Ferrari Mailing List: Re: F1 SPOILER

[Rick Lindsay (rolindsay]

Guys, 
     Lets remember one important thing: noise.  All data contains noise.  All 
systems contain noise.  Noise is the randomizing effect.  It is the stuff of 
luck, both good and bad.  Renault, without an engine failure until now, got a 
little noise in the system.  Was it caused by over-reving to make up position?  
Hell, we don't even know IF the engineers bumped the rev limiter up a little.  
All we know is that the engine failed - for some reason we don't know and in 
some way we don't know.
     We also can't really make valid assessments from one data point, other 
than the blatently obvious.  There is no 'trend' in one data point.  There is 
only an 'observation'.  I think that is Deep's point: the observation is that 
the engine failed and no points were gained.  'Why' is still, and will probably 
remain, an unknown.
     My original post was meant to say, "It would have been a more enjoyable 
race if Alonzo and Shumaker were battling it out at the front, being harassed 
by a particularly menacing 'noise' called Kimi."  As to the debate, I think you 
both make good points.  The only thing left out is the noise, the randomizing 
effect - and it may be the answer to the debate.
   
  Regards,
   
  Rick
  PS: I sure wish it would cool off so I can go driving in comfort!

LS <lashdeep [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
  > My summary-Regardless of the penalty and Alonso's position, Renault
> failed. Their effort wasn't good enough.

Phew!!! I need to go back into lurker mode...


--- Dennis Liu wrote:

> Lashdeep, you've devolved this away from the original discussion point.
> 
> Clearly, teams aren't building engines that will last if started fifth,
> but
> won't last if started 10th. That's just silly too.
> 
> 
> You originally said that the whole issue (of what would have happened if
> Alonso wasn't penalized 5 starting positions) has been rendered MOOT by
> virtue of the fact that the Renault motor blew up.
> 
> My response was, you cannot extrapolate that, because you don't know if
> the
> motor would have blown up if Alonso wasn't required to push that much
> harder
> to make up those positions.
> 
> We'll never know whether the engine would have blown up if Alonso
> started
> fifth and just cruised around behind Schumacher. Tolerances are so dear
> in
> F1 that the engine may very well have NOT expired.
> 
> So a claim that the penalty is irrelevant is incorrect, because you
> can't
> predict what would have happened if it wasn't imposed. That's all I'm
> saying.
> 
> (ok, enough, I know. Back to work. I'm outta here!)
> 
> 
> Vty,
> 
> --Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LS [mailto:lashdeep [at] yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:54 AM
> To: BigHeadDennis [at] earthlink.net
> Cc: The FerrariList
> Subject: Re: [Ferrari] F1 SPOILER
> 
> Renault's job as a competitor is to build a tool that can withstand any
> and
> every challenge that Alonso is presented with during a particular race. 
> 
> Not taking into account all possibilites (starting 10th instead of 5th)
> is
> not understanding your requirements.
> 
> "their
> > best guess and compromise"
> 
> Their best didn't cut it. Good luck to them next time...hopefully they
> will
> have it figured out.
> 
> LS
> 
> 
> --- Dennis Liu wrote:
> 
> > Lashdeep wrote:
> > 
> > >The Renault engine should be able to endure any level of effort and
> > abuse,
> > despite any setback or penalty. It wasn't.
> > 
> > -------------
> > 
> > Now that's just plain silly. :-)
> > 
> > Racing equipment has a finite life, especially in F1. Teams build 
> > everything to extremely close tolerances, essentially following Colin 
> > Chapman's dictum that the perfect racing car is the one that falls 
> > apart after it crosses the finish line - if it lasts any longer, then 
> > it was built too well/strong/heavy. Weight is the enemy, so engineers
> 
> > build things to last just long enough (and be safe enough too, of 
> > course).
> > 
> > Want more power but displacement is limited, fuel type is limited, 
> > aspiration is atmospheric? Add more revs. But that cuts into 
> > reliability.
> > So you build the engine just long enough to last for qualifying, and 
> > you swap it out for another one that lasts just long enough for the
> race.
> > Wait,
> > there is a 2-race rule? Ok, you build the engine just long enough to 
> > last for TWO races, including qualifying. But if you have to abuse 
> > it, run it to the ragged edge, it may not last as long as you want.
> > 
> > Renault built its engine to a certain spec limit. That spec limit was
> 
> > their best guess and compromise - it has to last 2 races, but must 
> > also produce as much horsepower as possible. If it ABSOLUTELY must 
> > last two races, then you opt for lower rev limits and lose power. If 
> > you grant your driver more power for a goodly portion of a race, then 
> > you cut into whatever safety margin you had built in, and run a much 
> > higher risk of blowing the thing up.
> > 
> > Every team has the ability to build a completely bulletproof motor 
> > that will last two races. Heck, last an entire season. But it would 
> > be dead last.
> > 
> > How fast do you want to go? Well, how long do you want to dance on 
> > the edge of the knife?
> > 
> > Renault and Alonso had to dance on the edge longer because they had to
> 
> > start from 10th and push like hell to catch up to Schumacher. That 
> > ate into their safety margin. If they had started 5th, they would not
> 
> > have had to push as hard.
> > 
> > Vty,
> > 
> > --Dennis
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LS [mailto:lashdeep [at] yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:08 AM
> > To: BigHeadDennis [at] earthlink.net
> > Cc: The FerrariList
> > Subject: Re: [Ferrari] F1 SPOILER
> > 
> > Too much theorizing here guys...his motor blew. It wasn't up to 
> > Alonso's effort and Renault needs to work on that if a championship is
> 
> > important.
> > 
> > Strategy (rev limits, cruise mode, qual mode) is pointless if your 
> > equipment isn't designed to entertain all of the possible strategic 
> > options when necessary.
> > 
> > The Renault engine should be able to endure any level of effort and 
> > abuse, despite any setback or penalty. It wasn't.
> > 
> > I remember the same discussion with the tires at Indy a few years ago.
> > Michelin failed and all of the teams paid the price. Here Alonso is 
> > paying the price for an equipment failure. They need to step their 
> > game up because in racing, there are situations that present 
> > themselves that cannot be planned for or strategized around.
> > 
> > LS
> > 
> > 
> > --- Dennis Liu wrote:
> > 
> > > Yeah, that's my point exactly, Lashdeep - it's too difficult to say,
> 
> > > which is why one shouldn't use the excuse, "it doesn't matter 'cause
> 
> > > his engine blew up anyway!".
> > > 
> > > Typically with race motors, if you cut rev usage by a few hundred 
> > > revs, you can DOUBLE the life of the motor. A few laps at the 
> > > absolute limit of the motor can cause it to expire in a very short 
> > > time, while those same laps at 99% can cause the motor to last 
> > > another
> > 
> > > race entirely. If Alonso had been higher up on the race grid, and 
> > > managed to get himself behind Schumacher, he would not need to pass 
> > > him. Remember, even if he finishes immediately behind Schumacher 
> > > for every race between Monza and Brazil, he still wins the
> championship!
> > > Heck, even if he finished third or fourth behind Michael in 1st or 
> > > 2nd, it's not the end of the world -- much better than blowing up 
> > > your
> > 
> > > engine trying to make it into the points! Alonso had a great start 
> > > yesterday, and he's always really good on starts. So he could have 
> > > just hit "cruise mode", and saved the engine - indeed, he wouldn't 
> > > even have to be right on Schumacher's bumper, he would only have to 
> > > keep challengers from passing him.
> > > 
> > > Vty,
> > > 
> > > --Dennis
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: LS [mailto:lashdeep [at] yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:16 AM
> > > To: BigHeadDennis [at] earthlink.net
> > > Cc: 'The FerrariList'
> > > Subject: RE: [Ferrari] F1 SPOILER
> > > 
> > > "Which would mean he
> > > wouldn't have been as hard on the engine, so it may not have blown 
> > > up
> > > - remember, drivers can and often do turn down the wick and go into 
> > > "cruise"
> > > mode.
> > > "
> > > 
> > > Understood, maybe it would lasted another 3 laps? It's difficult to 
> 
=== message truncated ===


www.exhaust.tv

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/rolindsay%40yahoo.com

Sponsored by BidNip.com eBay Auction Sniper