Massive F3 Crash Parabolica
Discussion
Petrolsniffed said:
It feels to me that they should just punish those who go outside the track with time fines. Do it too many times and you are disqualified. Far safer and sensible deterrent
Can anyone explain why this doesn't happen? The tech is there, MSV use it at their circuits. First offence = warning, second offence = drive through, third offence = stop go. They'd soon stop abusing track limits, and while they're at it, make it an offence as soon as one wheel is completely over the white line, all this four wheels off the circuit before they take any action is nonsense. Connectors said:
Petrolsniffed said:
It feels to me that they should just punish those who go outside the track with time fines. Do it too many times and you are disqualified. Far safer and sensible deterrent
Can anyone explain why this doesn't happen? The tech is there, MSV use it at their circuits. First offence = warning, second offence = drive through, third offence = stop go. They'd soon stop abusing track limits, and while they're at it, make it an offence as soon as one wheel is completely over the white line, all this four wheels off the circuit before they take any action is nonsense. Not sure where they went from there as II am no longer doing it for the last 3 years although I did go to Donington to operate the new system there for the first BTCC they used it on very different environment but still a great system.
Just to clarify its 2 infringements with photo evidence before a black and white warning then as you said . And for mSA ruling its any wheel off for FIA all 4 wheels off which can cause issues still .
Sausage kerbs are inherently unsafe in my view and should never be part of any circuit but if the FIA inspectors allow them then the FIA should deal with the aftermath every track is inspected prior to any F1 event and any required changes agreed and scheduled with the track operator.
When track limits penalties came in I was the most unpopular guy but we tried to use a fair approach to the problem viewing build up to as well as the actual offence and would only act if we were totally convinced that advantage had been sought.
It didn't stop knee jerk reaction writing letters to Autosport and getting commentators to ridicule the system ( the same ones who funnily enough now see it as a good thing!) It was just managing the change , you used to do this now you can't and if you do there will be penalties
The best ones were when the driver flatly denied any infringements until presented with in the worst case 20 photos of their car clearly off the track when they became very quiet and usually said "I didn't know you could see this so clearly".
Petrolsniffed said:
f
king hell pal. You want to knee jerk off one comment and then ask me to make recommendations for every aspect of the sport?
So for the record, you do not believe there is any negligence in the deployment in this situation? You know, the incident a thread was started over? Once we nail this maybe we can share email and discuss every other aspect of the sport? Perhaps you could take me to dinner to debate it? Or would you want clarification of my nationality first?
Simple answer - I don't know if there was negligence or not. I suspect not, as such kerbs are in wide usage. But I don't see any useful purpose in rushing to judgment . Dinner ? Nice thought but perhaps not - people might jump to conclusions . king hell pal. You want to knee jerk off one comment and then ask me to make recommendations for every aspect of the sport? So for the record, you do not believe there is any negligence in the deployment in this situation? You know, the incident a thread was started over? Once we nail this maybe we can share email and discuss every other aspect of the sport? Perhaps you could take me to dinner to debate it? Or would you want clarification of my nationality first?
Mostly a dubious knowledge of physics and hazy memories of the explanations of wiser people for whom this is a well understood problem. I don't think anyone's got data on it because I don't think anyone's done it, if that counts as an assumption then fair enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFZ9loSAIPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqw0r0kYl0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFZ9loSAIPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqw0r0kYl0M
An aeroplane flies because the lift generated by the wings exerts an upward force greater than the weight of the aeroplane.
An upside down racing car would fly if the lift force generated by the wings exceeded the weight of the car.
I actually think that most racing cars fly, not when their wings start producing lift instead of downforce, but most often when their flat undersides are presented to the airflow and they actually get "pushed" up rather than "sucked" up. A classic example of that happening would be accidents such as the Mercedes flips at Le Mans back in 1999.
An upside down racing car would fly if the lift force generated by the wings exceeded the weight of the car.
I actually think that most racing cars fly, not when their wings start producing lift instead of downforce, but most often when their flat undersides are presented to the airflow and they actually get "pushed" up rather than "sucked" up. A classic example of that happening would be accidents such as the Mercedes flips at Le Mans back in 1999.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff