually they starve to death and die and no longer walk around attacking people. QED they are not Zombies.
In Resident evil, they were killed by an infection but attacked people whilst dead. QED they are Zombies.
Well, to be honest MS only really have themselves to blame. If they hadn't had such dubious business practices over the last two decades this kind of action would probably have been laughed out of court. Simple fact is MS have been proven to have had a complete disregard for anti-competitive practice legislation in the past and have shown very little restraint as to how far they are willing to go to kill competition. QED no body trusts them to do the right thing and public opinion is generally against them.
You make your bed, you lie in it.
You make your bed, you lie in it.
Dawn of the Dead - Rubbish but brilliant at the same time.
Oh and point of fact: 28 days later is NOT a Zombie film. They're not dead, they're infected !!
Oh and point of fact: 28 days later is NOT a Zombie film. They're not dead, they're infected !!
Worst thing about this story, (well ok not the worst), is that wierdly enough it isn't making much of an impression in Brazil itself.
If we're now talking 2D all you need to do is take your known vector equation transform it through 90 degrees and then you'll have the vector equation for the line between the points P1 and P2. From there given your known co-ordinates at P and the distances X and Y you should be able to calculate the co-ords for P1 and P2.
I think
Found this, might be of some use:
http://www.ia.hiof.no/~borres/cgraph/math/twod/p-twod.html
edit:
And this :
http://www.euclideanspace.com/ ... metry/transform/index.htm
I think
Found this, might be of some use:
http://www.ia.hiof.no/~borres/cgraph/math/twod/p-twod.html
edit:
And this :
http://www.euclideanspace.com/ ... metry/transform/index.htm
Last edited by gezmoor, .
If you leg press 170kg, you should know how much easier it is to calf raise 170kg then. Dont forget the ROM and the leverages involved in the two exersizes. 100kg of pressure with the calf isn't as huge as people think in all honesty.
As for the G-Force question.. Well the drivers are very well strapped in, but their foot can obviously still rotate around the ankle joint. Foot n boot probably does weigh a couple of Kg maybe, so even if they were hitting 5g deceleration that's still only an extra 10kg on the brake pedal. Not a whole lot compared to 100kg really.
Plus, I'm willing to put money on that 100kg figure being a transient "peak" figure off the telemetry, not a sustained pressure over several seconds.
That's a rather pathetic thing to say in all honesty.
The overall sensitivity, impedance and power handling figures of a speaker tells you absolutely nothing about their "low end" performance.
Diamonds are tiny speakers of course they don't have low end. Show me a £300 speaker that can do low with anything resembling accuracy or control?? I'd rather not have it, than have a load of waffle.
Uhuh, care to point me to a pair of £300 speakers that are better constructed? Bigger they may be, thicker cabinets they may have, but vastly more prone to cabinet resonances they also are, and hence a lot more in need of high quality cabinet construction and materials. Trust me, you're going to be listening to a lot more cabinet resonance from an average pair of £300 speakers than you are with the Diamonds.
Anyway, I'm not going to discuss it further. I don't take kindly to being called stupid over a pathetic point of a spelling mistake. Let's just say that I have designed and built, (several variations), of my own speakers in the past, so I know something about what it takes to make good ones.
Alternative to Bobs suggestion. Same budget :
Amp £170 : Cambridge Audio Azure 640a V2
Reviewed as being better than most sub £500 amps - of course it's a matter of opinion to some extent.
Speakers £80 : Tannoy Mercury F1 Custom
A steal at the price RRP is £160 and review well at that price point.
"If you've seen our Awards 2007 issue, then you'll know that these Tannoy Mercury F1 Customs are among our favourite speakers up to £160. Which leaves only one conclusion: the Tannoys are still the best budget speakers around. Which means this review is destined to be something of a lap of honour."
Amp £170 : Cambridge Audio Azure 640a V2
Reviewed as being better than most sub £500 amps - of course it's a matter of opinion to some extent.
Speakers £80 : Tannoy Mercury F1 Custom
A steal at the price RRP is £160 and review well at that price point.
"If you've seen our Awards 2007 issue, then you'll know that these Tannoy Mercury F1 Customs are among our favourite speakers up to £160. Which leaves only one conclusion: the Tannoys are still the best budget speakers around. Which means this review is destined to be something of a lap of honour."
Have you ever seen, let alone handled or listened to Warfdale Diamonds??
Your response suggests you haven't. I think you'll be surprised. They have won many awards over the years and comparing them with PC speakers is, to be blunt, ludicrous.
http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Wharfedale-Diamond-90/
High end audiophile speakers they are not, but then nor is anything under £2,000, and certainly nothing as small as the Diamonds. But plastic boom boxes they are not either. They are well designed, well built small speakers for use in space restricted budget systems, and when set against the standard of other speakers that you can buy for £100 (they are on offer in Bobs link) they come out very well.
In all honesty, most £300 speakers are so flawed that they're almost unlistenable to and the fact that they make an attempt to be proper hi-fi actually makes them worse by just drawing attention to their limitations.
The awfulness of most mid-range speakers is the reason I went down the DIY route, (as mid-range is all I could afford), until eventually Wife acceptance factors forced me in to getting hold of an end of line deal on a pair of AE floorstanders. Despite the fact that they retailed for £750 a pair, (which I certainly didn't pay for them), even they took me a long time to get used to their flaws, and to an extent I still haven't.
Wow !!.. I haven't seen that split recommended since before Linn proved the importance of source quality !! (no I'm not that old).
Ok maybe in the day of CD front ends things have shifted around a bit and whilst I would generaly agree that good speakers are expensive, (as you state a completely different kind of engineering involved), I'm not sure that balance is right for all levels of equipment.
I get where Bob is comming from, at the level being discussed here people should really only be looking at getting the fundamental balance right. Niceties of dynamics etc are all way out of this budgets price range. I would also go for a reasonable amp and "essentially" neutral speakers (which the diamonds have always been in the past). At this level it's not really about getting speakers that can reveal the differences between amps its just about getting speakers and amp that aren't massively flawed.
Sorry but no sub £500 "active" monitor is going to be neutral at all spl levels. An amp is an amp, it's not relevant where it sits physically with regard to it's quality. There are a lot of audio quality issues relating to physically placing amps inside speaker cabinets but there are of course some audio quality benefits, as with everything there are pros and cons. But ultimately the pro of active speaker amplification is far outweighed by the actual quality of the amplifier, and the amplifier in any £250 set of active speakers is going to be a long long way from perfect.
And those Alesis are not going to "kick out" anywhere near a flat sound either at that price point. If by "Hi-Fi" speakers you mean your average £200 JVC etc that most people would have in their homes then maybe they are a bit bass heavy. But many are the complete opposite, you simply can't generalise like that. True audiophile speakers try and balance absolute neutrality with good dynamics. This is always a compromise as the laws of physics dictate that the higher the senitivity of a drive unit is the narrower, (and often more uneven), it's frequency response is.
Studio montors aren't actually built to be "accurate" despite what all the speil you might read about them might say. They are designed to be "revealing" to allow the engineers to be able to hear what is going on in the mix and to be able to play very loud. To this end they are nearly all, (bar the extreme top end custom built designs), bright in the midrange.
Final note, a speakers final tonal balance is heavily dependant on the environment of it's use. Speakers interact with their surroundings. A speaker that may be bass heavy in one room will be neutral or even bass light in another and vice verse.
Oh and a final final note.. small speakers, (by which I mean anything that isn't at least a meter high floorstander), are incapable of being "accurate" , (even in terms of frequency response), over the the entire audiable spectrum. Very few speakers on the market today have any significant response as low as ,(let alone below), 40hz. The majority can't even produce a Bass guitars E string fundamental at the correct level let alone its sub harmonics.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
How what?? I bet you just love your peizo tweeters huh?
The term "crisp" has no meaning let alone place in real Hi-Fi.
Ahh Alesis.. that'll explain it then.. studio monitor "accuracy"
Only thing I'll say to that tirade is...
Ever tried braking on a downhill bank of grass after loosing control at over 100mph??
No didn't think so.
Where he ended up had very little to do with what he did with any of the controls of the car. Once shunted and on the grass he was in the lap of the gods as to where he stopped.
At the speeds they are driving at and the fact that the cars are close to the limit most of the time there is no such thing as "one small nudge", and all the racers in that series know it. To my mind Nash was clearly continously nudging in order to unbalance the car in front. That's not sporting behaviour IMO. Taken "in context" of what else was happening, (which the stewards most likely did), I think a DQ was fairer than any fine.
The only thing that you can do to prevent unsporting behaviour is to directly penalise it where it really counts and that is the championship itself. Fines don't change driver behavior. If they're still allowed to win the championship in the end, they'll see it as an acceptable cost.
Nice analogy, shame it's not how you apply pressure to a brake pedal. Braking is done almost exclusively by the calf muscle, and counter intuitive as it may seem the calves are actually capable of exerting a hell of a lot more force than the quads in unseasoned weight trainers and do so repeatedly. I'm not saying that 100kg brake pedal force is anything to be sniffed at, (given the environment), but as a pure force it's not that much for a calf. Most people can easily do one legged calf raises of their own body weight. Given the average male weighs 70kg+, it puts a 100kg pedal force somewhat in to perspective. It's mostly down to endurance than actual real strength.
Plus, given their relatively slight builds, I'd be willing to put money on most F1 drivers not being able to rep 100KG squats !! (at least proper below parallel ones).
I'm not for a second trying to say that F1 drivers don't need a good level of fitness, (certainly far better than an average member of the public has). But as with everything, fitness etc is relative and F1 drivers don't have the cardio-vascular fitness of distance runners nor the strength of wrestlers, weight lifters etc and they certainly don't have a combination of both !! Just trying to put a little perspective in to the discussion.
Amen to that !!
Let the cars go through the transition of being over heavy on good rubber to light on cooked rubber and everything in between and we'll see who the true drivers, (and chasis dev engineers), really are !!
To drive a performance car through a wide range of handling responses such as would be the case in a non-stop race takes the highest level of driving skill. That's always been a part of reason why there have always been drivers that are "qualy" specialists that never deliver the goods over race distance. Take away the pit stops and you'll be moving even further away from the situation of having a series of short sprints with an "ideal" car, which in all honesty doesn't really prove much with regards to driving ability IMO.
The two are not comparible, and you know it.
In what way does an F1 driver make use of any of the muscles in his body ?? With the exception of resistance to G-Forces they don't. F1 drivers require almost exclusively isometric strength in some parts of their bodies they don't under go even partial ROM for there to be any dynamic element to their strength requirements.
As for their elevated heart and respiratory rates during a race, they are purely down to adrenaline being dumped in to the bloodstream as a result of generalised stress levels, very little to do with cardio vascular exersion.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG