Hehe, it's OK, I was completely confused too! I've never seen them suspend a race like that before. It's usually a complete reset (like Spa 1998), split into two parts and run on aggregate timing (like Suzuka 1994) or stopped completely and a result declared (Brazil 2003)
From the 2007 F1 Sporting Regulations:
This explains why Alonso's winning time was over 2 hours.
This explains why the race did not end at 2 hours.
This explains why Alonso's winning time was over 2 hours.
This explains why the race did not end at 2 hours.
I almost feel glad to have James Allen after listening to those two on the Speed channel clip.
I thought the ITV build up was relatively Hamilton-free until they interviewed DC and only asked him about how he thought Hamilton was going to do instead of actually talking about DC's race chances.
Is anybody else surprised that Hamilton wasn't disqualified for rejoining? I really don't think he was in a dangerous position parked against the barriers. Having said that, I was also surprised that McLaren got away with the Alonso pit stop.
Still, go Alonso!!
I'm hugely impressed by the new system...it really is very impressive. Thanks for all your hard work!
I must say that I agree with those who are questioning the point system. Today I won my first race on the new CTRA servers and got 4 points. A little while later someone won a race and got 16 points! The server was full when I won, so I can't quite see how it was only worth 4 points.
I must say that I agree with those who are questioning the point system. Today I won my first race on the new CTRA servers and got 4 points. A little while later someone won a race and got 16 points! The server was full when I won, so I can't quite see how it was only worth 4 points.
No. Have a look at this page made by one of my university lecturers:
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyrobike.htm
He's quite a character...it's amazing how someone can get so excited about spinning things.
Strictly speaking the gyroscopic forces do have an effect but it's very small, and it is dominated by other effects.
The wheels claim to have moment of inertia. For the FXR, J=1.407132 kgm2 for each wheel. The unsprung mass is 23.52824 kg
If we assume the wheel mass is 15 kg (leaving 8.5 kg for the suspension uprights and brakes) and further assuming that all the mass of the wheel is concentrated at one radius, we can calculate that this radius is 0.306 m. The actual rolling radius is for the FXR is 0.346 m, so the numbers seem to be sensible. Whether or not they're modelled correctly is another matter.
Oh, and gyroscopic effects have no effect on the stability of bicycles
Hehe, yes, I have a friend who used to have a 1930's MG M-Type (just sold it
)...the faster you went, the slower the wipers went!My approach is that the suffering has already happened, so my watching or not watching doesn't affect the suffering. Obviously I don't take any pleasure in watching suffering, but in most crashes there isn't any graphic suffering, just a car being destroyed.
I think Tristan is right on this one. It would be one thing to burst in on a nursing home to video people dying, but these guys go out in front of cameras each time they take to the track.
I don't understand why. If a fatal crash happens to be filmed, why not show it? Is it somehow more respectful to the deceased not to show it? Why?
When not playing LFS I can be found playing Silent Hunter 4 (WWII US submarine simulation). Actually, I've not played SH4 in a while as I'm waiting for the next patch to come out. It was released in an appalling state (patch v1.1 was actually posted the same day the game was released!) but it should be something quite nice when v1.3 comes out.
It really makes me appreciate the LFS devs when I see how Ubisoft treat their customers.
It really makes me appreciate the LFS devs when I see how Ubisoft treat their customers.
It's an interesting idea but I'd like to see it in action before I comment on how useful it would be.
One thing worries me though...my TV uses this sort of non-linear stretching to fit a 4:3 aspect ratio picture to the 16:9 screen. It looks fine until you get a slow panning shot. Objects appear on one side of the screen moving very fast, then decelerate to a 'normal' speed in the centre, then accelerate again as they move off the other side. It looks a bit odd.
I realise that this is the whole point of the mapping in LFS but it really does look odd to me, and I'm not sure I could get used to it.
One thing worries me though...my TV uses this sort of non-linear stretching to fit a 4:3 aspect ratio picture to the 16:9 screen. It looks fine until you get a slow panning shot. Objects appear on one side of the screen moving very fast, then decelerate to a 'normal' speed in the centre, then accelerate again as they move off the other side. It looks a bit odd.
I realise that this is the whole point of the mapping in LFS but it really does look odd to me, and I'm not sure I could get used to it.
I'm an adult and I have no desire to see that language on skins in LFS.
That depends whether you're talking about absolute pressure or gauge pressure
Atmospheric pressure is 1 bar absolute, 0 bar gauge. Your tyre pressures will almost certainly be gauge pressures, which is the pressure above atmospheric.
Speaking of strange units, I work in the automotive emissions sector and we measure catalyst metal loading in g/ft^3 !
The idea of Ferrari's performance being affected by this 'white powder' is ridiculous. Anything suspected of being faulty would be replaced, for one thing.
Another problem is that the FIA take fuel samples from all the cars to ensure that the fuel used matches the original standard sample provided by the fuel manufacturers at the beginning of the season. Any 'doping' would be immediately obvious to the FIA scrutineers. Also, Shell themselves take regular samples of fluids from the cars during a race weekend and it's very unlikely they'd miss any tampering.
Another problem is that the FIA take fuel samples from all the cars to ensure that the fuel used matches the original standard sample provided by the fuel manufacturers at the beginning of the season. Any 'doping' would be immediately obvious to the FIA scrutineers. Also, Shell themselves take regular samples of fluids from the cars during a race weekend and it's very unlikely they'd miss any tampering.
Yeah, OK, but the original post was 'matter cannot be created or destroyed". I was just pointing out that matter can be destroyed (in the sense that the matter no longer exists as part of an atom, but has been radiated away) during a nuclear reaction.
If you're going to have a geek moment, you should at least get things right
Nuclear reactions cause the conversion of mass into energy.Fission FTW!
On the subject of future energy sources, we'll be on fossil fuels for quite some time yet. The standard joke in the industry is that we've had 50 years' oil reserves for the last 50 years! Biodiesel/bioethanol isn't quite the 'fix all' that some people believe it to be, partially because of reasons stated in this thread, but there are also some knock-on effects of using biofuels (particularly regarding engine emissions, which is my field) which mean that there are quite a few problems to be solved before we all start driving about in bio-fuelled cars.
Long-term, electric drive will probably be the way forward. Build enough nuclear power plants and you don't even have to produce CO2 to charge the batteries
Last edited by StewartFisher, .
That was a great move but I seem to remember that the track was still slightly damp, so that might explain why it looks like they've got less grip than today.
I partially agree with Tristan, but I want to see F1 pushing the boundaries of technology, so I don't want a return to H-shifters. I want to see the engine development ban lifted and the removal of the ridiculous two race engine rule. I'd also like FIA-mandated ECUs so they could ban traction control and force linear throttle maps, etc...
A return to control slicks (no 'tyre war' please, it's irritating) and a ban on refuelling would be good.
Actually, refuelling is a funny thing...it was re-introduced in 1994 to spice up the racing action, now I've seen a lot of people call for it to be banned to spice up the racing...wierd
OK, attached is an image from Bob Smith's latest setup analyser (thanks Bob!).
This shows a gearing chart for the XFG. Each single curve represents the engine's torque curve. They are then scaled by the gear ratio of each gear to give the family of curves shown here. The x-axis is wheel speed (not engine speed) and the y-axis is wheel torque (not engine torque).
The tall pointy gear is first, the low flat one is fifth. The point of gearing is to always keep the torque at the wheels (not the engine!) maximised across a wide range of speeds. You start off in first gear at low wheel speed, then as the car accelerates you move along the first gear torque line in the direction of increasing wheel speed. The ideal shift point occurs when more torque is available in the next gear, so when the first gear line crosses the second gear line, you should shift.
Note that, with this gearbox, the shift point from 1st to 2nd is almost at the redline, whereas the shift point from 4th to 5th is much earlier in the rev-range.
Hope that helps
This shows a gearing chart for the XFG. Each single curve represents the engine's torque curve. They are then scaled by the gear ratio of each gear to give the family of curves shown here. The x-axis is wheel speed (not engine speed) and the y-axis is wheel torque (not engine torque).
The tall pointy gear is first, the low flat one is fifth. The point of gearing is to always keep the torque at the wheels (not the engine!) maximised across a wide range of speeds. You start off in first gear at low wheel speed, then as the car accelerates you move along the first gear torque line in the direction of increasing wheel speed. The ideal shift point occurs when more torque is available in the next gear, so when the first gear line crosses the second gear line, you should shift.
Note that, with this gearbox, the shift point from 1st to 2nd is almost at the redline, whereas the shift point from 4th to 5th is much earlier in the rev-range.
Hope that helps
I voted 'Yes' because, even though I'd love to see some real tracks in LFS, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we never saw them.
I couldn't care less about having real cars as long as we've got a generic 'equivalent'. I would very much like real tracks though...part of the enjoyment I get out of racing games is learning real tracks and that's not there in LFS. The desire for real tracks almost drove me to buy rFactor! Fortunately their online system rejected my card, so I was saved!
I couldn't care less about having real cars as long as we've got a generic 'equivalent'. I would very much like real tracks though...part of the enjoyment I get out of racing games is learning real tracks and that's not there in LFS. The desire for real tracks almost drove me to buy rFactor! Fortunately their online system rejected my card, so I was saved!
He never had a chance to 'do a Pironi'. Alonso had him covered at every stage.
How, exactly, would this help? You'd then have a situation where the two leaders wouldn't want to race each other.
McLaren did nothing wrong. I really can't understand why people can't comprehend that F1 is a team sport as much as it is an individual sport. It would have been ridiculous for Alonso and Hamilton to race each other and risk crashing or stressing the car too much. There was an on-board shot with Alonso about halfway through the race and you could see that he was shifting well short of 19,000rpm...very sensible, given that their nearest rivals finished over a minute down the road.
Don't blame McLaren for what happened, blame the other teams for not doing their job well enough to force McLaren to race all the way.
Is anyone else as irritated as I am about ITV's Hamilton worship? I switch off after the press conference has been shown because the remainder of the programme it too painful to watch.
Even during the race James Allen seems to have to talk about Hamilton's chances incessantly. If it looks like he's doing well then Allen talks like he's about to win the race. If it's not going well then he creates as many excuses as possible for the reason that wonder-boy isn't winning. I thought the Jenson Button love was irritating, but this is on a whole new level.
I also don't understand the whining about McLaren favouring Alonso regarding fuel strategies. They put Hamilton on a one-stop so that, if the safety car was deployed, he would end up in the lead. The SC has been deployed in four of the last 5 races so it could be argued that there was an 80% chance of Hamilton winning the race after qualifying. The SC wasn't deployed so the sensible thing to do was to tell them to hold station.
Of course I doubt that the British press will see it that way
Even during the race James Allen seems to have to talk about Hamilton's chances incessantly. If it looks like he's doing well then Allen talks like he's about to win the race. If it's not going well then he creates as many excuses as possible for the reason that wonder-boy isn't winning. I thought the Jenson Button love was irritating, but this is on a whole new level.
I also don't understand the whining about McLaren favouring Alonso regarding fuel strategies. They put Hamilton on a one-stop so that, if the safety car was deployed, he would end up in the lead. The SC has been deployed in four of the last 5 races so it could be argued that there was an 80% chance of Hamilton winning the race after qualifying. The SC wasn't deployed so the sensible thing to do was to tell them to hold station.
Of course I doubt that the British press will see it that way
System spec:
Intel Core2Duo 6600 (2 x 2.4 GHz)
2048MB DDR2 RAM (800MHz)
512MB DDR3 GeForce 7900 GTO
max: 51 FPS on grid, dropping to a minimum of 44 FPS just after the start
min: 183 FPS on grid, dropping to a minimum of 179 FPS just after the start
Interestingly, I tried the 'max' CFG file with 16xAF, 8xS AA, all settings maxed in the nVidia control panel and I got exactly the same frame rates.
Intel Core2Duo 6600 (2 x 2.4 GHz)
2048MB DDR2 RAM (800MHz)
512MB DDR3 GeForce 7900 GTO
max: 51 FPS on grid, dropping to a minimum of 44 FPS just after the start
min: 183 FPS on grid, dropping to a minimum of 179 FPS just after the start
Interestingly, I tried the 'max' CFG file with 16xAF, 8xS AA, all settings maxed in the nVidia control panel and I got exactly the same frame rates.
Intel Core2Duo 6600 (2 x 2.4 GHz)
2048MB DDR2 RAM (800MHz)
512MB DDR3 GeForce 7900 GTO
1280x960x32 resolution/colour depth
All graphics options are on full (LFS and nVidia Control Panel) and I get minimum 60 FPS on a full grid. Once the race gets going the vertical sync clips the frame rate to a solid 75.
2048MB DDR2 RAM (800MHz)
512MB DDR3 GeForce 7900 GTO
1280x960x32 resolution/colour depth
All graphics options are on full (LFS and nVidia Control Panel) and I get minimum 60 FPS on a full grid. Once the race gets going the vertical sync clips the frame rate to a solid 75.
Last edited by StewartFisher, .
Reason : Added screen resolution
It would appear from the video that the A-10s had been sent out to find and destroy enemy armoured vehicles. They found some armoured vehicles in their search area and confirmed that there were no friendly units nearby. Given that information, the pilots should have opened fire. They didn't assume the target was hostile, they acted on information which was repeated to them several times.
Are you saying they should have opened up their canopies and asked for ID?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG