TBK-Light.com

The difference is that braking distance is much longer and the reaction times shorter when you're going faster. Therefore a chance to make a mistake in braking increases, which would help the other driver to overtake. Also, the drag coefficient get's higher when speed rises so technically slipstreaming would be more effective. There's a huge difference in physical forces directly affecting on the car when the speed is higher. It might look like that the difference is only like 20 odd km/h, but on Newtons, the difference multiplies. Therefore the difference between a good car and a bad car would be greater.


But you probably already knew that before posting such a intellectual message.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

Jonathan Legard on Monza 2009

"What about with Lewis hamilton then"

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/scarsurfing?feature=mhee

I was listening to cosmo XM radio today and heard a news flash that he and Nicole Scherzinger broke up because he didnt want to settle down and get married.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/scarsurfing?feature=mhee

Didn't he say after the race that it wasn't true that he broke up with her?

That is A pathetic excuse and a poor come-back attempt on a one single mistakenly typed letter.

What makes you think that there would be any difference if you crash at 345km/h or at 365km/h? Felipe Massa almost lost his life in an accident that happened no more than 200km/h speed. The impact forces might have a huge difference if the speed is 370km/h or if it's 340km/h. However, if you crash in that kind of speed the deceleration is the physical phenomenon that kills you, not the speed. Human body can only take that much of deceleration and frankly, it doesn't matter if you are doing 20 km/h less or not in the case of huge accident. Take Ralf Schumacher's accident at Indianapolis 2004 for example. He wasn't doing even 300km/h and didn't have a head-on impact, which is pretty much the only thing to cause enough deceleration. Had he have the worst possible impact angle without any loss of speed before the impact, he surely would have been killed, no matter if he was doing only 300km/h at the time. When the speed is over 300, it doesn't matter if it's closer to 300 or 400, you would have serious accident anyways. There's only one thing why you wouldn't get such an extreme impact. There's nothing to hit head-on at Monza's mainstraight. That makes the possibility of "dying in a horrible accident, which is a good thing" even less probable.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

I think it makes a difference F1 cars look alot slower than in the past and when Nascar has higher top speeds i think it is a problem.
At least next year they wont have rpm limiters and the cars will sound better..

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/scarsurfing?feature=mhee

No, I'm saying that you are an idiot. But as you were focusing on spelling mistakes, you didn't notice that and therefore couldn't understand the laws of physics involved in racing.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

Cars still have engine braking, it's just not active controlled system as it was for few years before standard ECU.

Traction control is not doing anything at high speeds as there is no wheelspin.

Aerodynamical and mechanical grip are higher than what they used to be, say ten years ago when these cars were able to go over 360 km/h thanks to greater engine power.

Today's aerodynamical balance is much better than what it was back then.

Rear wing might be narrower, but it has also higher angle as the teams still want to produce enough downforce to have stable car in cornering.

The lack of higher top speed has nothing to do with better braking balance. The cars just can't go any faster with current more drag creating mandatory design and smaller engines.

And why you try to change the subject suddenly everytime when I try to prove a point here? Your original argument was that there's no difference between 340 and 370. When I told you that there was a difference infact, you tried to say that slower speed means less fatalities. I once again pointed out that this isn't the case necessarily. So you went for saying that the cars are slower because they can't brake as early as they used to be and that they are more unstable than before. Your counter arguments were pointing out spelling mistakes from my arguments, twisting my sayings and saying that my points doesn't make sense, yet failing to tell why. What's your next argument going to be?

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

Go and read my posts again. Try to find the thin red line and read between the lines. I'm tired of your shit. If you don't get my point then it's your problem.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

Sorry but this doesn't make sense at all. And you had some criticism against NVirkkula's spelling, but you better look out after your own.

Cars are only slower in a straight line then they were during the V10 era, they are cornering just as fast as they were back then. They might be approaching the corner at a slower speed but they seem to be holding just as much speed going through it.

This is a bit off-topic, but do you reckon that accident effectively finished Courtney's open-wheel career and F1 hopes? I remember when he first came to V8s, looking at his CV and wondering why he isn't in F1 or Indycars...

Yeah I'd say so. IMO he was good enough for F1, just a shame that happened to him, but i also thought he ran out of money too which caused him to head home to race V8's? Shame, i rate him better than Webber.

I have never seen a fatal or serious accident in F1 caused by excessive straight line speed. All of them occured either in fast corners or during an acceleration phase at pretty much 300kph or less.

However, 20 or 30kph does matter on high speed circuits, for some freak accidents like Greg Moore's in CART for example: 10mph less and he may not have gone airborne and be still alive. It's not a bad thing if speeds stay reasonably limited as long as it doesn't hurt the entertainment.

I remember watchin an 80s CART race a week or 2 ago, and they asked Bobby Unser what the difference was between hitting the wall at 150mph or 180mph, and he said "not much"
Thankfully straight line speed has rarely been a killer in Formula/open-wheel racing.
I think speeds could be allowed to go up more from where they are now, cars are generally so safe now im sure things would be fine. Always gonna get freak accidents a la Massa Surtees, but i dnt see a 20mph increase in todays top speeds suddenly causing major accidents.

As far as I know Courtney was not seriously injured in that crash.

Wiki says it was 2002, and by the sounds of it certainly not life threatening, however I know nothing if the incident, just what I read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Courtney

as the singapore thread is closed I thought we could continue our chat here.

Not a classic race unfortunately.

So yeah, why's the Singapore thread been locked?