I've been interested in dynamical systems for a while. Strange
attractors are part of fractal theory, but have more to do with Lorenz
than Mandelbrot, and as I recall it wasn't Lorenz that came up with
the idea, but rather a group of mathematicians that can't communicate
with limited folks like me. Edward Lorenz's book, the name of which
escapes me but it's something like Chaos Theory, is a very readable
explanation of attractors and chaos theory that doesn't involve
anything past basic differential equations to understand (which is a
damned good thing).
On Oct 23, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Robert Johns wrote:
> 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
>
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
_______________________________________________
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
|