No F1 return to Indianapolis before 2022 – Penske

13 comments on “No F1 return to Indianapolis before 2022 – Penske”

1. 

   Corey (@dragon86)
   17th March 2020, 0:39

   NASCAR announced today that they have postponed the all races at Texas, Bristol, Richmond, Talladega and Dover. The next scheduled race is on May 3rd at Martinsville Speedway. The decision was made upon the advice of the CDC to limit large gatherings for the next 8 weeks. They still plan to get all 36 race in this season.
2. 

   Jamie B
   17th March 2020, 1:08

   I would love for F1 to return to Indianapolis
   1. 

      pastaman (@)
      17th March 2020, 1:27

      I really wish they wouldn’t. I attended all the F1 races at Indy while they were there, and while it was super convenient for me at the time (2hrs drive), the infield track really is abysmal in terms of racing. If they are going to race anywhere in addition to COTA, I would much prefer a purpose-built track.
      1. 

         mfreire
         17th March 2020, 5:04

         The infield layout really did suck in terms of driver challenge and racing. If F1 is going to race there, they have to use a different layout- maybe one that utilizes 99% of the oval (like at Daytona)?
      2. 

         Jere (@jerejj)
         17th March 2020, 12:51

         @Jamie B @pastaman @mfreire
         I also wouldn’t mind if F1 returned to Indianapolis at some point. BTW, The infield-section indeed forms a purpose-built or permanent track.
         1. 

            Jamie B
            17th March 2020, 18:21

            It’s also worth mentioning the infield section has changed slightly since F1 raced there. Small changes, like getting rid of that double 180° chicane, could make a difference
3. 

   Paul Duggan
   17th March 2020, 8:15

   Brilliant COTD. Thanks for sharing.
4. 

   Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
   17th March 2020, 9:16

   Looks more like Ferrari were monitoring the fuel flow sensor and causing [electromagnetic interference] to detail offset the sensor, so that they could flow more.

   There is a rule that when you present your car to the Stewards you believe it complies with the rules. I can’t see how Ferrari can honestly claim their car complies with the rules when, at the end of a race, they have deliberately corrupted 2 hours of data? Telecommunications engineers use tricks like twisting pairs of wires or even using shielded twisted pairs reduce the susceptibility of extraneous electromagnetic radiation from affecting the signals in the wires, so while it shouldn’t be easy it isn’t impossible that Ferrari were doing such a think. However it should have been obvious to the Stewards.
   Really, when you consider Renault were disqualified for arguably breaching the rules for a few microseconds, and Alpha Romeo were lambasted and penalised as cheats because the Stewards thought they hadn’t “dropped the clutch” fast enough (noting that none of those who didn’t cheat also didn’t spin their rear wheels on the wet track… also noting that I suspect you could also press the brake pedal (so as to activate the MGU-K) and that does the same thing as a traction control), then it is obvious the Stewards use a low level of “proof” when it comes to claiming a team cheated. So how come they didn’t notice 2 hours of corrupted data? I can only assume the Stewards were looking at uncorrupted data, otherwise they would have Disqualified Ferrari from the race results.
   I suspect Ferrari were somehow using an “aliasing trick” to make a flow above 105 kg/h to look like it was below 105 kg/h. An aliasing trick is based upon the principle that when you invert the frequency of a waveform you get the time taken for the wavelength. If you halve that then you get the time taken for half the wavelength, which happens to include the peak or trough of the waveform. So when you consider the highest frequency you expect to encounter, if you then inverted it to get the time for one wavelength, then halved that (so you get two samples per wave) and used that as your sampling rate, normally that gives you the cheapest ability to reform the original analogue signal from the digital data. This is called the Nyquist sampling rate. The problem with using the twice the highest frequency you are interested in as your sampling rate is frequencies above the highest expected frequency look as though they are lower by the same amount they are above it. For example, if you expected the highest audio frequency to be 16 kHz, so you sampled at 32,000 per second, and a frequency of 17 kHz was presented to the Analogue to Digital converter, then the data recorded would show it as a 15 kHz signal. The beauty of an aliasing trick (as it is called) is it is difficult to prove a 15 kHz signal started life as a 17 kHz signal. So now consider a fuel flow of say 106 kg/h, where the Nyquist sampling rate was equivalent to a flow of 105 kg/h, then the recorded data show the 106 kg/h appears as 104 kg/h. As you can see, if Ferrari were to have done such a thing (and I’m guessing they would say they didn’t) all the data would look “kosher” to the Stewards, and that only when the FIA were to actually carefully study the data, then at that point they’d notice things like more and more power power from the engine while at the same time the fuel flow was getting less and less.
   One problem with the aliasing trick is that if you happened to add up all the fuel used during the race then you’d find a discrepancy. For example, using the 106 kg/h example just above, if you assumed the car pulled out say a minute or so short of 60 minutes of using that exact fuel flow, then the tally of the fuel used would show 104 kg was used, so you’d expect to see 1 kg of fuel left over, but of course it wouldn’t be there. Then, when you looked at the exact moment the fuel ran out, you’d see it was consistent with a flow of 106 kg/h, not 104 kg/h. As you can see, when you think about it that way, the discovery of a fueling error in Leclerc’s car last season, where the Stewards discovered more fuel in the fuel tank than was recorded, should have been seen as a big red flag.
   1. 

      JimG (@jimg)
      17th March 2020, 12:29

      There is a rule that when you present your car to the Stewards you believe it complies with the rules.

      There is another rule, of human nature, that if you can’t prove I did something, then I’ve got away with it.
      1. 

         JimG (@jimg)
         17th March 2020, 12:29

         @drycrust ^^^
5. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   17th March 2020, 12:56

   A hand-washing challenge on Twitter. Just another one of those things, I guess. I do hand-washing regularly, though, several times each day, and had been doing that this often long before this coronavirus-outbreak that properly started in the 2nd-half of January. I don’t use soap every single time, though, nor do I take two minutes, but all the rest, yes.
6. 

   JJ81f1
   17th March 2020, 14:39

   I don’t think those Twitch numbers are correct. Ninja, TimTheTatMan, Pestily, easily have cleared 100k viewers in a session. Dexerto is not known as a good resource and is more likely to start stories way out of context, they are not respected by the streamers.
7. 

   armando
   18th March 2020, 10:23

   we wil have 2 races in usa super i want texas stay in f1 and indy back 2022

Comments are closed.