De la Rosa - possible for LH's team mate next year - Noooooo
Discussion
Despite what people say I think Moto GP and a lot of other motorbike racing is pretty boring. Yes there is a bit of overtaking, yes they lean over at ridiculous angles and slide the bike into bends, and yes they are madmen, but the braking distances are so long and the corner speeds so slow that as a spectacle I don't find it that impressive.
On Piquet JR yes he has had plenty of money backing him up but so have many of the other single seater drivers from rich families. He's performed pretty well in every series he's been in, and did well in the year that Hamilton won GP2, he was just a bit overshadowed. I reckon he's better than Timo Glock who everyone seems to think is good enough for F1
On Piquet JR yes he has had plenty of money backing him up but so have many of the other single seater drivers from rich families. He's performed pretty well in every series he's been in, and did well in the year that Hamilton won GP2, he was just a bit overshadowed. I reckon he's better than Timo Glock who everyone seems to think is good enough for F1
Webber is Utterly Rubbish and should stick to what he seems to love more Mountain / road biking.
Piquet did nothing in lower formula'a dn his over taking is laughable - full of mistakes - Rubbish, Glock would murder him.
As for the comments on Braking distance in MotoGp vs F1 - you try stopping something that fast even on carbon disc on sucha tiny contact patch. This is a Big part of why F1 is CRAP - the braking distances are way to short - need iron brakes. So much can happen in the braking zone that by having tiny stopping distances you are removing so much of the chase to over take and hence have alot more spectacle in F1.
If you race you will know that the braking zone is where most of it happens!
Piquet did nothing in lower formula'a dn his over taking is laughable - full of mistakes - Rubbish, Glock would murder him.
As for the comments on Braking distance in MotoGp vs F1 - you try stopping something that fast even on carbon disc on sucha tiny contact patch. This is a Big part of why F1 is CRAP - the braking distances are way to short - need iron brakes. So much can happen in the braking zone that by having tiny stopping distances you are removing so much of the chase to over take and hence have alot more spectacle in F1.
If you race you will know that the braking zone is where most of it happens!
jellison said:
Webber is Utterly Rubbish and should stick to what he seems to love more Mountain / road biking.
Piquet did nothing in lower formula'a dn his over taking is laughable - full of mistakes - Rubbish, Glock would murder him.
As for the comments on Braking distance in MotoGp vs F1 - you try stopping something that fast even on carbon disc on sucha tiny contact patch. This is a Big part of why F1 is CRAP - the braking distances are way to short - need iron brakes. So much can happen in the braking zone that by having tiny stopping distances you are removing so much of the chase to over take and hence have alot more spectacle in F1.
If you race you will know that the braking zone is where most of it happens!
I don't believe that the braking distances have anything to do with iron v carbon matrix rotors.Piquet did nothing in lower formula'a dn his over taking is laughable - full of mistakes - Rubbish, Glock would murder him.
As for the comments on Braking distance in MotoGp vs F1 - you try stopping something that fast even on carbon disc on sucha tiny contact patch. This is a Big part of why F1 is CRAP - the braking distances are way to short - need iron brakes. So much can happen in the braking zone that by having tiny stopping distances you are removing so much of the chase to over take and hence have alot more spectacle in F1.
If you race you will know that the braking zone is where most of it happens!
A few years ago, Williams did extensive side-by-side testing of the two systems, as Zanardi preferred the feedback that he got from iron, which he had got used to in Champ Cars.
Williams ultimately insisted that he use carbon, but only because of the weight.
They said at the time that there was nothing in the braking performance.
flemke said:
jellison said:
Webber is Utterly Rubbish and should stick to what he seems to love more Mountain / road biking.
Piquet did nothing in lower formula'a dn his over taking is laughable - full of mistakes - Rubbish, Glock would murder him.
As for the comments on Braking distance in MotoGp vs F1 - you try stopping something that fast even on carbon disc on sucha tiny contact patch. This is a Big part of why F1 is CRAP - the braking distances are way to short - need iron brakes. So much can happen in the braking zone that by having tiny stopping distances you are removing so much of the chase to over take and hence have alot more spectacle in F1.
If you race you will know that the braking zone is where most of it happens!
I don't believe that the braking distances have anything to do with iron v carbon matrix rotors.Piquet did nothing in lower formula'a dn his over taking is laughable - full of mistakes - Rubbish, Glock would murder him.
As for the comments on Braking distance in MotoGp vs F1 - you try stopping something that fast even on carbon disc on sucha tiny contact patch. This is a Big part of why F1 is CRAP - the braking distances are way to short - need iron brakes. So much can happen in the braking zone that by having tiny stopping distances you are removing so much of the chase to over take and hence have alot more spectacle in F1.
If you race you will know that the braking zone is where most of it happens!
A few years ago, Williams did extensive side-by-side testing of the two systems, as Zanardi preferred the feedback that he got from iron, which he had got used to in Champ Cars.
Williams ultimately insisted that he use carbon, but only because of the weight.
They said at the time that there was nothing in the braking performance.
Flemke is spot on.
Using iron disks has no impact on the braking force available, because what happens with modern race pad materials is the first few aplications of the brakes coats the disks with a layer of carbon, the pad then generates it's retardation against this layer of carbon, so you efectively have carbon-carbon brakes on an iron substrate.
If you condition iron disks properly, they never wear out, only the pads wear. The only reason i change the iron disks on the CanAm cars (which are braking from upto 220MPH at Monza), is because they suffer from heat crazing that if left too long grow into cracks that would eventually lead to a disk failure, they would be on the car for years without this issue.
The downside to iron disks is mainly safety and gyroscopic forces, the extra rotational weight has an effect on how quickly the car can change direction as the gyroscopic forces want to make the car go straight ahead. Safety wise when a carbon disk fails it turns to dust, when an iron disk fails it becomes a very dangerous chunk of iron with a lot of energy to disipate.
Using iron disks has no impact on the braking force available, because what happens with modern race pad materials is the first few aplications of the brakes coats the disks with a layer of carbon, the pad then generates it's retardation against this layer of carbon, so you efectively have carbon-carbon brakes on an iron substrate.
If you condition iron disks properly, they never wear out, only the pads wear. The only reason i change the iron disks on the CanAm cars (which are braking from upto 220MPH at Monza), is because they suffer from heat crazing that if left too long grow into cracks that would eventually lead to a disk failure, they would be on the car for years without this issue.
The downside to iron disks is mainly safety and gyroscopic forces, the extra rotational weight has an effect on how quickly the car can change direction as the gyroscopic forces want to make the car go straight ahead. Safety wise when a carbon disk fails it turns to dust, when an iron disk fails it becomes a very dangerous chunk of iron with a lot of energy to disipate.
skinny said:
nothing wrong with carbon brakes imo - do porsches with carbon brakes have dramatically reduced braking distances compared to steel brake shod cars? only when fade kicks in i'd guess
downforce is what allows the miniscule braking distances in f1
No, and you can't really make a direct comparison because all rear-engined Porsches except standard Cup cars have a servo, so pedal force required is not "natural" anyway.downforce is what allows the miniscule braking distances in f1
Notwithstanding the brakes on the RS Spyder, Porsche (and other road car) "carbon" brakes are actually carbon/silicon carbide composite, and have roughly twice the density of true carbon matrix, such as on F1 cars. Iron has roughly twice again the density.
flemke said:
skinny said:
nothing wrong with carbon brakes imo - do porsches with carbon brakes have dramatically reduced braking distances compared to steel brake shod cars? only when fade kicks in i'd guess
downforce is what allows the miniscule braking distances in f1
No, and you can't really make a direct comparison because all rear-engined Porsches except standard Cup cars have a servo, so pedal force required is not "natural" anyway.downforce is what allows the miniscule braking distances in f1
Notwithstanding the brakes on the RS Spyder, Porsche (and other road car) "carbon" brakes are actually carbon/silicon carbide composite, and have roughly twice the density of true carbon matrix, such as on F1 cars. Iron has roughly twice again the density.
Braking distances are a function of the available grip of the tyre, you cant generate more retardation than the tyre can give up, no matter how good your brakes are.
From that you should be able to see the main areas controlling braking distances are tyre construction and compound, downforce, the nature of the surface of the track and weight. Everything else on the car has an influnce too of course, but to a smaller extent.
From that you should be able to see the main areas controlling braking distances are tyre construction and compound, downforce, the nature of the surface of the track and weight. Everything else on the car has an influnce too of course, but to a smaller extent.
jellison said:
flemke said:
skinny said:
nothing wrong with carbon brakes imo - do porsches with carbon brakes have dramatically reduced braking distances compared to steel brake shod cars? only when fade kicks in i'd guess
downforce is what allows the miniscule braking distances in f1
No, and you can't really make a direct comparison because all rear-engined Porsches except standard Cup cars have a servo, so pedal force required is not "natural" anyway.downforce is what allows the miniscule braking distances in f1
Notwithstanding the brakes on the RS Spyder, Porsche (and other road car) "carbon" brakes are actually carbon/silicon carbide composite, and have roughly twice the density of true carbon matrix, such as on F1 cars. Iron has roughly twice again the density.
Edited by kevin ritson on Friday 9th November 23:57
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff