Now I'm not saying Hamilton or Button are at the same level, but the partnership could be seen as similar to Senna and Prost at McLaren*....
For me, I expect Hamilton to have the upper hand in qualifying. Button may have cleaner, more measured races. Pace wise, given a car that works for his style, Button is fast and can be on Hamilton's pace, but if the car is not to Button's liking I think Hamilton's driving style is more suited to compensating for the car. Overall Hamilton will have the edge over Button, but the actual results could go either way depending on tyre management, crashes, reliability, etc..
* Although I only started following F1 in '91, which was after Prost left McLaren, I've just finished reading 'Senna Versus Prost' by Malcolm Folley..a pretty good read.
For me, I expect Hamilton to have the upper hand in qualifying. Button may have cleaner, more measured races. Pace wise, given a car that works for his style, Button is fast and can be on Hamilton's pace, but if the car is not to Button's liking I think Hamilton's driving style is more suited to compensating for the car. Overall Hamilton will have the edge over Button, but the actual results could go either way depending on tyre management, crashes, reliability, etc..
* Although I only started following F1 in '91, which was after Prost left McLaren, I've just finished reading 'Senna Versus Prost' by Malcolm Folley..a pretty good read.
I'm a bit late to this one, but congratulations to Button...I think the drive in Brazil was a nice way to 'race' to clinch a deserved championship. Helped by race attrition, Vettel's equally bad grid position, and Ruben's failing to win from pole, but at least Button put up a robust race performance. In fact, in my opinion, most of his races in the 2nd half of the year were stronger than the results instantly suggest. And as a season of two halves, he made the most out of the car at it's best (critically more than his teammate), and in the second half, when hampered by a poor grid positions, his mistake free race drives still salvaged crucial points.
The Brawn's early season advantage was eroded over the season, but it was a few lower ambient temperature races after Turkey that really highlighted the Brawn's biggest weakness relative to the closest rivals. Whereas the Brawn's gentle use of tyres had helped at some of the hotter early season races, it was hindrance at the colder races. Getting the temperatures up to working temp proved difficult, especially over one out and one flying lap in qualifying. Jenson's ultra smooth style suffered more than Rubens, but even Rubens was suffering. This led to a drop off in qualifying results for Jenson and Rubens, even when they effectively got the most out of the car, and also lead to a few more mistakes in qualifying from Jenson. The most costly was Spa, where 14th on the grid left him a target for Grosjean's rookie dive bomb move. Not quite as costly was Valencia, but the squeeze by Vettel at the start put him further down the order, at a track where the car had race winning pace, Jenson was left battling his way to 2 points. But I think, rather than a reason for all the criticism of an unworthy champion, it was the fact he still put in error free races to minimize the damage that in my mind he's the most deserving driver this year. Brawn have given him a great car, a great team of engineers, great reliability, but he was the driver who got the job done, and drove some great races.
So, overall, Jenson is a worthy 2009 WDC. He's immensely fast, makes very few mistakes, and has great race craft. If he has a weakness it's not being as adaptable to a car that's not balanced as some drivers are, especially over a single lap. I don't want to over exaggerate this weakness though, as I think it has already been made more of than it is. In contrast to such a great start to the season, evaluating Jenson's last 9 qualifying and race results, it is simplistic to think he choked, or it was 'all down to the car'. By mid season we had several other cars becoming race winning machinery, a few others that were intermittenlty close (Force India anyone??), and a field that is now almost all covered by only one second in qualifying, so it was unlikely to continue as dominantly as it started. In fact, the car dominance of 6 wins in the first 7 was probably exaggerated by a few mistakes from other teams, especially Red Bull.
And a few final thoughts:
- The double diffuser was not illegal. It may have not been to the 'spirit' of the intention of the rule changes, but the only people who moan about the 'spirit' of rules in F1 are those caught with their pants down.
- Jenson does not 'steal' Rubens setups. It's a team effort, and in a season with no testing, it is critical information about setups, tyre use, etc. flows between both sides of the garage during the practice sessions. There were times when Jenson took Ruben's direction on setup, and vice versa. Rubens and Jock Clear are undoubtedly very experienced and technically strong, but Jenson and Andrew Shovlin are not setup 'idiots'.
The Brawn's early season advantage was eroded over the season, but it was a few lower ambient temperature races after Turkey that really highlighted the Brawn's biggest weakness relative to the closest rivals. Whereas the Brawn's gentle use of tyres had helped at some of the hotter early season races, it was hindrance at the colder races. Getting the temperatures up to working temp proved difficult, especially over one out and one flying lap in qualifying. Jenson's ultra smooth style suffered more than Rubens, but even Rubens was suffering. This led to a drop off in qualifying results for Jenson and Rubens, even when they effectively got the most out of the car, and also lead to a few more mistakes in qualifying from Jenson. The most costly was Spa, where 14th on the grid left him a target for Grosjean's rookie dive bomb move. Not quite as costly was Valencia, but the squeeze by Vettel at the start put him further down the order, at a track where the car had race winning pace, Jenson was left battling his way to 2 points. But I think, rather than a reason for all the criticism of an unworthy champion, it was the fact he still put in error free races to minimize the damage that in my mind he's the most deserving driver this year. Brawn have given him a great car, a great team of engineers, great reliability, but he was the driver who got the job done, and drove some great races.
So, overall, Jenson is a worthy 2009 WDC. He's immensely fast, makes very few mistakes, and has great race craft. If he has a weakness it's not being as adaptable to a car that's not balanced as some drivers are, especially over a single lap. I don't want to over exaggerate this weakness though, as I think it has already been made more of than it is. In contrast to such a great start to the season, evaluating Jenson's last 9 qualifying and race results, it is simplistic to think he choked, or it was 'all down to the car'. By mid season we had several other cars becoming race winning machinery, a few others that were intermittenlty close (Force India anyone??), and a field that is now almost all covered by only one second in qualifying, so it was unlikely to continue as dominantly as it started. In fact, the car dominance of 6 wins in the first 7 was probably exaggerated by a few mistakes from other teams, especially Red Bull.
And a few final thoughts:
- The double diffuser was not illegal. It may have not been to the 'spirit' of the intention of the rule changes, but the only people who moan about the 'spirit' of rules in F1 are those caught with their pants down.
- Jenson does not 'steal' Rubens setups. It's a team effort, and in a season with no testing, it is critical information about setups, tyre use, etc. flows between both sides of the garage during the practice sessions. There were times when Jenson took Ruben's direction on setup, and vice versa. Rubens and Jock Clear are undoubtedly very experienced and technically strong, but Jenson and Andrew Shovlin are not setup 'idiots'.
It's not a big deal, but the F1 engine isn't designed and built at Ilmor anymore, and hasn't been since 2005.
Mercedes started a buy out of Ilmor in 2002 and it was completed in 2005, although the Special Projects offshoot (including the Honda IRL engines project) and the Ilmor name were bought from Mercedes by Roger Penske and Mario Illien.
Mercedes High Performance Engines are still based in the UK (next door to the UK Ilmor facilities), although obviously they work in partnership with the Mercedes mothership in Germany. I'm not sure how nationalistic anyone can be about any auto manufacturer these days, with factories popping up everywhere. Although MHPE maybe mainly based in Britain, and may even be a profitable business in it's own right, it's certainly benefited from Mercedes HQ cash and technical input over the years. It's no doubt also suffered from Mercedes HQ interference and internal politics, but many subsidiary companies have to deal with that.
As someone who bought NKpro at the start (both influenced by the hype and the promise of updates), does this mean I have to pay to fully unlock 1.03 (once it's released)? The website does indeed still state that you only get one year of updates. I'm sure the original vision was for a reasonable amount of updates within a year, but it's pretty much been left broken since the start.
NKpro had a lot of promise as released, and technically we got what it said we were paying for, but for the development to be effectively downgraded to a side project within a few months of release has certainly left it in a difficult position to be resumed commercially.
Here is some high quality video on the official F1 site:
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/10/8530.html
Not sure any of these camera angles change my opinions:
1) LH T1 move was misjudged but not worthy of penalty.
2) FM spinning LH was worth a penalty, based purely on FM's onboard view.
3) SB did not deserve a penalty, although it's interesting they didn't have forward facing onboard footage from either car for this one. Hard to make a decisive judgment based on the footage I've seen.
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/10/8530.html
Not sure any of these camera angles change my opinions:
1) LH T1 move was misjudged but not worthy of penalty.
2) FM spinning LH was worth a penalty, based purely on FM's onboard view.
3) SB did not deserve a penalty, although it's interesting they didn't have forward facing onboard footage from either car for this one. Hard to make a decisive judgment based on the footage I've seen.
Last edited by Rob76, .
Reason : I'm working my way through this thread backwards, and it appears the footage has already been discussed.
Well after 2 races it's won me over for a year subscription 
Is that with default setup? I'm stuck in the 1:06s (if I don't spin!)....
Only 50Mb to go now....polished off a bottle of Magic Hat while waiting
just downloading iracing now...576MB of updates seem to be taking forever
Is there any word on whether more invitations went out today? I thought I read that another wave of invites was due today.
I'm still hoping for an invite this week...
I'll give it a shot. I don't really have the time to invest to get the most out of the subscription if you compare it to other sim pricing structures, but it might just be good enough to drag me back to my wheel in the free time I do have.
Most of my driving in LFS is offline at the moment. I don't drive often enough to feel 'safe' in proper races, but maybe the safety rating system in iracing will at least work in my favour. When I'm off the pace in LFS, drivers seem to just drive through me, with no regard for racing etiquette or the consequence, and I get frustrated constantly being punted off. If drivers can't just wait 5 laps for another race, and vote for a restart the instant they screw up T1, maybe they'll work for the pass and give racing room rather than take the hotlap racing line no matter what. iracing sounds like it does well at this, with the safety rating, limited races and placing you with similarliy skilled drivers. Maybe races scheduled a little more frequently would be good, but this might come with more subscribers.
It's the pricing scheme that will take some getting used to. Even if you commit to the year and lay down $156, the content is still somewhat limited. Maybe it's just the mindset that needs to change....hell I pay close to that each month for a TV and internet cable package...but I just think $156 a year really should get you all available tracks and cars.
I'll give it a shot. I don't really have the time to invest to get the most out of the subscription if you compare it to other sim pricing structures, but it might just be good enough to drag me back to my wheel in the free time I do have.
Most of my driving in LFS is offline at the moment. I don't drive often enough to feel 'safe' in proper races, but maybe the safety rating system in iracing will at least work in my favour. When I'm off the pace in LFS, drivers seem to just drive through me, with no regard for racing etiquette or the consequence, and I get frustrated constantly being punted off. If drivers can't just wait 5 laps for another race, and vote for a restart the instant they screw up T1, maybe they'll work for the pass and give racing room rather than take the hotlap racing line no matter what. iracing sounds like it does well at this, with the safety rating, limited races and placing you with similarliy skilled drivers. Maybe races scheduled a little more frequently would be good, but this might come with more subscribers.
It's the pricing scheme that will take some getting used to. Even if you commit to the year and lay down $156, the content is still somewhat limited. Maybe it's just the mindset that needs to change....hell I pay close to that each month for a TV and internet cable package...but I just think $156 a year really should get you all available tracks and cars.
I don't like the 'collision off' idea for simply being a lap down, as that's a normal racing scenario (especially for me!), but for mid race joiners it might be an idea for a server option. Allow mid race join, let them do some practice laps, but they'd have no physical bearing on the race whatsoever (maybe even invisible or transparent??).
One pile up per race sounds like less that the average real life NASCAR race.
I think the penalties are in danger of getting in way of the racing in F1, so I think the decision here for Lewis and Vettel was actually a rare sensible outcome.
OK, Lewis didn't get a time or point penalty, but everyone's assuming that means the Stewards/FIA thought Hamilton's driving was completely fine. Maybe they decided, as he's pretty much kept his nose clean so far this year, that a private warning might be sufficient. Maybe they thought it was totally fine or borderline/no worse than previously allowed.
Did I think his speed variation was excessive? Slightly, yes. Did I think it warranted more than a 'calm it down' warning? No. I generally think the penalties in F1 are inconsistent, but I wouldn't have wanted Lewis penalised just for the sake of being consistent with other stupid penalties. I also wouldn't want a penalty just to ensure a closer title battle for the last two races.
The only rule it is possible we have video footage to prove Lewis broke is the five car lengths rule, but this is almost an unmeasurable generality of a rule anyway. Do you mount camera equipment in the exact same location as the spectator was positioned, go out to the track and take measurements to ensure it was never more than 5 cars?
If random spectator footage can be used to prove that any driver broke this rule at any point during a SC period (or any other rule for that matter), and action be taken retroactively, we'd have teams wasting time trawling through all the video footage they could get their hands on. If it went too far, you'd have a team like McLaren employ dozens of camera men to ensure they captured every second of Ferrari's race to ensure they were never outside the rules for the entire race. In fact they'd probably video Ferrari's employees every step in the pit garages too.
OK, Lewis didn't get a time or point penalty, but everyone's assuming that means the Stewards/FIA thought Hamilton's driving was completely fine. Maybe they decided, as he's pretty much kept his nose clean so far this year, that a private warning might be sufficient. Maybe they thought it was totally fine or borderline/no worse than previously allowed.
Did I think his speed variation was excessive? Slightly, yes. Did I think it warranted more than a 'calm it down' warning? No. I generally think the penalties in F1 are inconsistent, but I wouldn't have wanted Lewis penalised just for the sake of being consistent with other stupid penalties. I also wouldn't want a penalty just to ensure a closer title battle for the last two races.
The only rule it is possible we have video footage to prove Lewis broke is the five car lengths rule, but this is almost an unmeasurable generality of a rule anyway. Do you mount camera equipment in the exact same location as the spectator was positioned, go out to the track and take measurements to ensure it was never more than 5 cars?
If random spectator footage can be used to prove that any driver broke this rule at any point during a SC period (or any other rule for that matter), and action be taken retroactively, we'd have teams wasting time trawling through all the video footage they could get their hands on. If it went too far, you'd have a team like McLaren employ dozens of camera men to ensure they captured every second of Ferrari's race to ensure they were never outside the rules for the entire race. In fact they'd probably video Ferrari's employees every step in the pit garages too.
I know my reactions are fading with extreme age, but I can still enjoy LFS
The way this thread has gone is quite disappointing, considering it follows some positive coverage of LFS in the latest issue of ASS. If Alex, Bob and the rest of ASS give this forum, LFS community and LFS in general little attention, it will be hardly surprising after some of the posts here.
Sometimes confronting 'demo racers' about their license status is appropriate (although it can get tiring), but in this case, after Alex had gone to the trouble of contributing to this forum, it was a little embarrassing to see the first reply from the LFS community wasn't addressing any of his points, but was an accusation of using cracked software. Although Alex was mistaken in believing a moderator was making the accusation, it is understandable he was upset about the implication.
Although the thread didn't initially start off as a discussion of ASS this seems to be the way it went. Although the replies of Alex should have been treated with a little more respect, there were a few legitimate concerns about ASS that have not been answered in an entirely satisfactory fashion by Alex.
Linsen's concerns about the way in which the GS-1 seat article was presented are quite valid, in my opinion. The initial article outline was quite reasonable (i.e. seat inventor takes his seat to Indy to get the views of real race car drivers), but then again I read it after being fully primed by reading here. It would be quite easy to miss the fact it was written by the maker of the seat, especially as he refers to himself in the 3rd person and quotes himself during the article. It does read just a little too much like a press release, which is a shame as the seat looks like an interesting solution to the lack of g-forces without the need for a huge hydraulic or pneumatic monster. Had the article been written by a 3rd party who went along with the seat maker to Indy to get some knowledgeable feedback, it would have seemed much more objective. A magazine such as Wired does this regularly with technology, and the reader is much more likely to trust the resulting article.
It's a shame it wasn't written by a 3rd party, because sim racing hardware and technology (whether high-end professional, amateur, mass market, or in development) is an interesting part of the sim racing world. To see more objective articles concerning hardware would be good (whether it's reviews, set-up advice, maintenance and repair tips, etc.) to balance out against the multitude of software mod reviews.
SmokinBob's lack of online LFS stats may not tell the whole truth about how much he's used LFS, it does make you wonder how he can truly compare LFS online to any other online sim. Private servers with a few other ASS contributors (which must be on a LAN not to generate stats??) is not really going to show off how truly impressive the online netcode is or how great the racing can be with regular LFS racers. rFactor may be able to handle more racers on a server, but I've also experienced far more 'hovering cars' and prediction errors with rF online than with LFS. Also, the wide variety of mods for rFactor just makes finding a pick-up race in rF difficult.
As to nKpro, it's sold as an online sim, and it is truly broken in this mode. I, like Bob, do find it very immersive offline, but it is hardly a 'complete product'. Even offline it has it's share of problems and a painful slow clunky front end which doesn't allow car, track, graphics or sound changes without basically exiting the main program each time.
Back to the positive about ASS - it was good to see LFS represented well this month (thanks to a Magnus, Bob and Becky). The only criticism I have is that some of the photos in the STCC review and reports were 'stock' LFS shots, rather than of the STCC.
Sometimes confronting 'demo racers' about their license status is appropriate (although it can get tiring), but in this case, after Alex had gone to the trouble of contributing to this forum, it was a little embarrassing to see the first reply from the LFS community wasn't addressing any of his points, but was an accusation of using cracked software. Although Alex was mistaken in believing a moderator was making the accusation, it is understandable he was upset about the implication.
Although the thread didn't initially start off as a discussion of ASS this seems to be the way it went. Although the replies of Alex should have been treated with a little more respect, there were a few legitimate concerns about ASS that have not been answered in an entirely satisfactory fashion by Alex.
Linsen's concerns about the way in which the GS-1 seat article was presented are quite valid, in my opinion. The initial article outline was quite reasonable (i.e. seat inventor takes his seat to Indy to get the views of real race car drivers), but then again I read it after being fully primed by reading here. It would be quite easy to miss the fact it was written by the maker of the seat, especially as he refers to himself in the 3rd person and quotes himself during the article. It does read just a little too much like a press release, which is a shame as the seat looks like an interesting solution to the lack of g-forces without the need for a huge hydraulic or pneumatic monster. Had the article been written by a 3rd party who went along with the seat maker to Indy to get some knowledgeable feedback, it would have seemed much more objective. A magazine such as Wired does this regularly with technology, and the reader is much more likely to trust the resulting article.
It's a shame it wasn't written by a 3rd party, because sim racing hardware and technology (whether high-end professional, amateur, mass market, or in development) is an interesting part of the sim racing world. To see more objective articles concerning hardware would be good (whether it's reviews, set-up advice, maintenance and repair tips, etc.) to balance out against the multitude of software mod reviews.
SmokinBob's lack of online LFS stats may not tell the whole truth about how much he's used LFS, it does make you wonder how he can truly compare LFS online to any other online sim. Private servers with a few other ASS contributors (which must be on a LAN not to generate stats??) is not really going to show off how truly impressive the online netcode is or how great the racing can be with regular LFS racers. rFactor may be able to handle more racers on a server, but I've also experienced far more 'hovering cars' and prediction errors with rF online than with LFS. Also, the wide variety of mods for rFactor just makes finding a pick-up race in rF difficult.
As to nKpro, it's sold as an online sim, and it is truly broken in this mode. I, like Bob, do find it very immersive offline, but it is hardly a 'complete product'. Even offline it has it's share of problems and a painful slow clunky front end which doesn't allow car, track, graphics or sound changes without basically exiting the main program each time.
Back to the positive about ASS - it was good to see LFS represented well this month (thanks to a Magnus, Bob and Becky). The only criticism I have is that some of the photos in the STCC review and reports were 'stock' LFS shots, rather than of the STCC.
To me it's clear: once a chasing car has any overlap on a straight, the leading car should not move across. Any blocking move should be done before the chasing car is alongside and forced to avoid contact.
Where it gets pretty grey is when the chasing car is commited to a pass and is a split second from having overlap and is carrying more speed, but hasn't quite got the overlap yet. In my view the leading car has left it too late to start a move across to block, but IRL Schumacher seemed to get away with putting the chasing car in the position of yield/swerve or crash.
One case that I remember was Brazil (can't remember the year) where he pulled across on Montoya (who'd commited to pass on Schumacher's left) and Montoya lost his wing. At the split second Schumacher started to move, Montoya didn't have overlap, but was carrying more speed and the contact was almost instant.
I don't want this to turn into a Schumacher bash, but he is/was a top driver who pushed the rules in the area of this thread topic. Even in his last F1 race we saw him move across on another car, expecting the other driver to yield (in this case Fisi), although he came off worse in that case.
It's clear McLaren's driver pairing isn't your idea of a dreamteam
but your critisicm of McLaren is misplaced. This quote is from Ron Dennis when asked about the issue of Hamilton's skin colour in F1:"To be honest it just doesn't register and it never has.
"We are very aware of the ability for Lewis' colour to be used as a headline or certainly contained in the first sentence of any of the stories that come out of today, and many of the stories that will be published in the future.
"He has been in the McLaren-Mercedes family for nine years, we don't hide from the fact that he is from a mixed race background, but it doesn't matter. And we certainly want to take a path in which it is not played to or played against: he is what he is, from our perspective, there is not even the angle of 'does this make him more determined?'
"The Tiger Woods label, it does make you smile and you could argue it is a compliment, but it is not relevant to our objective, he is in our team because he has earned the opportunity.
"The fact that he is in the car is because he has earned it and not because there is any negative or positive coming out of his colour, he is just one of us, he has been one of us for nine years, he has earned it and he deserves the opportunity."
Wow, I remember that from an old games room on a french camp site I stayed at in the mid 80's. I certainly put a few francs into that machine
I remember that, it was the Mario Kart but with animals wasn't it?? Was playing that at Uni back in about '94/'95 when I should have been paying more attention to the studies
Probably Overlander, Road Blasters or Outrun on my Sinclair Spectrum. I was about 10.
If arcade machines count, it was probably pole position.
First 'sim' was Crammond's F1GP on the Amiga.
EDIT: I forgot Chequered Flag on the spectrum, which cost a whopping £1.99.
If arcade machines count, it was probably pole position.
First 'sim' was Crammond's F1GP on the Amiga.
EDIT: I forgot Chequered Flag on the spectrum, which cost a whopping £1.99.
Last edited by Rob76, .
I have two DFPs and never had a problem with the wheels (they seem very solid). The pedals (one of each revision) have both had the standard noisy pot issue, which a quick clean solves for a few months, and the older one (blue pots) occasionally has the 80% throttle problem due to spikes in the pots. The newer revision pedals (larger metal pots) has never had the 80% throttle problem.
And before the DFP I had the Wingman Formula Force, which never had a problem (still works as far as I know).
Overall I've had pretty good reliability from logitech wheels, so I'm hoping it looks good for the G25.
When I ordered from Amazon on the 10th it was estimating 1-2 weeks delivery, but not long after the order they changed the estimated delivery to the 12th October and the G25 product page on their main website said '2 left in stock'.
I have a tracking number and it's due for delivery tomorrow, so it looks like I was lucky enough to get one of Amazon's first batch.
I had a $25 voucher and free 2-day shipping (Amazon Prime), so it was $275. It's out of state, so no tax (if the MA DOR are reading I'll pay on my 2006 tax return
).FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG