Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

too late now, but ive been using Ace Stream, you install a program like vlc and it plays through it, you can go back to earlier footage if you want, i tend to wind back a minute so it has more time to prebuffer the stream. I think it does take a lot of download though so youll need a decent plan

for next time guys

http://www.livefootballol.com/channel/sky-sports-f1-acestream.html

Hm google reckons that app is malware, interesting. think i'll give it a miss just in case :P

Refuelling and free tyre choice.. that is good. Let's bring back more common sense.....

Currently F1 has too many rules, and is so restrictive. Then they try and manufacture a show that is fake and boring. Prime example: DRS just makes passing a done deal. It's boring. Movable aero should get thrown out, or let everyone do it all of the time (ie to defend as well as pass). You can fiddle with the levels all you like but at the end of the day it's a band-aid that gives the guy behind an advantage that is decided by a committee. It's not 2 guys on a track with the same equipment dueling it out.

I recently watched the 2006 Hungarian race and it was epic. The cars with their beautiful V10s howled, the wings were low and wide, tyres gripped. Yeah, they had traction control (not a fan).. and some time around then grooved tyres came in which was a bit silly.. but the show wasn't as farcical as it is now. I don't even bother watching highlights. Who cares. Drivers aren't racing each other flat out, they are just playing a car management game. I feel really genuinely sorry for those who have taken their whole lives and worked their way through the ranks to be fed this horse shit formula.

Not sure if the reports are accurate but it looks like the limits on fuel flow rate and total fuel usage will remain so I don't see the point in fuel stops or plans to make more noise with higher revs??

yeah thats what i read too and it confused me too...

i guess fuel flow in the pits stops will determine if its worth an extra second or two will be gained by being lighter through out the race...

it also adds more risk in the pit stops though...

Also yeah the DRS things a bit stupid, Kers worked a bit better because both had the option to use/save it...

But yeah nothing beats the aero of the mid 2000's, such beautiful cars

Watching P2 and feeling jealous on two counts.

1) I'm not there and driving

2) I'm too old, "so Jolyon, when you won GP2 did you also get invited to the Prince Albert dinner party as per F1 guys?", "Nah, had to fly back to UK and sit my exam on the Monday"

Just opened Autosport site and what a confused joke F1 is. Bernie back in court being sued...team owners drivers or complaining about different things...surveys about what fans want....it all looks farking ridiculous!

[sigh]

It is farking ridiculous. Teams going bust and massive inequality in income distribution and their way to fix it is to go back to refueling. Genius.

The racing has been pretty good. I did the survey....told them what i think. 60% of cash needs to go equally to all teams and remaining 40% based on WCC position.

Loosen engine freeze and introduce front wing freeze where they only get 6 wing types and floors per season. Ridiculous they limit engines...making them more costly to engineer but they can spend hundreds of thousands of hours on a wing they may not do more than a practice session. Also need 3rd cars for P1 and P2 that young / test drivers run and are free for testing limiting wind tunnel time etc. by bringing 60 hours of in season, cheap testing to every season whilst having more cars on the track.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...