2012 Formula One Belgian Grand Prix

[Metalfreaky]

Does anyone have a vid where Charlie is shaking his head because of Maldonado's jump start? I somehow missed it

 

[Markus Neumann]

I don't see the telemetry there. Really? He took it off?

Last tweet: 4 hours ago.

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said: "He was asked to take [the telemetry tweet] down and he did it immediately. He misjudged the situation. All the other ones we didn't ask him to remove, but that one he removed it and apologised. He wasn't thinking clearly obviously."
Asked if that was the end of the matter, Whitmarsh said: "Yes."
The telemetry sheet not only contained traces of the two drivers' laps, showing where Hamilton was losing time to Button, but also information about the car's settings, including sensitive data such as its ride height.

 

[Chronus]

Not on twitter. Maybe on facebook, then?

EDIT: not on facebook either.

EDIT: my bad, he really was asked to remove it. Thanks Markus.

"He wasn't thinking clearly". Precisely what we were saying and it couldn't happen.

 

[Chris Preston]

His team made him take it off, here's a link to it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19456707 The tweet from yesterday that said something like "WTF Jenson had the new wing......" etc. was also real and I'm not sure if his PR's or team told him to take that one down.

 

[Chronus]

2 days ago he had this entry:

Just got back from big engineering meeting after a tough session. Car is not fast enough at the moment but have made some big changes!

Knowing what Sky F1 commented and adding in what Lewis tweeted, then it is easy to see that info is true. Question is: what the heck is he thinking, passing certain type of info to the outside?

 

[Drummer]

Ok Mr. Smartass if you really want me to "nerd" it up I will.

Addition and subtraction are opposites correct? Just like you claim acceleration and deceleration are. Is 5+(-5) addition or subtraction? It's addition, but it's treated as subtraction. The correct way to say "slowing down" instead of deceleration is negative acceleration. You are still accelerating, just in the opposite direction. At top speed in an F1 car, if you let off you're accelerating negatively at 1G (9.8m/s^2) due to air resistance. Lets say top speed is 300km/h (111m/s) just to make easy calculations, that means after 1 second you are going 111-9.8=101.2m/s or 273.5km/h .... see the reasoning for "negative acceleration" yet or shall I explain further?

P.S. I'm an electrical engineer.

Right, let's set this straight so that we understand each other... In your original comment, you stated that there is no such thing as deceleration. What you could have said was that my terminology of "deceleration" was inaccurate; directing me to the more suitable terminology of "negative acceleration", but instead you chose to word your post in such a way as to suggest that you were trying to tell me that F1 cars do not decelerate (or slow down) once the driver has simply disengaged the accelerator. You must be able to see how that read, surely, can you not?

2) There is no such thing as deceleration, trust me I'm an engineer...

Ok, now we've cleared that bit up; because it can't really get much clearer than that, I'll be the first to say yes, I was wrong about "deceleration" as a terminology, however, that term is commonly used and understood to mean "negative acceleration", so your bringing that up as a point of debate was, at best, pedantic and pointless. That's like someone saying "The sky is blue!" and someone else saying "No it's not, don't be an idiot! Trust me, I'm an astronomer!" Well, you know what the guy was saying, and some anonymous bloke on the internet, who you are to me and other people on this forum, simply denying that the sky is blue and suggesting that he knows his stuff is bound to cause some kind of negative feedback. The fact that the sky is NOT actually blue, but merely appears that way, at times, to the naked eye, due to Rayleigh scattering is pretty much a moot point in such a debate and it's inclusion in such a debate is, as I said before, just pedantic trolling.

So, to sum it all up: While I do admit my errors with the "deceleration" vs "negative acceleration" debate, I feel that the entire discussion on this particular topic is null and void; baring in mind that you knew, full well, what my argument was.

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise for my rude and patronising comments in this topic; I do feel very passionately about motorsport safety and the general consensus that certain areas of road or racing venue are "dangerous". As I said before; it's not the bit they drive on that's dangerous, it's the way they drive on it! Unless there's a sudden gaping crack that strategically appears somewhere on the racing surface that opens up a void into the flaming core of the Earth during an event, there is no such thing as a "dangerous" track, circuit, corner or crest; the only dangers would be potential ones of roadside/trackside furnishings, such as a big old, solid, concrete wall, six feet thick at the end of a 700 metre straight into a tight, right-hand hairpin... That's a bit dangerous, as someone could lose control at high speed and hit it, and that wall would not absorb any impact, leaving the car and it's occupant to suffer the consequences of the sudden forces involved.

That is what I was saying there. As for the "Hamilton should have lifted off" fiasco, well, we've had that discussion. I'm not saying there was anyone behind him, but when it's hard-coded into a driver that suddenly decelerating with (potentially) a sack load of cars directly behind you is generally a bad idea, it's wrong and unfair to suggest that such a person, in such a position, should perform such an action with only a half-second warning. When you consider that the guy giving that warning was being an idiot in doing so and had no right to do so, it just reinforces the argument that Hamilton really had no place to do that, and nor should he have had.

I hope I've cleared things up a bit.

 

[Chronus]

...particular topic is null and void; baring in mind that you knew, full well, what my argument was.

"baring in mind"...

This from someone who wrote:

N.B. Please, don't type in txt spk, it looks childish and doesn't read very well to those of us who use REAL English. -.-

 

[Drummer]

"baring in mind"...

This from someone who wrote:

Oh, sheeesh, you are a pedantic little so and so, aren't you? That's just about the ONLY word I continually misspell, and it's still a word, it's just the wrong one! BEARING in mind that just about everything else I type is completely legible, easily understood an nt in txt spk lyk dis m8, i fnk ul agre i ent doin 2 bad, eh?


[EDIT] I have to admit, you did make me laugh though! Although, I do continue to use the wrong word there, pretty much every single time, I'm one of few people I know who can spell DEFINITELY correctly, so that more than makes up for it, in my very honest opinion!

 

[Chronus]

Back to Sprint Cup.

No...not yet.



Ok, back to Sprint Cup.

 

[BowlingKaz]

Just to settle the "deceleration/negative acceleration" argument, M.I.T. (you all know who M.I.T. are don't you?) refer to negative acceleration as deceleration and even give the equation for deceleration not for negative acceleration. So, if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for anyone on this forum.

 

[Chris Preston]

Just to settle the "deceleration/negative acceleration" argument, M.I.T. (you all know who M.I.T. are don't you?) refer to negative acceleration as deceleration and even give the equation for deceleration not for negative acceleration. So, if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for anyone on this forum.

There's a separate equation for deceleration and negative acceleration? That's news to me.

 

[Ramon Alonso]

Does anyone have a vid where Charlie is shaking his head because of Maldonado's jump start? I somehow missed it

I saw that, and it was funny as hell!

 

[Kartik Sri Harsha]

Vettel is pretty funny post comment, "Start was ****!" "oh sorry, it was bad"

Well It was A Bit of Funny but it was really a **** due to Grosjean

 

[Chris Preston]

I saw that, and it was funny as hell!

Same, I'd love to find that video

 

[Carlos Luna]

Don't understand why Lewis felt he had to tweet the telemetry. No one was doubting that he had the old spec wing and was clearly slower than Button. Poor judgement on his part, imo.

And you all need to relax, lol. No need to brag about how smart you are.

 

[Kartik Sri Harsha]

Forgot to ask this
At the start why Kamui car had some smoke is His Brakes got Over heated or is some thing else
The Audio wasn't good Yesterday

 

[tjc]

As far as I know it was just his brakes over heating

 

[BowlingKaz]

There's a separate equation for deceleration and negative acceleration? That's news to me.

Do you actually READ a post before you reply? I said:

"M.I.T. refer to negative acceleration as deceleration"

Surely the meaning is obvious? As far as MIT are concerned it is called deceleration. Call it whatever you like, but negative acceleration and deceleration are THE SAME THING.

 

[Tom]

Forgot to ask this
At the start why Kamui car had some smoke is His Brakes got Over heated or is some thing else
The Audio wasn't good Yesterday

As far as I know it was just his brakes over heating

Austrian TV commentators (Alexander Wurz ) guessed it could've been dry ice. I don't see how they would've put it on there, tho. And it would've surely damaged the car as well, no?

 

[Ramon Alonso]

Maldonado's saying the clutch slipped off his hands before the lights went out.
No ****!