Money, money, money,
Must be funny,
In a rich man's world.

Seriously, developing a car for Le Mans and running it, is very very expensive.

Quote from amp88 :

Ah, but Mentos are nothing without Diet Coke.

The combination produces interesting results.

Mentos, actually.

Well, I'm glad to have picked Petrov. Too bad about Liuzzi though.

Overall, not too shabby.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

I took a punt and went with Petrov, hopefully he will finish the damn race.

Me too.

Gotta agree with the "older drivers are safer" thing. I've rarely felt endangered by elderly drivers, but have had plenty of vomit-worthy experiences with young P-platers.

Quote from Kalev EST :

Harri Rovanperä's 8 year old son.

Wha?!!!!

Now, it says 80% chance of precipitation, with rain forecast for 11am to 2pm. But given that's a meteorological forecast, we may as well use tarot cards...

It's only 20% chance of rain, according to Weather Underground.

Map




Statistics

• Number of Laps: 56
  
• Circuit Length: 5.451 km
  
• Race Distance: 305.066 km
  
• Lap Record: 1m 32.238s - M Schumacher (2004)

2009 Podium:

1. Sebastian Vettel (RBR)
2. Mark Webber (RBR)
3. Jenson Button (Brawn)
   

2009 Pole: Sebastian Vettel (RBR), 1m 36.184s

2009 Fastest Lap: Rubens Barrichello (Brawn), 1m 52.592s in wet


Schedule (local time)

Fri 16 April 2010
Practice 1 = 10:00 - 11:30
Practice 2 = 14:00 - 15:30

Sat 17 April 2010
Practice 3 = 11:00 - 12:00
Qualifying = 14:00

Sun 18 April 2010
Race = 15:00


Local Weather (click)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q39S4bjjU-Q

Onboard with Juan Manuel Fangio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Ifcgl789E

Look at the size of the freaking steering wheel. :biggrinfl Look at the condition of the road! :wtf2:

I was really just following the spirit of the discussion, which was in jest, and not serious.

Unless if I misinterpreted ATC's intentions. I'm guessing he wasn't serious. Or was he?

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

I already came up with the best solution ever, hydrogen powered cars. The only emission from a hydrogen powered car is water, scale it up to F1 levels of power and as the race goes on the cars will make the track wet, no need for sprinklers!

You'll also need fuel cells made from unobtainium, or else there will be Hindenburg-like explosions in every major crash.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Add sprinklers, invert the grids, give points for overtaking, problem solved.

You forgot the "success ballast".

Quote from 5haz :

From what I heard some were going about DDDs reducing turbulence?

DDDs don't reduce turbulence. It is better at producing downforce without the drag penalty of wings (ie. a more efficient downforce generator than wings), but it still causes a lot of problems for following cars.

Quote from JCTK :

we can rely on the Koreans with their Handcock tyres~

Hankook tyres are actually pretty decent. Watch out for the Taiwanese with their Nankangs though!

Wow, what a ghastly race for me. That actually hurt!

Quote from JCTK :

same goes for the double diffuser, why are they banning it from next year but not this year~?

Not sure.

Obviously the FIA can't just ban the multi-deck diffusers this year due to regulatory and practical reasons; regulatory because they can't introduce such a huge rule change mid-season, and practical because the teams will be massively hamstrung if such a vital component was to be banned. But they could have announced them banned for this season, last year.

Logic: the FIA has none (or at most, very little).

You'll find a lot of dodgy doings in any endeavour, including science. Unfortunately, pioneering research and discovery seem to be most prone to abuse, as they typically involve the biggest stakes in funding and reputation. Peer-review is a facilitator for debate and discussion, not a guarantee of accuracy or honesty.

Probably a good move, although it comes too late. The call should have been made before the winter tests, not after. Drivers have been complaining about the useless mirrors for years.

I have a feeling that tomorrow, Webber might regret his choice of inters. If there is heavy rain during the race start, it could spell trouble for him.

His gamble paid off. Experience definitely counts! Good drives by Sutil, Kobayashi, Kovalainen, and both Williams drivers.

It tickles me to see Kovalainen and Glock ahead of both Ferraris and McLarens. I'm having flashes of Monza 2008 in my head!

Quote from Hyperactive :

I think changing liuzzi for sutil is a good move now. Sutil is defenately faster but has had bad luck in the opening rounds. Plus you actually get money for changing liuzzi to sutil.

As for fuel, I think total will score good points if the red bulls finish where they should. I think my strategy for this event is to take a safe combo of stuff and then just save some money for bigger improvements.

Total is definitely the safest fuel. However, it's easy to upgrade fuel, but not so easy to upgrade drivers or machinery, which means that it can sometimes be good to sacrifice the fuel points to get the right upgrades in other areas.

I've taken a big gamble. Upgraded Senna to Liuzzi, and dropped Total for Lotus. Given how consistent Liuzzi is, I think his stock will rise in the long term, which will make future upgrades easier. I considered Sutil, but he has a habit of binning his car in the wet.

Quote from Intrepid :

But unlike other sports those statements have quite a large amount of validity!

LOL

April fools was yesterday.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

There was an astounding admission by Jones here that providing data was not standard practice in climate science (I think that would set climate science apart as the only field in which it is ok to not show your work). Amazingly, even under peer review, the reviewers (Phil's friends) apparently would never ask for any supporting data- this means that this stuff has been taken on faith for a very long time. It certainly gives new meaning to the term 'peer review', ie- it's basically a meaningless term when applied here.

I was surprised by this also. However, I am aware that research bodies may be subjected to non-disclosure agreements regarding raw data.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

The panel stressed that this was not an inquiry into the science. Yet it's conclusion is that the science is robust. How can they come to that conclusion if they have not done proper investigation?

Actually the panel didn't conclude that the science is robust. They merely found no reason to question the science. The scope of the inquiry was into allegations of data manipulation and the disclosure of raw data.

The validity of the resulting science is something that another inquiry would have to determine.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

I would agree with others here that the inquiry wasn't really anything other than a performance, a whitewash.

I agree that is probably true. In particular, I was surprised that the panel reached its conclusion after only a day of oral testimony. I wonder if they took time to thoroughly examine the primary evidence (ie. the emails). The emails probably could have been subpoenaed from the University; even if the perpetrators deleted them, the original copies may have still existed in backup storage.

Quote from gezmoor :

Realistically probably not that useful a link, as I doubt anyone is going to trawl through them all, but here are all the emails in question in their full un edited glory:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Beware. We don't know about the veracity of the emails on that website. Obviously the author of the website claims they are genuine, but who's to know?

Last edited by samjh, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 12:56.