doesnt make any difference to the fact that schumacher left him (just) enough room to be there and to turn away from the wall
doesnt make any difference to the fact that schumacher left him (just) enough room to be there and to turn away from the wall
I never said Schumacher didn't leave him just enough room. That isn't what qualified his driving as dangerous or against the rules to me (and to the stewards who gave him the penalty).
im too lazy to actually do the search but im fairly certain that if i did id find at least one post from you about fia stewards being a bunch of twats in some previous f1 thread
i hardly consider the fias oppinion to be even remotely correct on almost all matters
i hardly consider the fias oppinion to be even remotely correct on almost all matters
Of course I disagree with some decisions they make but that doesn't mean I can't agree with them on some decisions too.
i was talking about more than just disagreewing with them
Well, good luck finding it. I don't remember it, but that's not to say I didn't say it...
as i said i dont care half enough to actually search for it
Ah, so just throwing accusations then? Gotcha.
.
Racing is dangerous.
so you suggest there should be a rule that says x-amout distance between cars need to be kept, and i say, it will make the whole "show" less attractive for the viewer and less exciting for the driver. In other words F1 may die. (or do you mean even every racing series?)
Well, i guess i'm wrong about Bar and he does not know what he is doing. Time for his retirement then.
What's open for interpretation? They did not touch and none gone off-track. Again, what's left is speculation and "maybe's"
Right and that's what i'm saying. It gotten so far which is fine, but if you damp it more it will lose the interesst of the audience.
However, you have your opinion and i have mine. I guess we can agree to disagree.
So wrecking isn't acceptable but your response to someone who is clearly dangerous they should not be punished and the other competitor should leave the sport? Where's the continuity?
Drivers and fans knowing exactly what they can and can't do in a given situation rather than there being arbitrarily drawn lines would cause less excitement how?
Barrichello knew what he was doing, he just didn't know what Schumacher was doing.
Barrichello was actually off track (he had all four wheels outside the solid white line marking the edge of the racing surface). He also made contact with the raised lip and grass on the edge of the pit exit, kicking up dirt.
Again, I think it's the exact opposite. Allowing everyone (drivers, teams, commentators) to know the exact rules on what drivers can and cannot do improves the show because everyone knows what the deal is.
Yes, of course.
I reappraised my estimate. It's still a big gap between wall and car.
I arrived at work today safe and sound. Nothing happened. But I could have been killed if different things had happened, so I say ban driving based on my journey.
Rubens is safe. Schumi is safe. The fans, marshals and hanger-ons are safe. Therefore it was safe. Had different things happened it might not have been safe (but it might still have been safe), but then we'd all have to stop moving just in case.
Clearly you're not aware of Lancia's pre-Fiat history?
And the metric system is just as arbitrary. Just a different arbitrary. Both have their uses, both have their drawbacks, and hence I am utterly conversant in both.
like the aprilia with its suicide doors that didnt meet in the middle?
any system that cant decide which base to use for its conversions is broken beyond all hope and repair
Imperial to me looks like some random guy just thought of it and got praised for something which makes little or no sence and to be complicated for no reason.
And you just described what the metric system looked like to a lot of people for the first 20 years after 1966
I still used thousands of an inch up till early 2000s and I wasn't even born before '66 
/end random remark as you were
lol, ive often (ok, not that often) wondered what the person who came up with the imperial scales was smoking/drinking.
I would assume it wasnt intentional, 12 inches to a foot, 16oz to a pound/pint etc. Just seems so impractical compared to metric, and i mean that by its fractional values rather than their quantity values. Im sure theres a good reason, i read a while back about something interesting about money (i think it was something like the £1 being the same weight as a different type of lb, and thats where it got its name from.) so im sure theres a decent reason... just might have been easier if they picked a reason that worked like metric
I would assume it wasnt intentional, 12 inches to a foot, 16oz to a pound/pint etc. Just seems so impractical compared to metric, and i mean that by its fractional values rather than their quantity values. Im sure theres a good reason, i read a while back about something interesting about money (i think it was something like the £1 being the same weight as a different type of lb, and thats where it got its name from.) so im sure theres a decent reason... just might have been easier if they picked a reason that worked like metric
The imperial system originated from 'real life' sizes, and therefore is far less arbitrary than the metric system in many ways.
An inch was based on the length of one's thumb from the tip to the first joint. A yard was from the tip of an extended arm to the nose. Weights and volumes were based on common real life things in convenient or regular amounts. The subdivisions were made to accomodate other smaller common things - it turns out that 36 thumb lengths is about the same as the tip of an extended arm to the nose, and 12 thumb lengths the same length as an 'average' persons foot. So 3 feet to a yard, and 12 inches to a foot.
In many real world situations, that's very convenient. A third of a foot is 4 inches, and not a decimal. A quarter is 3 inches and not a decimal. A 6th is two inches and not a decimal.
Often it doesn't obey a single base, but that's the sort of thing only modern geeks worry about in the real world.
A thou (thousandth on an inch) is a very good unit for accurate measurement until you are in very high-tech situations. From piston - cylinder clearences to surface finish, thousands of an inch proved to be very useful without being excessively small or excessively big.
Any engineer or tradesman worth his salt can work in both metric and imperial - to ignore one is limiting oneself.
It's funny, but people seem to dislike the imperial system just because they aren't used to it, or weren't taught it, without actually knowing if it's any use. It is. Indeed, most equations of physics work with both, just with different constants - i.e. 32.17 feet per second per second for gravity, rather than 9.81.
I'm happy to use both. I personally find that for estimating purposes, inches, feet and yards are much easier to visualise, whilst millimetres are better for accurate measurement when making something (that was perhaps original estimated using imperial - like a pace being a yard, rather than a metre [which is an uncomfortably large pace]). For accurate machining work on classic and modern cars, I work in thou.
An inch was based on the length of one's thumb from the tip to the first joint. A yard was from the tip of an extended arm to the nose. Weights and volumes were based on common real life things in convenient or regular amounts. The subdivisions were made to accomodate other smaller common things - it turns out that 36 thumb lengths is about the same as the tip of an extended arm to the nose, and 12 thumb lengths the same length as an 'average' persons foot. So 3 feet to a yard, and 12 inches to a foot.
In many real world situations, that's very convenient. A third of a foot is 4 inches, and not a decimal. A quarter is 3 inches and not a decimal. A 6th is two inches and not a decimal.
Often it doesn't obey a single base, but that's the sort of thing only modern geeks worry about in the real world.
A thou (thousandth on an inch) is a very good unit for accurate measurement until you are in very high-tech situations. From piston - cylinder clearences to surface finish, thousands of an inch proved to be very useful without being excessively small or excessively big.
Any engineer or tradesman worth his salt can work in both metric and imperial - to ignore one is limiting oneself.
It's funny, but people seem to dislike the imperial system just because they aren't used to it, or weren't taught it, without actually knowing if it's any use. It is. Indeed, most equations of physics work with both, just with different constants - i.e. 32.17 feet per second per second for gravity, rather than 9.81.
I'm happy to use both. I personally find that for estimating purposes, inches, feet and yards are much easier to visualise, whilst millimetres are better for accurate measurement when making something (that was perhaps original estimated using imperial - like a pace being a yard, rather than a metre [which is an uncomfortably large pace]). For accurate machining work on classic and modern cars, I work in thou.
interesting discussion. time to go back a few pages me finx.
EDIT: and continue.
EDIT: and continue.
no thats something anyone who actually works with the system has to constantly get annoyed by
youll find that pretty much everywhere in the world its actually called mil
and i dont see how thenth or µs are any less practical
as all good engineers tend to be german (braun etc) they completely ignore anything non metric
also nasa made a rather good point of how working in both systems is a stupid idea
i personally would have chosen a cheaper method than ramming a probe into mars but you cant argue that the point was well made
I've never been annoyed by it. I never even think about the base of the system I'm working in. You just use it.
A µm is too fine for everyday work. I've never heard of 0.001" being called a mil. Everyone calls it a thou.
I'm pretty sure there are decent engineers in a lot of countries. Germans are quite good, but they can't make a decent car for example. Well, they can, but they make them excessively dull. See Porsche or Lamborghini for good examples. The Golf GTi is now so dull that the sound of its doors closing is the best thing about it (i.e. what it is sold upon).
Porsche put the engine in the wrong place in the 911, and have spent countless billions of <insert currency here> trying to make it vaguely acceptable. Everyone makes mistakes, regardless of the units used. Had the NASA mission been conducted entirely in imperial then there wouldn't have been a problem - it's the mixing of formal units with a project that cause problems. Just as if someone had specified something in cm and the other person had interpreted it as mm.
You can't blame a measurement system for basic human error.
But it's nice to see how closed minded you are, along with your fantastic brilliance at everything else. How's the contract for the new iPhone aerial coming along? I assume, as the world leader in telecommunication antenna design, that you've been given the job of singlehandedly ensuring the iPhone can do anything ever?
you will have to if you ever do actual calculations with physical constants that will have to change in random ways as you switch from one dimension to another
thats why you use several µs or as is often the case with mechanics tenths and hundredth of a mm
ive never heard of a thou
everyone outside of the uk and especially everyone in electronics and pcb design calls it a mil
ill try to consider your point when england ever makes a car that doesnt break down faster than any lancia or alfa ever did
porsches are cars for men in their midlife crisis
hardly anyone cares how they handle as long as they think it makes them look good (without realising it actually makes them look like a bald 35 year old who needs to compensate for the trouser department)
you try calculating trajectories from earth up to the point of a pinpoint landing
enjoy the fun of cacluating every single constant for some 10 different units that youll all need for the massive range in scales that youll have to work with
ill just stick a 10^3 before my units of length instead and have a much easier time
im not willing to sell my soul yet so i have no interest whatsoever in applying for a job at apple
Well done for seeming like a complete amoeba by siding the Top Gear's stupid opinion on the engine position of a 911, having the engine above the drive wheels makes sense on alot of levels, the fact you get more traction and can outdrag even 4wd cars with similar weight and power, the fact you have better stability on corner exits, the fact the cost is low and the weight is low, as you don't have to manufacture a prop-shaft.
The fact the front wheels are there to steer, the fact you can be a fat bastard and it doesn't affect the handling. I bet you've never driven a 911, peoples arguments that it understeers are based on nothing but hearsay, with a 911 you can balance the car on the throttle to reduce understeer with a big margin for error. Rear engined rwd cars are excellent in many situations on the road aswell, such as going up a steep hill, heavy braking and even slalom at low speed. And RR cars are fantastic off road. That's why the Beetle was so fantastic in Rally cross, and why the T3's were so dominant in trials. People base their opinions on RR cars on the premise that it must be similar to that of an FF car just the other way around when it just isn't, the more you accelerate the more grip you get as the weight forces the rear down the more you push the pedal, and braking means you will find it hard to lock up as the weight isn't right over the front wheels.
Granted in theory, mid-engined or front-engined rear wheel drive cars are better on paper. All the interior in the 911 puts weight on the front of the car, as does the steering column, etc, the gearbox is effectively mid-ship, all that weight adds up, and Porsches are about 51% weight on the rear.
It's not only about the centre of gravity, it's also about inertia. There is a lot of weight behind the rear axle of a 911.
Not that I don't dream about having a Porsche.
not true, most are at least 60% in the back, not counting the drivers.
in the middle of the car. And the weight of a driver isn't going to put 10% weight in the front, unless you weigh 140kg and sit right on the front axle....
Yup, driven one. Two actually.
They weren't called Widowmakers for nothing!
They have a lot of weight over the backwheel that the driver doesn't balance. They have a high polar moment of inertia, meaning they are quite easy to drive until you've got the back out, and then they act like a pendulum - much more so than any mid-engined car.
Having the gearbox in front of the engine helps, but it's still a daft place to put an engine in the first place. Kudos to Porsche for making them handle like a normal car - only took them 40 years.
You say that lots of weight over the rear tyres helps traction out of corners, but lack of weight over the front tyres helps traction under braking? Which?
FORMULA 1 ENI MAGYAR NAGYDIJ 2010 (Hungarian GP)
(332 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG