Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

S.Q.T. (stupid question thread)


  • Please log in to reply
3035 replies to this topic

#1 Rexx Havoc

Rexx Havoc
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 15:35

This is my attempt to start a forum where posters can ask a seemingly self answering question to some but not so apparent to others.

Lets try this and keep it civil

This isn't an exercise to " Shoot fish in a Barrel"

Advertisement

#2 Rexx Havoc

Rexx Havoc
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 15:38

My first question is

Why on Webers quali lap was the TC on ... when his throttle was closed and he was almost to or at the apex

I didn't notice this on any other cars that showed telemetry

#3 Enkei

Enkei
  • Member

  • 5,747 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 26 August 2006 - 15:57

TC on television is based on sound, so it's not at all that precize.

#4 jo-briggs

jo-briggs
  • Member

  • 175 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 17:27

Do I spot another De Weberis conspiracy theory? Clearly Williams have some illegal electronic gizmo.........

#5 Ralf Pickel

Ralf Pickel
  • Member

  • 493 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 26 August 2006 - 18:19

Christian Danner - commentating on german RTL - talked about this , saying the TC is on during braking to keep the rear wheels from standing still.... Would this not be kind of a ( illegal, if I am right ?! :confused: ) anti-lock braking system.
I did see this first in onboard shots during the French GP, but is not visible on all cars with onboard camera.

#6 Hiatt

Hiatt
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 August 2006 - 18:25

Originally posted by Ralf Pickel
Christian Danner - commentating on german RTL - talked about this , saying the TC is on during braking to keep the rear wheels from standing still.... Would this not be kind of a ( illegal, if I am right ?! :confused: ) anti-lock braking system.
I did see this first in onboard shots during the French GP, but is not visible on all cars with onboard camera.

Ferrari have, or have had, an auto 'blip' function to keep the rear wheels from locking. Short, quick 'blips' all the time during braking. It has been discuss in the tech forum. It is clear that the teams uses TC, blips and diff adjustments to emulate anti-lock brakes at the rear.

#7 Rexx Havoc

Rexx Havoc
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 27 August 2006 - 06:06

Originally posted by Hiatt

Ferrari have, or have had, an auto 'blip' function to keep the rear wheels from locking. Short, quick 'blips' all the time during braking. It has been discuss in the tech forum. It is clear that the teams uses TC, blips and diff adjustments to emulate anti-lock brakes at the rear.


I looked closely and the throttle did not move it was 0-5% open and the TC was on and flickering

I understand the principal of the telemetry is audio sourced but I was curious if there was more to it

#8 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 27 August 2006 - 10:57

The telemetry is also not quick. The throttle % graph simply doesn't update quick enough to catch most blips.

#9 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,591 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 29 August 2006 - 19:04

Stupid question #2-

Why do we sometimes see rival technicians/engineers standing next to each other reading from each others folder - what exactly is going on? The caption in such pics has often read something like "mechanics/engineers/technicians going through their tyre-data", but the puzzling thing is that they're often guys from B-stone teams standing next to one from a Michelin-team.
I probably wouldn't have raised my eyebrows if it was for instance guys from Williams and Toyota standing there looking at each others notes, but when they're rivals....

#10 turin

turin
  • Member

  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 29 August 2006 - 20:18

Originally posted by race addicted
Stupid question #2-

Why do we sometimes see rival technicians/engineers standing next to each other reading from each others folder - what exactly is going on? The caption in such pics has often read something like "mechanics/engineers/technicians going through their tyre-data", but the puzzling thing is that they're often guys from B-stone teams standing next to one from a Michelin-team.
I probably wouldn't have raised my eyebrows if it was for instance guys from Williams and Toyota standing there looking at each others notes, but when they're rivals....


Stupid Answer #1
Who said anythng about them being honest and sharing their ACTUAL data?

#11 Jodum5

Jodum5
  • Member

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 29 August 2006 - 21:39

Originally posted by race addicted
Stupid question #2-

Why do we sometimes see rival technicians/engineers standing next to each other reading from each others folder - what exactly is going on? The caption in such pics has often read something like "mechanics/engineers/technicians going through their tyre-data", but the puzzling thing is that they're often guys from B-stone teams standing next to one from a Michelin-team.
I probably wouldn't have raised my eyebrows if it was for instance guys from Williams and Toyota standing there looking at each others notes, but when they're rivals....



Speed Channels commentators answered this question and said it had something to do with understanding everybodies fuel loads during qualifying... that may be the wrong answer, but I do believe it had something to do with qualifying... hopefully someone willl come along with a compelte answer

#12 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 30 August 2006 - 08:37

Stupid Question #3 - Where has this 'knowledge' that TV information (throttle/TC etc.) is sound based come from? I remember asking the question, how is that information gained and nobody knew, but some presumed it was sound based. I hope this presumption has not become the basis for the 'fact'

#13 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 30 August 2006 - 09:53

Originally posted by Jodum5



Speed Channels commentators answered this question and said it had something to do with understanding everybodies fuel loads during qualifying... that may be the wrong answer, but I do believe it had something to do with qualifying... hopefully someone willl come along with a compelte answer



They are tyre observers as this month F1 Racing says. It also says that truck drivers are the ones that usually do that.

"They take notes about which tyres are the other teams using in each session. Then, the 11 observers compare their data to be sure they are right. That's why we see sometimes Ferrari and Renault members comparing notes. 'It would be much easier if we let our tyre set numbers be known' an observer says. An observer can't say which spec are others using, just the sets id. Then the teams analyse lap times to see what is what and how many sets a team has used".

#14 Hiatt

Hiatt
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 30 August 2006 - 10:12

Originally posted by angst
Stupid Question #3 - Where has this 'knowledge' that TV information (throttle/TC etc.) is sound based come from? I remember asking the question, how is that information gained and nobody knew, but some presumed it was sound based. I hope this presumption has not become the basis for the 'fact'

Fair question. I remeber one trackside observer describing the sounds of different cars in a certain corner and particularly the TC sound was very different on different cars. Must be tricky for the sound engineer to make a generic filter that detects it in realtime, on different revs. Of course, they might adjust it for the different cars, but that is time consuming and have to done every weekend.

My guess is that FIA has requested certain data to be made available and the teams simply provide that data via a standard interface. If it is the real data or if it is slightly manipulated we can not know.

#15 TT6

TT6
  • Member

  • 3,563 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 30 August 2006 - 12:24

Originally posted by Hiatt
Must be tricky for the sound engineer to make a generic filter that detects it in realtime, on different revs. Of course, they might adjust it for the different cars, but that is time consuming and have to done every weekend.


It's quite easy to pick the pitch of the sound, with or without a specific metering instrument for doing that.

The tone (timbre) of the sound may be different from different brands of engine revving in same rpm, but the pitch (frequency) is the same. It's the same thing that a note A sounds different with two different instruments (like violin or piano) and with trained ear it even sounds different between two instruments of same type. It's bloody 440 hz if it's an A.

Therefore you can use an automatic tuner for a variety of different instruments althou none sound exactly alike.

Now when we have V8's with specific capacity it shouldn't be problem at all to get the rpm figures from the sound. It's the easiest way I can think of, actually.

#16 Hiatt

Hiatt
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 30 August 2006 - 12:31

Originally posted by TT6


It's quite easy to pick the pitch of the sound, with or without a specific metering instrument for doing that.

The tone (timbre) of the sound may be different from different brands of engine revving in same rpm, but the pitch (frequency) is the same. It's the same thing that a note A sounds different with two different instruments (like violin or piano) and with trained ear it even sounds different between two instruments of same type. It's bloody 440 hz if it's an A.

Therefore you can use an automatic tuner for a variety of different instruments althou none sound exactly alike.

Now when we have V8's with specific capacity it shouldn't be problem at all to get the rpm figures from the sound. It's the easiest way I can think of, actually.

eh... we where talking about detecting TC...

#17 TT6

TT6
  • Member

  • 3,563 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 30 August 2006 - 13:07

Originally posted by Hiatt

eh... we where talking about detecting TC...


uups.. and throttle/TC/etc.

Where has this 'knowledge' that TV information (throttle/TC etc.) is sound based come from?

Really, it seems like there might be some information on tv-graphs that is based on something else than the sound.

#18 TT6

TT6
  • Member

  • 3,563 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 30 August 2006 - 13:11

Stupid Question 4.

Where does the rules concerning driving on the track come from and where to find them? Like changing direction, keeping it on the track, cutting chicanes, swerving, ramming into opponent...

#19 Lontano

Lontano
  • Member

  • 1,978 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 30 August 2006 - 13:34

Originally posted by TT6


uups.. and throttle/TC/etc. Really, it seems like there might be some information on tv-graphs that is based on something else than the sound.


there's no way they can detect the G-Forces from the sound, so there must be something else in there.

Advertisement

#20 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 30 August 2006 - 13:58

Originally posted by TT6
Stupid Question 4.

Where does the rules concerning driving on the track come from and where to find them? Like changing direction, keeping it on the track, cutting chicanes, swerving, ramming into opponent...


http://www.fia.com/s...ions/index.html

More specifically: http://www.fia.com/r...REGULATIONS.pdf

under INCIDENTS

#21 turin

turin
  • Member

  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 31 August 2006 - 02:21

Originally posted by Lontano


there's no way they can detect the G-Forces from the sound, so there must be something else in there.


do they have access to speed data?

Even from sound they can get it, by calculating the doppler shift of a given frequency. I guess the spectrum of the engine is quite narrow banded (it doesn´t sound like white noise, does it?), so picking a frequency and doing that calculation is relatively simple and a very well know procedure.

Then G forces can be calculated fairly straightforward...well, a rough estimate at least.


-p

#22 Rexx Havoc

Rexx Havoc
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 31 August 2006 - 03:51

I would guess they installed a small accelerometer into the telemetry box because you can perceive the side loading on the car going down the straights
you can't calculate that

#23 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,876 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 31 August 2006 - 04:15

SQ # 5

Where does the little man in the TV go after you turn it off?

#24 Modern Lover

Modern Lover
  • Member

  • 727 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 31 August 2006 - 05:15

Originally posted by PassWind
SQ # 5

Where does the little man in the TV go after you turn it off?


Just go back to sleep little girl and tomorrow you have forgotten all about it...

#25 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,876 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 31 August 2006 - 05:31

SQ# 6

Is that what your dad told you?


SA# 6

I guess you don't know the answer to the question either.

#26 TT6

TT6
  • Member

  • 3,563 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 31 August 2006 - 08:07

Originally posted by le chat noir


http://www.fia.com/s...ions/index.html

More specifically: http://www.fia.com/r...REGULATIONS.pdf

under INCIDENTS


Is that all there is to it? There has to be more somewhere, something more specific than "don't force another driver off the track" or "don't hinder legit overtaking illegally".

#27 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 31 August 2006 - 11:36

Originally posted by TT6


Is that all there is to it? There has to be more somewhere, something more specific than "don't force another driver off the track" or "don't hinder legit overtaking illegally".


A lot of F1 rules are incredibly vague, it causes a lot of the problems with supposed "inconsistency"

#28 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 31 August 2006 - 13:23

SQ 7:

At one point during the 2006 Hungarian GP, it looked as if Schumacher could be fighting for victory, despite having been lapped. - I don't want to get into whether he would or wouldn't (had his tyres remained OK), I think Button would have kept in front anyway.

My question is...how many times (if any) has a driver won a race having previously been lapped in the same race?

#29 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,795 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 31 August 2006 - 13:50

I'd be surprised if it's happened in a Gp ever, except perhaps in a real oddball race. I think Clark managed to fight back to 2nd (or maybe 3rd) place after unlapping himself?

Has happened quite a bit on ovals in Champindyirlcart though.

#30 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 31 August 2006 - 14:56

I'm pretty sure after JB's win autosport printed something about someone doing just that. Don't remember who. Anyway, 1967 Monza: Clark leads, then pits and drops to last, one lap down, reemerges and fights his way back to the lead. Then he runs out of petrol to come third. Great video here

#31 Shiftin

Shiftin
  • Member

  • 5,932 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 31 August 2006 - 15:05

Why do many drivers have these huge watches when they drive. And how many seconds will they gain on a race if they put them off..

#32 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 31 August 2006 - 15:13

Originally posted by Shiftin
Why do many drivers have these huge watches when they drive. And how many seconds will they gain on a race if they put them off..


Surely the only difference is minute within the centre of gravity, as they weigh themselves with the watch on, so its not extra weight but higher weight.

#33 dnbn

dnbn
  • Member

  • 2,017 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 31 August 2006 - 16:00

Originally posted by Shiftin
Why do many drivers have these huge watches when they drive. And how many seconds will they gain on a race if they put them off..

I got the impression that they don't drive with them and put them on just after the race. It wouldn't make sense of course, but perhaps there is an obscured rule that allows for that. If this is the case, it would explain why they are so big.

#34 FNG

FNG
  • Member

  • 3,212 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 31 August 2006 - 16:17

Originally posted by Shiftin
Why do many drivers have these huge watches when they drive. And how many seconds will they gain on a race if they put them off..


Almost every driver is sponsored by a watch company. The prevailing sport watches for each company are rather big ( that's the trend right now). After the race they always put them on to promote them on the podium. I good example is right after Montoya won the Monaco Grand Prix he went straight to his crew and they handed him a watch ( I presume an Oris). He put it on and went right to the podium.

No way they race with them on.

#35 Ilaya

Ilaya
  • Member

  • 1,410 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 31 August 2006 - 16:24

Originally posted by dnbn

I got the impression that they don't drive with them and put them on just after the race. It wouldn't make sense of course, but perhaps there is an obscured rule that allows for that. If this is the case, it would explain why they are so big.


Indeed most of them just put those ugly watches on after the race, regarding watches I think Massa has done the best deal by far with Richard Mille .

#36 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,535 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 31 August 2006 - 20:30

Originally posted by le chat noir
I'm pretty sure after JB's win autosport printed something about someone doing just that. Don't remember who. Anyway, 1967 Monza: Clark leads, then pits and drops to last, one lap down, reemerges and fights his way back to the lead. Then he runs out of petrol to come third. Great video here


The specifics of it all fail me, but I seem to recall the mighty Gilles villeneuve having a similar race right down to running out of fuel after a string of fastest laps. Anybody?

#37 4MEN

4MEN
  • Member

  • 1,556 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 31 August 2006 - 21:02

Here's my stupid question?

How many $ million do you think McLaren has spent with damaged, broken or destroyed cars by kimi Raikkonen. Some poster says it's 21 Do not FINNISH for Kimi... To Kimi boys: I'm not saying it's his fault. Maybe it's just bad luck but he's a real destroyer!

#38 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 31 August 2006 - 21:27

Originally posted by Craven Morehead


The specifics of it all fail me, but I seem to recall the mighty Gilles villeneuve having a similar race right down to running out of fuel after a string of fastest laps. Anybody?


Zolder 1979. Got involved in his teammate's altercation with Regazzoni and lost time, came out of the pits and drew himself back up to third - then ran out of fuel. A turning point in Scheckter's position in the team, imo.

#39 TT6

TT6
  • Member

  • 3,563 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 01 September 2006 - 07:51

Originally posted by 4MEN
How many $ million do you think McLaren has spent with damaged, broken or destroyed cars by kimi Raikkonen. ... I'm not saying it's his fault. Maybe it's just bad luck but he's a real destroyer!


It must be huuuge. It's hard to count the exact price of a destroyed car, but one way of argumenting is that the whole budget of a F1 team is spent to drive two cars a round the track in GP weekends. Therefore you just calculate the amount of destroyed cars and compare it to the whole budget and the amount of GP weekends. If there's 18 races per season and the budget is 300 000 000$, the price of a racing car is 300 000 000/(2*18) = around 8, 3 million dollars. Do the rest of the math yourself.

Of course the direct costs are much less, but you probably like this way more.

BTW, to my knowledge of English, the structure "done by someone" means "someone has done". Also using the word destroyer quite frankly implies that you think it is his fault.

It's like me saying "I'm not saying you're stupid, but there's definately something wrong in your brain because you write stupid things". Which I'm not saying, of course...

Advertisement

#40 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:05

It's generally assumed to be about a mil per car I believe.

#41 TT6

TT6
  • Member

  • 3,563 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:15

Originally posted by Dudley
It's generally assumed to be about a mil per car I believe.


And apparently every car is not totalled, so the cost is a bit lower in these cases - "uups there goes my front wing"...

#42 4MEN

4MEN
  • Member

  • 1,556 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 01 September 2006 - 12:05

Originally posted by TT6


BTW, to my knowledge of English, the structure "done by someone" means "someone has done". Also using the word destroyer quite frankly implies that you think it is his fault.


I think I haven't used that "structure" :rolleyes:

I get your point about using the word "destroyer". I just want to note that great percentage of Kimi's DNF are accidents.

#43 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 01 September 2006 - 12:23

Originally posted by TT6


And apparently every car is not totalled, so the cost is a bit lower in these cases - "uups there goes my front wing"...


Well indeed, if you don't damage the actual tub, which I wouldn't have imagined he did in Turkey for instance, you can probably at least halve that.

If it keeps happening it can seriously damage a team though, Chip Ganassi must have spent 90% of his budget on cars in the IRL during 2005.

#44 giddyup409

giddyup409
  • Member

  • 2,500 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 01 September 2006 - 13:16

WARNING: here's another stupid question (or perhaps it's idiotic and this s.q. thread might be too advanced)?
do teams that buy engines from manufacturers get some kind of warranties or discounts if the engine does not last 2 gp? or their engine budget is at mercy of the manufacturer engine reliability?

#45 Hiatt

Hiatt
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 01 September 2006 - 13:41

Originally posted by giddyup409
WARNING: here's another stupid question (or perhaps it's idiotic and this s.q. thread might be too advanced)?
do teams that buy engines from manufacturers get some kind of warranties or discounts if the engine does not last 2 gp? or their engine budget is at mercy of the manufacturer engine reliability?

I can not answer for sure, but a lot of the reliability of an engine is down to things that is indeed in the hands of the team. Cooling, rev use, vibrations, gearbox etc. I think it would be very hard to claim warranty in general. But I suspect that there is a discussion in each occasion when the engine fail and if the cause can be isolated to a manufacturing fault in the engine I would assume that the manufacturer would take a responsibility.

#46 Rexx Havoc

Rexx Havoc
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 01 September 2006 - 13:41

Originally posted by 4MEN
Here's my stupid question?

How many $ million do you think McLaren has spent with damaged, broken or destroyed cars by kimi Raikkonen. Some poster says it's 21 Do not FINNISH for Kimi... To Kimi boys: I'm not saying it's his fault. Maybe it's just bad luck but he's a real destroyer!


If my memory from youth is to be trusted...
Enzo Ferrari said of Gilles Villeneuve
I have never met a man who could destroy so much, so quickly or words to that effect

#47 Martijn

Martijn
  • Member

  • 361 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 01 September 2006 - 13:42

i think its very good question :) no idea!!
i'd feel a bit cheated if id buy (say) Mercedes customer engines and they'd have to be replaced after every practise session sending me 10 places back!! And then send me the bill for 10 more engines then anticipated, because THEY screw up!

(kinda how Ron Dennis feels i guess ;))

#48 Hiatt

Hiatt
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 01 September 2006 - 13:44

Originally posted by 4MEN


I think I haven't used that "structure" :rolleyes:

I get your point about using the word "destroyer". I just want to note that great percentage of Kimi's DNF are accidents.

And what kind of accidents? Rear wing comes off = Kimi was driving to fast on the straight?
Kimi hit in the rear when he tries to avoid cars that have crashed in front of him = Kimi was driving to slow?

#49 Rexx Havoc

Rexx Havoc
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 01 September 2006 - 14:12



How many $ million do you think McLaren has spent with damaged, broken or destroyed cars by kimi Raikkonen. Some poster says it's 21 Do not FINNISH for Kimi... To Kimi boys: I'm not saying it's his fault. Maybe it's just bad luck but he's a real destroyer!


And what kind of accidents? Rear wing comes off = Kimi was driving to fast on the straight?
Kimi hit in the rear when he tries to avoid cars that have crashed in front of him = Kimi was driving to slow?


staying out with a flat spotted tire

How about when he tried saving his equipment after it catches fire by wrestling the extinguisher from the marshall

#50 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 01 September 2006 - 14:16

Stupid or not, a question anyway :)
What is the right pronunciation of Vettel?