Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Jalopnik: How much can CNN get wrong about F1 engines, physics?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 13 August 2013 - 03:35

Jalopnik: How much can CNN get wrong about F1 engines, physics?

http://jalopnik.com/...s-in-1111423405


Where the CNN article gets into trouble is when the writer attempts to explain how the turbo engines are different:P

While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient.

Oh boy. Is it possible for one little sentence to get so much wrong, so efficiently? It's impressive, in its way. And, sure, it's CNN, not a dedicated automotive site, but in an article about F1 cars and racing tech, you'd think there'd be at least some attempt to get this right. It'd be like writing an article about an election that said "While a standard election is decided by court decisions from individual citizen legislatures, a runoff election leverages polling data from the most recent census." Sure, those are real words, but they make zero sense.



Advertisement

#2 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,421 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 13 August 2013 - 04:43

Yes, almost every part of that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

We all know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Are you suggesting that "Joe/Jane Bloggs" could not potentially make an equally foolish statement about Shakespeare / Psychology / Quantum Physics / Ancient Rome / Hip Hop music if such area was not within their expertise!?

Maybe they said: While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient. When they meant: While a supercharger is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbocharger runs on its own exhaust gases, making it more energy efficient :)

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 13 August 2013 - 04:45.


#3 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,319 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 August 2013 - 06:07

Yes, almost every part of that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

We all know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Are you suggesting that "Joe/Jane Bloggs" could not potentially make an equally foolish statement about Shakespeare / Psychology / Quantum Physics / Ancient Rome / Hip Hop music if such area was not within their expertise!?

Maybe they said: While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient. When they meant: While a supercharger is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbocharger runs on its own exhaust gases, making it more energy efficient :)

A turbocharger does not run on its own exhaust gases.

#4 KirilVarbanov

KirilVarbanov
  • Member

  • 842 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:08

The article was 'updated' - some say it was a bad joke attempt by CNN. I can't really buy it...

#5 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 2,800 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 August 2013 - 09:56

Lol, Jalopnik saying this.
They've been wrong about F1 so many times.

#6 Burtros

Burtros
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 13 August 2013 - 10:33

A turbocharger does not run on its own exhaust gases.


I always wonder why the smart arses who make these kind of posts don't bother to post the correct answer while they are at it. Seems like a bit of a waste of time to me?

Anyway, as I am 100% sure V8Fireworks knows and its just a minor oversight in his correction. For anyone who doesnt know, turbos are powered by exhaust gasses from the engine.

Edited by Burtros, 13 August 2013 - 10:34.


#7 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,094 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 August 2013 - 11:46

So what does power a turbo.

#8 Morbus

Morbus
  • Member

  • 445 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 August 2013 - 11:54

So what does power a turbo.

The exhaust gases of the engine, AFAIK. The exhaust gases of the turbo are only released (so to speak) when the pressure goes down. Or something like that. And they are "wasted", they don't power anything.

#9 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:04

I guess he's being pedantic and the turbocharger is powered by the engines exhaust gases, not its own

Nitpicking of the highest order

#10 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,421 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:12

So what does power a turbo.

Yes, if we should be specific the turbo recovers waste energy from the exhaust and puts it back in the engine, increasing the thermal efficiency of the engine, compared to an engine without a turbocharger. My bad. :D

#11 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:22

How many weeks to go? :rolleyes:

#12 Burtros

Burtros
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 13 August 2013 - 12:44

So what does power a turbo.


I told you if you read my post!!

All that is left to say is I love Turbocharged engines. Built the one in my car myself. Every petrol head should own a turbo motor at some point!

#13 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 13 August 2013 - 13:30

Didnt Realise there are that many redditors on here.

#14 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 13 August 2013 - 14:35

Maybe they said: While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient. When they meant: While a supercharger is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbocharger runs on its own exhaust gases, making it more energy efficient :)


Nicely deduced! :up:

#15 HaydenFan

HaydenFan
  • Member

  • 2,095 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 August 2013 - 14:46

Well maybe that is how the Caterham F1 car works?

http://www.caterhamf1.com/partners/cnn

#16 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 13 August 2013 - 19:49

I just cannot believe:
(a) Someone was paid to write such rubbish
(b) Someone else checked it

If I were 40 years younger I'd be going into journalism - it appears that even basic competence is not needed

#17 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,457 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 August 2013 - 20:38

Yes, almost every part of that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

We all know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Are you suggesting that "Joe/Jane Bloggs" could not potentially make an equally foolish statement about Shakespeare / Psychology / Quantum Physics / Ancient Rome / Hip Hop music if such area was not within their expertise!?


Being the Joe Bloggs in question, I know I could make such equally foolish remarks on such subjects, so I make no remarks at all; therein lies the difference...

And BTW, just how many threads are we to have on this subject?

#18 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,724 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 13 August 2013 - 21:06

Has there been a supercharged F1 car?

#19 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,457 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 August 2013 - 21:15

Has there been a supercharged F1 car?


Lots...

Advertisement

#20 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,724 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 13 August 2013 - 21:35

Lots...


How many after 1954?

Edited by Jimisgod, 13 August 2013 - 21:38.


#21 racinggeek

racinggeek
  • Member

  • 216 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 13 August 2013 - 22:15

Nitpicking of the highest order


Writing here as a professional reporter/editor, I couldn't disagree more. The way in which the Jalopnik blogger went off was rather overboard -- we must remember that the CNN report is aimed at the general public -- but that's not nitpicking to point out that CNN made a full-out mistake in its report and no one caught it or knew enough to catch it. I won't bash CNN for that alone, but if it messed up in the report for whatever reason, it has to own it when it is pointed out.

#22 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 13 August 2013 - 22:45

Suddenly I'm noticing a lot of "professional journalists" having grammar problems and spelling issues, not to mention a lack of any kind of coherence. You've got people going into "college" in the states that can't really spell, that haven't read but just a few books. It's the 21st century in action. Try to make sense of the "article" "written" below:

http://www.utnewsfee...owcases-talent/

Edited by Rubens Hakkamacher, 13 August 2013 - 22:46.


#23 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 August 2013 - 23:06

Lol, Jalopnik saying this.
They've been wrong about F1 so many times.


This. Jalopnik should be called 'my mate down the pub reckons...' amateurish F1 knowledge. Embarrassing, actually.

#24 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 14 August 2013 - 00:50

Writing here as a professional reporter/editor, I couldn't disagree more. The way in which the Jalopnik blogger went off was rather overboard -- we must remember that the CNN report is aimed at the general public -- but that's not nitpicking to point out that CNN made a full-out mistake in its report and no one caught it or knew enough to catch it. I won't bash CNN for that alone, but if it messed up in the report for whatever reason, it has to own it when it is pointed out.

Great post. I agree & cannot tolerate the "print it & forget it" approach taken by so many in the field.

#25 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 14 August 2013 - 06:35

Writing here as a professional reporter/editor, I couldn't disagree more. The way in which the Jalopnik blogger went off was rather overboard -- we must remember that the CNN report is aimed at the general public -- but that's not nitpicking to point out that CNN made a full-out mistake in its report and no one caught it or knew enough to catch it. I won't bash CNN for that alone, but if it messed up in the report for whatever reason, it has to own it when it is pointed out.

To clear up, I was referring to Gorma's point about V8 Fireworks's post - about the workings of a turbocharger


Suddenly I'm noticing a lot of "professional journalists" having grammar problems and spelling issues, not to mention a lack of any kind of coherence. You've got people going into "college" in the states that can't really spell, that haven't read but just a few books. It's the 21st century in action. Try to make sense of the "article" "written" below:

http://www.utnewsfee...owcases-talent/

We've got an election on in Australia, and there was a leaders debate last Sunday. The published debate rules given by the National Press Club who held it contained spelling mistakes ...


#26 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,457 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 14 August 2013 - 08:07

How many after 1954?


Lots - A turbocharger is a specific type of supercharger.

#27 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,457 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 14 August 2013 - 08:15

Writing here as a professional reporter/editor, I couldn't disagree more. The way in which the Jalopnik blogger went off was rather overboard -- we must remember that the CNN report is aimed at the general public -- but that's not nitpicking to point out that CNN made a full-out mistake in its report and no one caught it or knew enough to catch it. I won't bash CNN for that alone, but if it messed up in the report for whatever reason, it has to own it when it is pointed out.


So to write rubbish is acceptable if it is only meant for the general public? Bilgiferous drivel. When writing for the general public, and passing on information about which that public has little understanding, it is even more important that it should be correct in every detail, because to do so is to claim to educate, something which these two women signally failed to do - They didn't even bother to educate themselves much less anyone else. If you are saying that you, as a professional journalist, considered it acceptable to give of less than your best because "It is only for the general public", them shame on you.

A mistake is to spell a name incorrectly, get a date slightly wrong, misreport the colour of the Queen's dress. This was far worse than that, it was an article written by two women who had no knowledge of the subject and who could not be bothered to acquire the very little information needed to write an accurate piece. It was, at best lazy journalism, at worse a complete failure of a multi-billion dollar, international news organisation to police its own output. I can have no respect for a broadcaster who not only produces crap but then a) fails to acknowledge it, and b) does not reply to communications sent to them pointing out their cock-up. Would I now trust CNN to accurately report the news? No, I wouldn't.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 14 August 2013 - 08:20.


#28 Burtros

Burtros
  • Member

  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 14 August 2013 - 10:26

Lots - A turbocharger is a specific type of supercharger.


If you are in the 1950's, yes..... LOL! few call them 'turbosuperchargers' anymore.

Superchargers in the modern sense refers to a device which compresses air using a form mechanical drive.

Edited by Burtros, 14 August 2013 - 10:26.


#29 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,457 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 14 August 2013 - 11:30

If you are in the 1950's, yes..... LOL! few call them 'turbosuperchargers' anymore.

Superchargers in the modern sense refers to a device which compresses air using a form mechanical drive.


That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

#30 racinggeek

racinggeek
  • Member

  • 216 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 14 August 2013 - 18:12

So to write rubbish is acceptable if it is only meant for the general public?


No no no -- the point I was making is that extra explanation(s) are often needed in such stories; this is more in reference to the Jalopnik post taking the CNN story to task for, among other things, inserting a statement explaining what a V-8 engine is (and that's my bad journalism for not giving an example of what I was referring to). My post does seem to be in line with your thoughts on the subject, which is that any media outlet is supposed to get things right the first time and own it when it doesn't.

#31 pup

pup
  • Member

  • 443 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 14 August 2013 - 19:14

Suddenly I'm noticing a lot of "professional journalists" having grammar problems and spelling issues, not to mention a lack of any kind of coherence. You've got people going into "college" in the states that can't really spell, that haven't read but just a few books. It's the 21st century in action. Try to make sense of the "article" "written" below:

http://www.utnewsfee...owcases-talent/


That article was obviously run through translation software and back for some reason. The original article that it links to is perfectly coherent.

So, your use of quotes in "written" is actually correct, as opposed to the other three times you did it. Professional journalists, those who went to college, and writers of articles should know how to spell and should have decent grammar skills. "Professional journalists", anyone who went to "college", and writers of "articles" probably wouldn't be held to that standard.

And it's "people who", not "people that". Also, "but" used as an adverb means "only", so it's "have read but a few books", not "haven't read but a few books".

#32 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 August 2013 - 14:50

(Somewhere Godwin awaits summoning....)


So, your use of quotes in "written" is actually correct, as opposed to the other three times you did it.


I don't equate casual writing in an online forum to that of a news outlet, do you?

Professional journalists, those who went to college, and writers of articles should know how to spell and should have decent grammar skills. "Professional journalists", anyone who went to "college", and writers of "articles" probably wouldn't be held to that standard.


The use of quotes to impart irony is apparently not lost on you.


And it's "people who", not "people that". Also, "but" used as an adverb means "only", so it's "have read but a few books", not "haven't read but a few books".


It can be "people that". The use of "but" can be characterized in different ways. But, I'll give you the last one.

Edited by Rubens Hakkamacher, 15 August 2013 - 14:51.