Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

How is it real F1 racing when...

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by hornet, Apr 15, 2014.

  1. The speed of the car is regulated from the pits via electronic interference, and not by the driver's right foot???
    I understood that external interference with ANY aspect of the car had been banned years ago, in the wake of the (probably) urban myth that Williams had driven a driverless car round Silverstone at nearly record lap speed???

  2. Maybe, but the last race was the most entertaining I've seen for a while. Helped by the safety car I concede.
  3. It's not controlled from the pits, there are numerous fuel maps available for selection by the driver. Which fuel map the driver uses however, can be based on feedback provided from the pits according to the information suppliied in the vehicle to pit telemetry.

    I would not rely too heavily on the exact wording in that article - journalists are not often known for their subject matter expertise...

    When they say things like "Red Bull turned down the flow...", what in fact it means is that the driver turned down the fuel flow under instruction from the race engineers in the pits.
  4. Really. So the reporter three times deliberately stated "Red Bull turned down the flow" instead of easily being able to say "Red Bull instructed their driver to turn down the flow".
  5. #5 Mcsenna, Apr 15, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2014
    The operation of the MGU-K is controlled by a computer and not the driver in the 2014 cars.
    Sorry, to explain what I meant, the MGU-K and the fuel flow are linked to ensure the car goes the race distance, so it follows that the fuel flow is also controlled by the computer. That's how I see it anyway.
  6. I think it's just a manner of speaking - the driver carrying out a decision made by the team. The team may decide to sacrifice some speed later in the race to get an overtake done NOW. I'd be disappointed if it were controlled remotely by telemetry but on the other hand I understand that MotoGP bikes recalculate their own mapping dynamically to achieve exactly the right distance for the race. So whether the computer is in the vehicle or the pit is a bit irrelevant.
  7. Conspiracy theory on your part perhaps?

    So you think that Red Bull are doing something that other manufacturers aren't (as in, controlling the vehicle from the pits), when they have to submit all their components for technical analysis by F1, at both scheduled and random inspections? And that no one else knows, and has not appealed or screamed blue murder?

    Uh huh.

    My stance - I simply place no faith in the ability of reporters to report the FACTS - merely what they need to, to get column inches. And if the exact turn of phrase leads some people down another path in their own minds, so be it.

    Do some research on the radio spectrum monitoring that has been undertaken by F1 for quite a number of years now, in order to prevent exactly what you assert has happened.
  8. We all know they can do it, but no-one is going to squeal on anyone else, because one day it might advantage you.
    Look, the bottom line is that F1 cars' only resemblance to cars is that they have four wheels and a steering wheel. So let them do whatever they want to do. Because it's not real racing, especially now it's an Eco-nazi's enviro delight, and in terms of a real contest between drivers, it hasn't been that for decades: the driver is just along for the ride in a techno-slot car..
  9. What a waste of time even considering that this was going to be a sensible discussion based on facts, and not a rant from some conspiracy theorist.

    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. He's got the shits on since he fell down the stairs.
  11. Well since I started the thread, I would think that I can say whatever I like in it???
  12. I've always said they were overgrown remote control cars. =D
  13. You'd be wrong then.
  14. LOL, in that case I better remember that in future. Any thread is "owned" by the OP, and no contrary opinion shall be heard.
  15. Theres always a first time for everthing. hahaha
  16. Wow Hornet doesn't like F1 because the electronics take away the ability for the driver to decide how much throttle he uses, or how much wheel spin he has.

    Thank Jebus that this sort of thing doesn't happen in MotoGp or WSBK..... oh wait.
  17. Is this a stick it up Hornet thread ? Beauty can I play too ? Not that I particularly dislike the old coot but there just aren't enough stick it up threads these days.
  18. That's not what I said at all, as even a cursory reading of my post would have shown. I said it wasn't real racing when the performance of the car is controlled from the pits. Blustering about this not being allowed from a person who is right now questioning compliance with gun laws not being enforced, notwithstanding. It seems conspiracy is ok as long as it's you positing it.... :ROLL:
  19. Exactly. The media is not a shining beacon of credibility and may never be, it's not as profitable as a more interesting story with twisted information. One of my cousins worked in journalism, she said the journalists motto is "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
  20. Fascinating how the default position so often is "I don't like what was said, impugn the person who said it". 24 or more hours have passed since the report, there has been ample opportunity for Red Bull, the FIA, or the janitor, to refute the thrice-stated wording "Red Bull turned down the fuel flow..", but, nothing.....