fot
[Top] [All Lists]

[Fot] Fw: Fw: Fot Digest, Vol 23, Issue 44

To: "FOT team" <fot@autox.team.net>
Subject: [Fot] Fw: Fw: Fot Digest, Vol 23, Issue 44
From: "Robert Johns" <rjohns@woh.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:48:58 -0400
FYI  -  Response from a retired Aeronautical Engineer friend of mine that I
shared your interesting, the state of F1,  conversation.    Thought you might
appreciate his words on the subject.
Bob Johns

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Foster
To: Robert Johns
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fot Digest, Vol 23, Issue 44


      Aero and hydro dynamics are always interesting subjects which I could
talk at length on because I spent the last 15 years of my career dealing with
them when we were building high speed underwater vehicles.  Also since my
hobby is flying sailplanes, it is a constant topic of conversation along with
"secret" airfoils and "secret" wing finishes to either eliminate or at least
carefully control transitions from laminar to turbulent flow. Most of it is BS
but some is not.  A recent development suggests there may be a new one coming
along.  see http://www.standardcirrus.org/  A technique used in gliders is to
smear used crankcase oil that is good and black along a 2 foot section of a
wing and then go fly the plane and see how the oil streaked off the wing.  The
location ( cordwise)  of any transition to turbulent airflow is very visible
in the remaining oil smears.  Then we know where to place strips of
"deturbulator" tapes.

      I have been through several classes on turbulence including the
Mendelbrot techniques discussed in the Fot.  He is a math genius and his
theories of "Chaos", when applied to turbulence result in very strange
phenomenal (in theory).  As a personal hobby project I tried very hard to
apply some of his theory to stock market analysis (if that isn't chaos, what
is?) and it will take someone smarter than I am to produce something useful.
I could show that his theory applies to the market but I wanted a form of
predictor and failed to get such a result.  It is called "looking for a
"strange" attractor".  The word strange has a definite, specific meaning in
his theory.

      Greg

      --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Robert Johns <rjohns@woh.rr.com> wrote:

        From: Robert Johns <rjohns@woh.rr.com>
        Subject: Fw: Fot Digest, Vol 23, Issue 44
        To: "Greg Foster" <gfoster07k@sbcglobal.net>
        Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 7:33 AM


FUI  Interesting conversation on computer modeling.
----- Original Message -----
From: <fot-request@autox.team.net>
To: <fot@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:38 AM
Subject: Fot Digest, Vol 23, Issue 44


> Send Fot mailing list submissions to
> fot@autox.team.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> fot-request@autox.team.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> fot-owner@autox.team.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fot digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: State of F1 (Joe Curry)
>    2. Re: State of F1 (David W. Riddle)
>    3. Re: State of F1 (David Talbott)
>    4. Re: State of F1 (Bill Babcock)
>    5. Re: State of F1 (Bill Babcock)
>    6. Re: State of F1 (Joe Curry)
>    7. Re: State of F1 (Jim)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:28:40 -0700
> From: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> To: "'Bill Babcock'" <Billb@bnj.com>,
"'Shane Ingate'"
> <hottr6@hotmail.com>
> Cc: 'Friends of Triumph' <fot@autox.team.net>
> Message-ID: <1AD42E003EF04329B09F452362BA763C@newcomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I suspect that Computer modeling of aerodynamics could be much better if
the
> teams had super-computers with proper software.  But that in itself would
be
> at least as expensive as wind tunnels and maybe not as predictable.
>
> Joe C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fot-bounces@autox.team.net [mailto:fot-bounces@autox.team.net] On
> Behalf Of Bill Babcock
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 6:16 PM
> To: Shane Ingate
> Cc: Friends of Triumph
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
>
> They model the bejessus out of F1 cars, but flow is always chaotic at
> the macro level. You can't even really precisely model water flow
> through a pipe except as an ideal pipe. You can be very predictive
> about components and even interactions between components to a degree,
> but its not enough to really know what's going to happen. For that you
> can't beat a tunnel. And the tunnel has to have a lot of special
> characteristics. I know that even half-size models are viewed as a
> gross approximation. Only a full size model will do, and it needs to
> have steerable wheels, dynamic height front and back,  and a rolling
> road before the data is considered truly useful.
>
> They also model (and wind-tunnel test) car to car interaction
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:42:58 -0700
> From: "David W. Riddle" <dave@microworks.net>
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> To: fot@autox.team.net
> Message-ID:
> <20081023014104.TGZY6482.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> At 06:28 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote:
> >I suspect that Computer modeling of aerodynamics could be much better
if
the
> >teams had super-computers with proper software.  But that in itself
would
be
> >at least as expensive as wind tunnels and maybe not as predictable.
>
> Ummm...  They do use Supercomputers for CFD.
>
>
http://insidehpc.com/2007/07/31/sgi-the-official-supplier-of-hpc-to-mclaren-f
> 1/
>
> SGI: the official supplier of HPC to McLaren F1 07.31.2007
>
> Since were apparently all about covering the
> super exclusive HPC-in-racing niche news market, heres something cool.
>
> McLaren builds supercars, and uses supercomputing
> to get the aerodynamics right. But dial the
> Wayback machine to 2005 when McLaren
>
> appointed SGI as its official supplier for CFD
> supercomputing, storage and visualization
> equipment. McLarens initial purchase included an
> SGI Altix supercomputer, visualization solutions,
> SGI InfiniteStorage system and the SGI
> InfiniteStorage CXFS shared filesystem. The
> company has subsequently added to this investment
> in July 2007, with the addition of (and ongoing
> enhancements to) two further SGI Altix
> supercomputers, and the recent introduction of
> the SGI InfiniteStorage Data Migration Facility (DMF).
>
> No details on the computers purchased other than
> a fourfold increase in productivity. Details from SGI.
>
> Here is the Press Release from talking about it
>
>
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2007/july/formula.htm
> l
>
> And a page at MCLaren too
>
> http://www.mclaren.com/partners/interims/sgi-combination/index.html
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:31:26 -0700
> From: "David Talbott" <dtalbott@archrepro.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> To: "Kas Kastner" <kaskas@cox.net>, "Shane
Ingate"
> <hottr6@hotmail.com>, "Friends of Triumph"
<fot@autox.team.net>
> Message-ID: <000201c934b7$73b34dc0$6601a8c0@LatitudeD530>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> This reminds me of a discussion with Benoit Mandelbrot on the NewsHour
last
> night (in regard to rippling turbulence within the economy) during which
he
> said:
>
> "The word "turbulence" is one which actually is common to
physics and to
> social scientists, to economics. Everything which involves turbulence is
> enormously more complicated, not just a little bit more complicated, not
> just one year more schooling, just enormously more complicated."
>
> Mandelbrot, in addition to his mathematical fame (the "Father of
Fractals"),
> originally studied aeronautical engineering and later worked in fluid
> dynamics, so if this cat still has trouble calculating turbulence,
it's no
> wonder we haven't yet figured out how to model it on computers and we
still
> need to mock it up to measure it.
>
> DT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kas Kastner" <kaskas@cox.net>
> To: "Shane Ingate" <hottr6@hotmail.com>; "Friends of
Triumph"
> <fot@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
>
>
> > We had all the computer people we needed plus our own hardware and
> > software
> > engineers at NPTI, and the modeling worked just fine for fit and
design
> > and
> > tooling but air is really different as we found in our wind tunnel.
> >
> > At that same time Williams F-1 sent all their stuff to a tunnel just
> > twenty
> > miles from us for proof that the modeling was correct. The tunnel
also
> > must
> > have a moving ground plane or it's no go. BMW has two full size
tunnels
> > and
> > for a good reason.
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: Shane Ingate
> >  To: Kas Kastner ; Friends of Triumph
> >  Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:16 PM
> >  Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> >
> >
> > Kas wrote:> Wind tunnels have an amazing cost.  Some teams have
two full
> > size
> > running 24 > hours a day. That's interesting.  I would have
thought that
> > today
> > all aerodynamic and structure-loading modeling was done on a
computer.
As
> > Kas
> > suggests, wind tunnels are expensive, but computer modeling is
dirt-cheap
> > where an engineer can change model parameters and make the
calculations
> > within
> > minutes that would otherwise necessitate a complete day in a wind
> > tunnel.Many
> > models these days (I speak for hydrodynamic and
sub-atomicinteractions
in
> > the
> > far-field) use non-linear models.  I would not be surprised if
non-linear
> > models were used in the simple case of aerodynamics.Shane Ingate in
NM
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> > -
> >  You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC.
See
how
> > _______________________________________________
> > Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> >
> > http://www.fot-racing.com
> >
> > Fot mailing list
> > Fot@autox.team.net
> > http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:54:51 -0700
> From: Bill Babcock <Billb@bnj.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> To: "David W. Riddle" <dave@microworks.net>
> Cc: fot@autox.team.net
> Message-ID: <4A0D1EF6-AF9B-4E43-9D4F-373D6E8A9B47@bnj.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Yesterday's supercomputer is todays PDI (built into your cell phone as
> a giveaway). I remember when a megabyte was a megabyte. the first
> serious database machine I bought was a Sperry IT with a 80286 and a
> 40 MB drive. Five K bux. This afternoon I tore apart one of my 1.5
> terabyte drives because it had croaked. I wound up keeping one of the
> two 750GB drives out of the array and sticking it in a $39 enclosure,
> then I threw away the rest of the junk and bought a 2 TB drive at
> Fry's for $369. Two years ago a terabyte cost about a thousand bucks,
> four years ago it would have been about $5K, seven years ago I did a
> campaign for Tektronix about their new 1TB Profile--a raid array for
> storing video. The tab was about $50K.
>
> Current state of the  art for even just your laptop is a dual quad
> Intel chip. Most of the software available can't really use it's
> capabilities. Super computers are either extremely fast in a serial
> sense (limited) or massively parallel. If they are massively parallel
> than everything that runs on them needs to be optimized up the wazoo,
> and it's terrifically difficult to get stuff to work well. The
> simplest approach is to guess at a whole bunch of answers and start
> processing each guess while the correct answer is computed, then toss
> away any processes based on the wrong guess. Massively wasteful but
> hey, it's just processor cycles.
>
> It really all comes down to software and the fundamental limitations
> of computing. Supercomputers just ain't that super.
>
> On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:42 PM, David W. Riddle wrote:
>
> > At 06:28 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote:
> >> I suspect that Computer modeling of aerodynamics could be much
> >> better if the
> >> teams had super-computers with proper software.  But that in
itself
> >> would be
> >> at least as expensive as wind tunnels and maybe not as
predictable.
> >
> > Ummm...  They do use Supercomputers for CFD.
> >
> >
>
http://insidehpc.com/2007/07/31/sgi-the-official-supplier-of-hpc-to-mclaren-f
> > 1/
> >
> > SGI: the official supplier of HPC to McLaren F1 07.31.2007
> >
> > Since were apparently all about covering the
> > super exclusive HPC-in-racing niche news market, heres something
> > cool.
> >
> > McLaren builds supercars, and uses supercomputing
> > to get the aerodynamics right. But dial the
> > Wayback machine to 2005 when McLaren
> >
> > appointed SGI as its official supplier for CFD
> > supercomputing, storage and visualization
> > equipment. McLarens initial purchase included an
> > SGI Altix supercomputer, visualization solutions,
> > SGI InfiniteStorage system and the SGI
> > InfiniteStorage CXFS shared filesystem. The
> > company has subsequently added to this investment
> > in July 2007, with the addition of (and ongoing
> > enhancements to) two further SGI Altix
> > supercomputers, and the recent introduction of
> > the SGI InfiniteStorage Data Migration Facility (DMF).
> >
> > No details on the computers purchased other than
> > a fourfold increase in productivity. Details from SGI.
> >
> > Here is the Press Release from talking about it
> >
> >
>
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2007/july/formula.htm
> > l
> >
> > And a page at MCLaren too
> >
> > http://www.mclaren.com/partners/interims/sgi-combination/index.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> >
> > http://www.fot-racing.com
> >
> > Fot mailing list
> > Fot@autox.team.net
> > http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
> >
>
> Bill Babcock
> Babcock & Jenkins
> Billb@bnj.com
> 503.936.7660
> www.bnj.com
>
> Editor
> Ke Nalu e-Magazine
> Paddlesurfing's Web Journal
>
> Bill@kenalu.com
> www.kenalu.com
> blog: www.ponohouse.com/ponoblog
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:07:52 -0700
> From: Bill Babcock <Billb@bnj.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> To: "David Talbott" <dtalbott@archrepro.com>
> Cc: Shane Ingate <hottr6@hotmail.com>, Friends of Triumph
> <fot@autox.team.net>
> Message-ID: <DB1D9E9B-8735-4ACE-A978-B115837C4659@bnj.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Yes indeed. I'm serious about not being able to accurately
> mathematically model flow in a pipe. Just a plain old straight pipe.
> Once the flow departs from pure laminar into turbulence it becomes
> impossible to calculate. In real life experiments some components of
> turbulent flow are moving backwards. If you think about it for just a
> second that becomes obvious.
>
> Lots of stuff can't be reliably modeled. Departure from nucleate
> boiling to film boiling in a nuclear plant for instance. Endless work
> on the supercomputers of the day--lots of Crays. In the end the
> problem was deemed "intractable" which is expensive engineering
lingo
> for "beats the sh*t out of me". The final determination was
"stay ten
> percent under the critical heat flux for departure from nucleate
> boiling".  Hell, I could have told them that.
>
> On Oct 22, 2008, at 7:31 PM, David Talbott wrote:
>
> > This reminds me of a discussion with Benoit Mandelbrot on the
> > NewsHour last
> > night (in regard to rippling turbulence within the economy) during
> > which he
> > said:
> >
> > "The word "turbulence" is one which actually is common
to physics
> > and to
> > social scientists, to economics. Everything which involves
> > turbulence is
> > enormously more complicated, not just a little bit more complicated,
> > not
> > just one year more schooling, just enormously more complicated."
> >
> > Mandelbrot, in addition to his mathematical fame (the "Father of
> > Fractals"),
> > originally studied aeronautical engineering and later worked in fluid
> > dynamics, so if this cat still has trouble calculating turbulence,
> > it's no
> > wonder we haven't yet figured out how to model it on computers
and
> > we still
> > need to mock it up to measure it.
> >
> > DT
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kas Kastner"
<kaskas@cox.net>
> > To: "Shane Ingate" <hottr6@hotmail.com>;
"Friends of Triumph"
> > <fot@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> >
> >
> >> We had all the computer people we needed plus our own hardware
and
> >> software
> >> engineers at NPTI, and the modeling worked just fine for fit and
> >> design
> >> and
> >> tooling but air is really different as we found in our wind
tunnel.
> >>
> >> At that same time Williams F-1 sent all their stuff to a tunnel
just
> >> twenty
> >> miles from us for proof that the modeling was correct. The tunnel
> >> also
> >> must
> >> have a moving ground plane or it's no go. BMW has two full
size
> >> tunnels
> >> and
> >> for a good reason.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Shane Ingate
> >> To: Kas Kastner ; Friends of Triumph
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:16 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> >>
> >>
> >> Kas wrote:> Wind tunnels have an amazing cost.  Some teams
have two
> >> full
> >> size
> >> running 24 > hours a day. That's interesting.  I would
have thought
> >> that
> >> today
> >> all aerodynamic and structure-loading modeling was done on a
> >> computer. As
> >> Kas
> >> suggests, wind tunnels are expensive, but computer modeling is
dirt-
> >> cheap
> >> where an engineer can change model parameters and make the
> >> calculations
> >> within
> >> minutes that would otherwise necessitate a complete day in a wind
> >> tunnel.Many
> >> models these days (I speak for hydrodynamic and sub-
> >> atomicinteractions in
> >> the
> >> far-field) use non-linear models.  I would not be surprised if
non-
> >> linear
> >> models were used in the simple case of aerodynamics.Shane Ingate
in
> >> NM
> >>
>
>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> >> -
> >> You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC.
> >> See how
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> >>
> >> http://www.fot-racing.com
> >>
> >> Fot mailing list
> >> Fot@autox.team.net
> >> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
> > _______________________________________________
> > Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> >
> > http://www.fot-racing.com
> >
> > Fot mailing list
> > Fot@autox.team.net
> > http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
> >
>
> Bill Babcock
> Babcock & Jenkins
> Billb@bnj.com
> 503.936.7660
> www.bnj.com
>
> Editor
> Ke Nalu e-Magazine
> Paddlesurfing's Web Journal
>
> Bill@kenalu.com
> www.kenalu.com
> blog: www.ponohouse.com/ponoblog
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:10:47 -0700
> From: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> To: "'Bill Babcock'" <Billb@bnj.com>,
"'David W. Riddle'"
> <dave@microworks.net>
> Cc: fot@autox.team.net
> Message-ID: <FB97D1F8164F4444BE6FF1C71A9BBB20@newcomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Just as Personal Computers grow an order of magnitude every 2 years, so do
> super computers.  Yes, the PCs of today eclipse super computers of the
90's,
> the first moon lander had less computing power than most high school
> calculators do today.
>
> But you are right, it is all in the software.  The more power you have to
> work with from the hardware, better the software can be and the faster and
> more precise are your results.
>
> Joe C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fot-bounces@autox.team.net [mailto:fot-bounces@autox.team.net] On
> Behalf Of Bill Babcock
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:55 PM
> To: David W. Riddle
> Cc: fot@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
>
> Yesterday's supercomputer is todays PDI (built into your cell phone as
> a giveaway). I remember when a megabyte was a megabyte. the first
> serious database machine I bought was a Sperry IT with a 80286 and a
> 40 MB drive. Five K bux. This afternoon I tore apart one of my 1.5
> terabyte drives because it had croaked. I wound up keeping one of the
> two 750GB drives out of the array and sticking it in a $39 enclosure,
> then I threw away the rest of the junk and bought a 2 TB drive at
> Fry's for $369. Two years ago a terabyte cost about a thousand bucks,
> four years ago it would have been about $5K, seven years ago I did a
> campaign for Tektronix about their new 1TB Profile--a raid array for
> storing video. The tab was about $50K.
>
> Current state of the  art for even just your laptop is a dual quad
> Intel chip. Most of the software available can't really use it's
> capabilities. Super computers are either extremely fast in a serial
> sense (limited) or massively parallel. If they are massively parallel
> than everything that runs on them needs to be optimized up the wazoo,
> and it's terrifically difficult to get stuff to work well. The
> simplest approach is to guess at a whole bunch of answers and start
> processing each guess while the correct answer is computed, then toss
> away any processes based on the wrong guess. Massively wasteful but
> hey, it's just processor cycles.
>
> It really all comes down to software and the fundamental limitations
> of computing. Supercomputers just ain't that super.
>
> On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:42 PM, David W. Riddle wrote:
>
> > At 06:28 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote:
> >> I suspect that Computer modeling of aerodynamics could be much
> >> better if the
> >> teams had super-computers with proper software.  But that in
itself
> >> would be
> >> at least as expensive as wind tunnels and maybe not as
predictable.
> >
> > Ummm...  They do use Supercomputers for CFD.
> >
> >
>
http://insidehpc.com/2007/07/31/sgi-the-official-supplier-of-hpc-to-mclaren-
> f
> > 1/
> >
> > SGI: the official supplier of HPC to McLaren F1 07.31.2007
> >
> > Since were apparently all about covering the
> > super exclusive HPC-in-racing niche news market, heres something
> > cool.
> >
> > McLaren builds supercars, and uses supercomputing
> > to get the aerodynamics right. But dial the
> > Wayback machine to 2005 when McLaren
> >
> > appointed SGI as its official supplier for CFD
> > supercomputing, storage and visualization
> > equipment. McLarens initial purchase included an
> > SGI Altix supercomputer, visualization solutions,
> > SGI InfiniteStorage system and the SGI
> > InfiniteStorage CXFS shared filesystem. The
> > company has subsequently added to this investment
> > in July 2007, with the addition of (and ongoing
> > enhancements to) two further SGI Altix
> > supercomputers, and the recent introduction of
> > the SGI InfiniteStorage Data Migration Facility (DMF).
> >
> > No details on the computers purchased other than
> > a fourfold increase in productivity. Details from SGI.
> >
> > Here is the Press Release from talking about it
> >
> >
>
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2007/july/formula.ht
> m
> > l
> >
> > And a page at MCLaren too
> >
> > http://www.mclaren.com/partners/interims/sgi-combination/index.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
> >
> > http://www.fot-racing.com
> >
> > Fot mailing list
> > Fot@autox.team.net
> > http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
> >
>
> Bill Babcock
> Babcock & Jenkins
> Billb@bnj.com
> 503.936.7660
> www.bnj.com
>
> Editor
> Ke Nalu e-Magazine
> Paddlesurfing's Web Journal
>
> Bill@kenalu.com
> www.kenalu.com
> blog: www.ponohouse.com/ponoblog
> Fot mailing list
> Fot@autox.team.net
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:37:38 -0500
> From: "Jim" <britbits@netzero.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
> To: "'Friends of Triumph'" <fot@autox.team.net>
> Message-ID: <0384EEA5EF764FE6BD7BB69FF2182516@britbits>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Ed,
>
> What you describe sounds like several of the recent racing efforts.
Despite
> the rules.. most teams find ways to work around them.
>
> Causing the other teams to toss more $$ (or their native currency) at the
> problem... Or to concede defeat and bow out.
>
> Can Am went that route and it looked good.. until Porsche dropped the 917K
> on the competition.
>
> IMSA GTP tried a similar formula... and in it's last years we had
first a
> Nissan domintation (which I cheered for at Daytona in 1991 ;) then a
Toyota
> domination.
>
> There are some drivers that do well only in a tightly controlled setting..
> And others who shine no matter what the machine.
>
> I still miss seeing Al Holbert drive.  Despite all the handicaps put on
the
> 962s, the Lowenbrau team was always a contender in the early days of IMSA.
> Right before the plane crashed in '88 he was talking about a
transmission
> setup to let him shift under load to keep the boost up on the 962s.
Don't
> know if it was just talk or something real in the pipeline.
>
> My brothers were fans of his team, and knew Chip Robinson from the next
town
> over from where we grew up.  I guess Kas probably remembers Chip.. be
> interesting to hear his views, offline.
>
> Still, Mr Holbert basically put the nail in the coffin on the Group 44 Jag
> effort.  Still the prettiest GTP cars ('83/'84 vintage) I've
ever seen.
>
> But back to Ed's concept.  Nascar is basically IROC for rednecks.
IRL...
> Same idea for educated rednecks.
>
> F1?  Snooty european rednecks?  Is there such an animal?  ;)
>
> Anyway, this makes a great diversion from changing diapers.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
> Dallas... sometimes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fot-bounces@autox.team.net [mailto:fot-bounces@autox.team.net] On
> Behalf Of EDWARD BARNARD
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:38 PM
> To: Bill Babcock; Joe Curry; KasKastner
> Cc: 'Friends of Triumph'
> Subject: Re: [Fot] State of F1
>
>
> Group: Perhaps I'm a stranger bird than I thought, but, I haven't
heard
> anyone showing a desire to see a totally unlimited or minimally regulated
> class of racing like the old Formula Libre. A real "run what you
brung"
type
> racing. Perhaps rule out telemetry and/or electronic driving aids so the
> driving talent can be seen and appreciated. True, money will always be a
> factor, but a great driver in an old design may still beat a bad driver in
> the most modern set-up. A great example of this would be the Formula Libre
> race at Lime Rock where Roger Ward beat everything the factories,
including
> Ferrari, Maserati, and Jaguar had to offer with an Offy powered midget.
> Truly a function of the car/driver combination. I have been trying to
> discern whether he ran it with a multi-speed tranny or a simple in/out box
> which would really have showed his skills. This is the complete opposite
of
> the  (now defunct) IROC idea which has everyone running similarly prepped
> cars, chosen in a draw, to find the best driver. Anyone's thoughts on
this?
> Kas, since you were running at that time, what were the opinions of the
> Formula back then. Am I just wishing for the good old days?
> -Ed-
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click here to find the perfect picture with our powerful photo search
> features.
>
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4s80Zzw2ixP2yFWMgJrQMlzi
> NDE2JHj02d2efvkEjoAeXPWy/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fot mailing list
> Fot@autox.team.net
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
>
>
> End of Fot Digest, Vol 23, Issue 44
> ***********************************
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html

http://www.fot-racing.com

Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>