So whole wheat would be cross-ply then...lol

Holy upward failure!!! Total travesty! To recap, PU was the underpowered unit in the back of the Alpine 22-25, rated as 15-30 bhp down and developed with full knowledge of the freeze on development. Is he the reason Viry shuttered its F1 show? Well he's not not the reason that's for sure.

And consider, re that, so much of that has intentionally stirred by the teams to try and game the rules in their favor.

So don't get too attached to that terminology, once some company figures out how to make money off it by putting it on a label none of it will mean anything lol.

Oh... did you see the Giro stage finish into Siena last summer? I was hoarse for days shouting for Wout lol...

Do you know the process by which these rules came to be? Won't bore you with them if you're not interested but it goes a long way to explaining why things wound up this way. TLDR not sure design is the word I would choose lol

Lol I bet F1 wishes they did!

I have seen at least one movie and several documentaries on Group B, an amazing (and horrifying) story all at the same time... IMO this F1 ruleset featured a poker game between Audi and Mercedes and somehow everyone lost. Again, hazards of allowing competitors to make rules for themselves...

Here is the audio for those that prefer to listen open.spotify.com/episode/3biS... oh and yes, it does in fact answer, amongst many others, the age old question: What kind of things would Bernie say to Charlie in the back of a car at an F1 venue?

Missed Apex F1 Behind the Barriers - Mark Hughes Interview YouTube video by Missed Apex F1

Hey F1 peeps, if you want some new F1 content check out my latest Missed Apex: Behind the Barriers interview with Mark Hughes, (no, not that one, the other one).. Mark is the Winston Wolf of F1 circuits, need an entire venue in 8 months? No problems (well maybe a few lol). youtu.be/HwwMvy8Aaf0

yeah inherent self interest is problematic when they also get to make the rules. Really, in a lotta ways, still down to Audi bc original regs had spec MGUH which solves all these probs. Still don't know why they were THAT important as its not the first time F1 has done this sort of thing...

to reduce or eliminate the worst operating characteristics of the PU. Rest of the car is actually pretty fine. Caveat, don't want to lose some of the genuine racing that has also happened.

power is far too wide. BTW you'd have a similar issue with regen, in that drivers will sometimes experience very different levels of braking bc the equations being solved have a very narrow solution set. Answer, which honestly was probs well known as they have been running sims, adjust parameters

monotonic throttle draw on torques. Issue being with DC energy being 50% of the equation (allegedly lol, or optimistically maybe) that the available torques range from 400 kW to over 700. It's not so much AI driving the car, the demand comes from the driver, it's that the range of available

ye one of my observations is that one of the largest issues is that what would normally be called "drivability" is the issue here, in that the driver has an unpredictable platform when applying throttle. The issue stems (IMO) from overly prescriptive deployment rules and from the requirement of

hahaha well in this case, I am not the one denying reality. The underlying tech you cite as ruining the sport has been there since the early 90s. And AFAIK pointing out a factual error isn't trolling. But do go on being both ignorant, and wrong, it is amusing in a toddlerish kinda way

Must be tough to be unable to read and process simple sentences. Your first post was factually wrong, and every reply since has had no relevance to what you were wrong about. I am sorry reality is interfering with your posting but well, that is a you problem...

They banned it bc it became dangerous as other teams tried to replicate it. F1 is an engineering contest, so banning engineering does not, in fact, seem the way to go...

Computers have been running engines since then, both road cars and race cars. Including your V10s and V8s. Nothing about control electronics is new in F1.

They banned ride height adjustments aka active suspension, not the control electronics. They have been onboard ever since.

You mean 1992 surely. FW14B used algorithm to program ride height adjustments and I think some settings could be remotely adjusted from pitwall. Think initial use of that kind of tech might even go back to the mid 80s, when it first reached a size that could be used in a single seater.

Ahh that was the best! Those cars were bonkers!

Haha excellent! What year was that? Think the last race I attended was 21...

lol I spent some time a while ago covering FE so I was genuinely surprised and googled, but a lap with Jr sounds memorable indeed!

Welp there goes my morning googling super critical CO2 engines lol

In attack mode yes, similar, but non attack is 450 kW and that is most of the race. WRX cars back in the day also were faster to 100 than F1 cars in case you'd like other examples of non F1 cars being better than F1 cars at a thing.

And yes, they have been partially successful so its important not to chuck that out as they try to tune these regs (they were never going to fully work which the stakeholders very well knew when they sent them off for approval).

So the challenge from a rules POV is to have a car that is able to be at or near adhesion limit thru turns, while allowing trailing car to be close enough for good racing and being fastest cars around non oval circuits by a decent margin while keeping manufacturers happy lol.

Yes that helps but at any speed the trailing car experiences losses. More important (relative to '22) are the chassis changes including DF reduction. As teams find ways to reclaim DF you'll see a reduction in those types of moves. Increased DF=more wake turbulence = greater losses for trailing car.

If you (not you you, formal you) are planning to make the argument that this is categorically different to DRS, you are not being serious in the slightest. And as you(you you this time) suggest, there was a very good reason for DRS in the first place that predates the 2014 rule set.