, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] FIAT vs Ferrari vs Schumacher
That's the other thing I think is superior about F1. VERY FEW if any of
the tracks are flat! Lots of elevation changes, blind corners and off
camber stuff to deal with. Not some goofy oval that evryone drives
around and around
LarryT wrote:
Hello All,
Ever since I was 13 or 14 I've been crazy for F1 - I read the all the books
and magazines about the sport,
I was a fan via the pages of RoadTrack. Every month, there would
be multipage write-ups of each race, usually written by Innes Ireland
or Rob Walker. In the
Larry,
I agree that they REALLY need to do something to improve F1. Mainly, we
eed more actual RACING!! The way it is now with the strategy being all
about pit stops is crapMany times I've seen the top 10 positions
separated by 1.5-2 seconds in qualifying.ok, so why so little
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:27:17 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=F1+vs+Ferrari+vs+Fiat
Amazing. The Fiat starts first with a 30 second lead over the Ferrari
which starts with nearly a minute lead over the F1, which starts third.
They finish 3 - 2 - 1.
Craig
And that's with 10 year old F1 car.mind you, they were all 10 year
old cars... notice the full slicks and decidedly lowtech/Indy nose cone
on the F1 car??? ...primitive...
The new smaller engine2.4 litre V8's are running faster lap times than
the 3 litre V10's because they have better
I think I posted a link to the same thing that MB did with David
Coulthard and an A Class followed by an E55 AMG...same head start...same
result. This was a W210 E55 so it was fewer years ago.
Jeff Zedic
Toronto
That is serious traction - more G's than I ever pulled (or the plane
would survive) in a Citabria! I can't imagine pulling those kind of
G's on a flat surface!
On 7/22/06, Jeff Zedic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And that's with 10 year old F1 car.mind you, they were all 10 year
old cars...
You want to know about F1 traction? Even without full slicks and with
five year old aero packages, an F1 car can run upside down on the
ceiling if you had a covered track. Once it's up to speed of course.
You have a car and driver that weighs 1100 lbs max and they have 3500+
lbs of downforce.
That's the other thing I think is superior about F1. VERY FEW if any of
the tracks are flat! Lots of elevation changes, blind corners and off
camber stuff to deal with. Not some goofy oval that evryone drives
around and around and the last one to get dizzy wins.
Jeff Zedic
Toronto
Hmmm - sounds like they have the lifting body perfected, just
up-side-down! What would the rate of climb be for a 1100 airplane
with 3500 pounds of lift? FUN!
--
OK Don, KD5NRO
Norman, OK
The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've
exhausted all the alternatives.
Sir Winston
Yes - I was referring to not being banked as in an oval track. I
followed the trans-am series, many years ago. I like road racing, am
bored with roundy-round racing.
On 7/22/06, Jeff Zedic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's the other thing I think is superior about F1. VERY FEW if any of
the
OK Don wrote:
Hmmm - sounds like they have the lifting body perfected, just
up-side-down! What would the rate of climb be for a 1100 airplane
with 3500 pounds of lift? FUN!
That would be called a loop. Normal climbing involves more power
input than is necessary to maintain altitude. Excess
I think it would be more a near vertical climb. Vertical acceleration
of 69.8 ft./sec.
The initial climb rate of an F16 is 1033 ft./sec. A Learjet is around
73 ft./sec.
On 7/22/06, Mitch Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK Don wrote:
Hmmm - sounds like they have the lifting body perfected, just
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=F1+vs+Ferrari+vs+Fiat
14 matches
Mail list logo
