78 replies to this topic

[yoyogetfunky]

pornnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn warning

http://www.autoblog....8711#post-58711

[encircled]

That is FAST.

[krapmeister]

Awesome Imagine a whole field of them running through there like that...

[Ross Stonefeld]

That is FAST.

About as fast as an F1 car, only about 215-220 these days.

Back in the good ole days©, like the 1990s, they'd be at almost 230 even with the chicanes

[PayasYouRace]

That's incredible. The sound too!

I've actually thought for a long time that by making the track a little wider and using a more modern run-off design that they could ditch that chicane entirely. It's horrible.

[Nonesuch]

Fantastic! Gets me in the mood for next week's race at Spa!

[Les]

Oh yes!

[Cavani]

fantastic , is it flatout all the way ?

[MikeTekRacing]

fantastic , is it flatout all the way ?

it's really up to what you drive

[Cavani]

on them r18 hybrids ?

[Myrvold]

I've actually thought for a long time that by making the track a little wider and using a more modern run-off design that they could ditch that chicane entirely.

Make it more modern. Just what we need.

[HaydenFan]

on them r18 hybrids ?

Did not sound like any lifting going into the turn.

[Disgrace]

Turning endless straights into flat sweeping curves is a very simple way of making cars look as fast as they should do (take note Tilke).

Edited by Disgrace, 27 April 2013 - 12:43.

[yoyogetfunky]

About as fast as an F1 car, only about 215-220 these days.

Back in the good ole days©, like the 1990s, they'd be at almost 230 even with the chicanes

I hate chicanes Ross!! just hate them!!

Turning endless straights into flat sweeping curves is a very simple way of making cars look as fast as they should do (take note Tilke).

Hell yeah!!

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

It looks "fast" because differences between the lenses FOM use and this video footage, as well as placement. No tight zooming, no super wide shots where the car appears to be languidly traversing the screen.

Also, we're not given medium shots for straights - it's always the ultra-long zoom where the cars appear stationary going 200 mph, or the "Indy" close-flyby shot where there is no foreground information to indicate speed, just the quick flick as the car goes by.

Essentially, "camera shots that approximate human vision on location looks fast". FOM never does that. This video looks very impressive because it looks like you're standing there. I wish FOM would try some things like this. The director is thinking "that would take more cameras" and that it would be harder to have overlap, but if they just added one or two close medium pans on straights (not zooming), I think the viewer would get a better impression of speed.

/ FOM should invite Guest Directors to take 3 cameras and set them along the course, "here, Mr. Tarantino/Spielberg/X, take these 3 cameras and give us something interesting"

[ApexMouse]

The flywheel noises on the video linked at the end of this one are very cool.

PEEEWWWW

[chdphd]

/ FOM should invite Guest Directors to take 3 cameras and set them along the course, "here, Mr. Tarantino/Spielberg/X, take these 3 cameras and give us something interesting"

I like the idea. It reminds me of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hire

[dhill39]

Seeing that video brings back memory of Mark Webber at leman,those cars are way too fast.

[maverick69]

Lol. That is frickn' awesome

Although I wouldn't fancy that with a set of Pirelli F1 boots on though......

[PorcupineTroy]

Would have loved to seen F1 cars take that in 2004.

[r4mses]

It looks "fast" because differences between the lenses FOM use and this video footage, as well as placement. No tight zooming, no super wide shots where the car appears to be languidly traversing the screen.

Also, we're not given medium shots for straights - it's always the ultra-long zoom where the cars appear stationary going 200 mph, or the "Indy" close-flyby shot where there is no foreground information to indicate speed, just the quick flick as the car goes by.

Essentially, "camera shots that approximate human vision on location looks fast". FOM never does that. This video looks very impressive because it looks like you're standing there. I wish FOM would try some things like this. The director is thinking "that would take more cameras" and that it would be harder to have overlap, but if they just added one or two close medium pans on straights (not zooming), I think the viewer would get a better impression of speed.

/ FOM should invite Guest Directors to take 3 cameras and set them along the course, "here, Mr. Tarantino/Spielberg/X, take these 3 cameras and give us something interesting"

pretty much sums it up. or, to narrow it down even further: FOM's tv coverage sucks, as the cars look slower then ordinary road cars.

i just don't get it. it's the same for years. and it's not that hard to change. on some tracks, they even have those close-to-track or even on/in-track(!) cameras... you got to see their shots like twice a race, thinking "wow, that's quick!".

and - for years as well - i don't get why they show the race start from the end of the straight. you don't see anything except the top3 cars changing lines. you barley know who's in front... and you don't get any idea of how incredibly fast they accelerate. there is so, so much wrong in F1's broadcast.

Edited by r4mses, 27 April 2013 - 19:07.

[KnucklesAgain]

@Rubens & r4mses. And they sound worse on FOM than on any ole camera footage from testing as well. Pre-FOM the quality of the coverage was very uneven, with the lows lower and the highs higher. There were races well into the nineties with way too few cameras basically following the leader all race, but then you had e.g. old Hockenheim or Österreichring/A1 and others where the directors actually tried something - dunno if all of those made it to the world feed or were limited to the home stations' own coverage.

Edit: BTW, the director for Austrian TV was Lucky Schmidleitner, who's telling great stories from the old days at RB's site (German; Google and Bing Translate don't cope with Austrian German and result in hilarious translations if you are in a position to get it)

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 27 April 2013 - 19:56.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I dunno, a stationary camera watching the grid pull away would suck. I want to see the scramble going into the first turn.

[Fastcake]

I dunno, a stationary camera watching the grid pull away would suck. I want to see the scramble going into the first turn.

Same. I know how fast an F1 car accelerates, I don't want to be stuck on a stationary camera while there is action going on.

[r4mses]

Eh, ever thought about helicopters?

Or a stationary camera on the top of the grand stand.

[KnucklesAgain]

I does not have to be either-or!

[wingwalker]

It looks "fast" because differences between the lenses FOM use and this video footage, as well as placement. No tight zooming, no super wide shots where the car appears to be languidly traversing the screen.

Also, we're not given medium shots for straights - it's always the ultra-long zoom where the cars appear stationary going 200 mph, or the "Indy" close-flyby shot where there is no foreground information to indicate speed, just the quick flick as the car goes by.

Essentially, "camera shots that approximate human vision on location looks fast". FOM never does that. This video looks very impressive because it looks like you're standing there. I wish FOM would try some things like this. The director is thinking "that would take more cameras" and that it would be harder to have overlap, but if they just added one or two close medium pans on straights (not zooming), I think the viewer would get a better impression of speed.

/ FOM should invite Guest Directors to take 3 cameras and set them along the course, "here, Mr. Tarantino/Spielberg/X, take these 3 cameras and give us something interesting"

This. Jesus Christ, this.

[Boing 2]

It looks "fast" because differences between the lenses FOM use and this video footage, as well as placement. No tight zooming, no super wide shots where the car appears to be languidly traversing the screen.

Also, we're not given medium shots for straights - it's always the ultra-long zoom where the cars appear stationary going 200 mph, or the "Indy" close-flyby shot where there is no foreground information to indicate speed, just the quick flick as the car goes by.

Essentially, "camera shots that approximate human vision on location looks fast". FOM never does that. This video looks very impressive because it looks like you're standing there. I wish FOM would try some things like this. The director is thinking "that would take more cameras" and that it would be harder to have overlap, but if they just added one or two close medium pans on straights (not zooming), I think the viewer would get a better impression of speed.

/ FOM should invite Guest Directors to take 3 cameras and set them along the course, "here, Mr. Tarantino/Spielberg/X, take these 3 cameras and give us something interesting"

Agreed, my favourite camera ever was the pit straight at Magny Cours, one fixed wall cam facing the cars which cuts to a fixed cam following them, the car got close and you get a real WHOOSH as they passed.

[Kingshark]

Now try to drive the straight from Lesmo 2 to Parabolica flat-out without Ascari chicane.;)

Edited by Kingshark, 27 April 2013 - 19:59.

[Fastcake]

Eh, ever thought about helicopters?

Or a stationary camera on the top of the grand stand.

We have a helicopter replay of the start already, and what would a stationary camera on the grandstand bring? I prefer to watch the start down to the corner from one camera, like we do currently, as it means we see the whole start without missing anything from a change of perspective.

[yoyogetfunky]

I does not have to be either-or!

Indeed! Keep the start the way it is, but give us a few shots like this video would be really nice. It all seems so simple, and the sense of speed is tremendous.

[Boing Ball]

Wow, that thing sounded scary.

[KnucklesAgain]

That's also great: Eau Rouge with an overlay of a bunch of trackday cars and F1:

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 27 April 2013 - 20:21.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Hmm...

The approach of the F1 cars looks a little sped up, at least until they get into Eau Rouge.

[KnucklesAgain]

Hmm...

The approach of the F1 cars looks a little sped up, at least until they get into Eau Rouge.

Maybe, also the others are trackday cars, I edited my post. Still not too far from reality.
Edit: I think the apparent speedup is just from the effects of the lense. But I guess what I like is that it *is* possible to convey the sense of speed in a video (and FOM is doing something wrong)

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 27 April 2013 - 20:25.

[AllTwelve]

Would have loved to seen F1 cars take that in 2004.

AT

[Lotus72b]

WOW!!!!

[Con1]

I agree that the TV coverage does little to make the cars look fast. In fact, often the only time you get a good idea of the speed is when they crash. Suddenly you notice just how fast they are going. Webber's car getting airborne in Spain springs to mind.

However, to be fair to the coverage, you can set it up to show the race, or the speed. The two things are not the same. Spa is a good example. The coverage is set up so you see the chance of the overtake at the top of the hill. The angle in the youtube clip there is immense for showing the speed. It is not so good for showing what is actually happening re a potential pass.

But surely it wouldn't be too much to ask for one or two static cameras?

[William Hunt]

the track is pure magic without the chicanes but also extremely fast and dangerous

[Lemans]

Wow!
Motorsports is in serious need of more fire and brimstone.

[Afterburner]

AT

Wow... the cars of today seem so underwhelming compared to this. Do V10's and those proportions really cost that much more money?

Simply amazing, those cars.

EDIT: Oh, and that Audi thing's okay, too.

Edited by Afterburner, 27 April 2013 - 23:24.

[Les]

Wow... the cars of today seem so underwhelming compared to this. Do V10's and those proportions really cost that much more money?

Simply amazing, those cars.

EDIT: Oh, and that Audi thing's okay, too.

Indeed its power F1 (and motorsport, love a bit of sportscar, indycar etc) wants really. Todays F1 is entertaining but artificial. I would prefer unlimited revs and mega powerful engines but mega limited aero, personally.

The other thing is circuit design. Disgrace is 100% correct what he says "Turning endless straights into flat sweeping curves is a very simple way of making cars look as fast as they should do (take note Tilke)." Its sad that in modern circuit design the art of designing a mega fast corner after a long straight is dead. Its presumed either too dangerous or likely to prevent overtaking yet the video above proves what great spectacle such a scenario is.

[pingu666]

maybe that's part of the reason of d shape ovals?

[Les]

My goodness I don't know how many times I've watched the video though, just awesome how the Audi doesn't need to break for the Curve Grande. Safe to say I can't wait till Le Mans.

[BullHead]

Well, it is Monza...

[Ross Stonefeld]

And it's not actually going *that* fast. 350kph is about 217mph? It's fast but it's not "omg how does it turn" fast. That thing is making some serious downforce anyways.

[BoschKurve]

It looks "fast" because differences between the lenses FOM use and this video footage, as well as placement. No tight zooming, no super wide shots where the car appears to be languidly traversing the screen.

Also, we're not given medium shots for straights - it's always the ultra-long zoom where the cars appear stationary going 200 mph, or the "Indy" close-flyby shot where there is no foreground information to indicate speed, just the quick flick as the car goes by.

Essentially, "camera shots that approximate human vision on location looks fast". FOM never does that. This video looks very impressive because it looks like you're standing there. I wish FOM would try some things like this. The director is thinking "that would take more cameras" and that it would be harder to have overlap, but if they just added one or two close medium pans on straights (not zooming), I think the viewer would get a better impression of speed.

/ FOM should invite Guest Directors to take 3 cameras and set them along the course, "here, Mr. Tarantino/Spielberg/X, take these 3 cameras and give us something interesting"

Good points.

The other thing I feel that is not as good anymore are the onboard cameras. I loved the positioning of them in the late 80s/early 90s when you were right next to the driver. It felt much more exhilarating to watch than the view from above the driver's head.

[yoyogetfunky]

And it's not actually going *that* fast. 350kph is about 217mph? It's fast but it's not "omg how does it turn" fast. That thing is making some serious downforce anyways.

..but did you see that car negotiating a huge bump entering Curva Grande? Id **** all colours of the world if I was that driver, going at way over 300kmh.

[PretentiousBread]

Was just thinking the other day how it's silly that the only two low/medium downforce circuits on the F1 calender are Monza and Spa. Both these tracks provide a technical challenge to the engineers to get the downforce/drag balance correct, everywhere else they more or less just slap on as much downforce as possible. Giving more low drag circuits is a good non artificial way of mixing up the competitive order a little (2009 anyone?). Tilke's tracks are all heavily downforce dependent, he should design a couple (if he has the room to do so) with an emphasis on longer flat out sections. They don't have to be all boring straights though, sections like Curva grande or blanchimont/eau rouge are spectacularly fast to watch.

[Peter Perfect]

Was just thinking the other day how it's silly that the only two low/medium downforce circuits on the F1 calender are Monza and Spa. Both these tracks provide a technical challenge to the engineers to get the downforce/drag balance correct, everywhere else they more or less just slap on as much downforce as possible. Giving more low drag circuits is a good non artificial way of mixing up the competitive order a little (2009 anyone?). Tilke's tracks are all heavily downforce dependent, he should design a couple (if he has the room to do so) with an emphasis on longer flat out sections. They don't have to be all boring straights though, sections like Curva grande or blanchimont/eau rouge are spectacularly fast to watch.

Yep, I always thought that when Hockenheim was changed. There should be a variety of circuits on the calendar, which given how many races there are now I find difficult to believe there aren't.