|
||||||||
F1 Coverage - The Verdict: 2016 Season |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#4451 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yardley, Birmingham
Posts: 5,980
|
Quote:
An F1 car should be driven flat out for 100% of the race, not just the start. I'm not interested in fuel saving of how many miles Lewis gets to a gallon.
Quote:
Not happening unless they re-introduce refuelling.
There has never been any period during F1's history where all the cars have been driven flat out at 100% throughout every lap of every race. There have been races where 1 or 2 drivers pushed close to 100% all race, But they were the exception which is why otherwise dull races like Hungary 1998, Suzuka 2000 & France 2004 stand out above other races in those years. Look at Indycar for example, They have refueling yet have just as much (If not more) fuel saving as you see in F1 because even with refueling extending the length of a stint has strategy benefits. Champcar spent years trying to find a way of getting rid of fuel saving, From mandatory pit windows to timed races & removing fuel mix settings on the wheel but nothing they tried ever really worked. The fuel & tyre management aspects in F1 are greater now than they were up until a few years ago, But even so there nowhere near as critical as they were through the 80's where fuel in particular was so critical that it wasn't uncommon to see cars run out of fuel (Imola '85 been the most obvious example). And add on top of fuel how much management of brakes, gearboxes, clutches, engines & other components were required back then. Was it Jackie Stewart who once said that an F1 race was about winning at the slowest possible speed? |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#4452 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,063
|
A bigger issue is that running in traffic kills the tyres too easily. That needs sorting out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4453 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yardley, Birmingham
Posts: 5,980
|
Quote:
A bigger issue is that running in traffic kills the tyres too easily. That needs sorting out.
|
|
|
|
|
#4454 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,659
|
Quote:
Yeah, noticed that. Don't know what was going on there.
Strange thing is Brundle waited until Crofty had stopped speaking to say that Hamilton went wide in turn 1/2. Maybe he was told it in his ear. I don't know what either of them were looking at at the time. It was clear as day that Hamilton had made a mistake right at the start of the lap. Surely if he had noticed at the time then he would have interrupted. Even more strange is that we saw him make another mistake a few corners later (the bit where the sparks flew up) and they didn't comment on that either! Brundle said later in the lap that he had had a poor middle sector and when they showed a replay of Hamilton's second error he said "oh, no wonder he had a poor middle sector!" when we had already seen it! Very odd. Crofty and Brunle both need to go as they don't do the jobs they are paid for. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4455 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 254
|
Quote:
Was it Jackie Stewart who once said that an F1 race was about winning at the slowest possible speed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4456 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Burton upon Trent
Posts: 1,929
|
Quote:
Those guys are sitting in the commentry box dreaming is what is going on. Most of the time they are talking about them selfs. Mysteriously all sorts of brands and retailers get mentioned and then it's any other irrelevant material they can work in. Perhapes some F1.
Crofty and Brunle both need to go as they don't do the jobs they are paid for. |
|
|
|
|
#4457 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,017
|
Yes, good luck getting them to push 100% of the time. Maybe if you did blind individual time trials, yeah, there wouldn't be much holding back then, but wouldn't be much of a spectator sport. Quote:
Those guys are sitting in the commentry box dreaming is what is going on. Most of the time they are talking about them selfs. Mysteriously all sorts of brands and retailers get mentioned and then it's any other irrelevant material they can work in. Perhapes some F1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4458 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 2,535
|
Looks like Sky carried out a UHD test at the Singapore GP
https://twitter.com/ColinSladen/stat...02727845023746 |
|
|
|
|
#4459 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yardley, Birmingham
Posts: 5,980
|
Quote:
Looks like Sky carried out a UHD test at the Singapore GP
https://twitter.com/ColinSladen/stat...02727845023746 Will be good for the few hundred people watching it in UHD on UHD capable TV's i guess
|
|
|
|
|
#4460 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
|
Interestingly (and as things are, UHD will be shot at 50fps progressive), but with the switch to US owners, and a more US focus, the world feed may (in a few years) be shot at 30i/60p, rather than the current 25i/50p it is at the moment.
Of course throughout the past 30 years (and completely since FOM took over more & more rounds in the late 00s) its been shot at 25/50 because the main broadcast base of F1 are 50hz countries, but we'll see. Of course Duke's season review blu-rays are released at 60hz (they take the 50hz footage and generate new in-between frames to get the extra 10 they need) already because 60hz blu-rays are supported worldwide, but TV is different. Apparently Sky don't have any exclusivity deal in place re. 4k or anything - it's just no other broadcaster in the world has opted to take up the 4k feed. Apparently as part of this new deal though, Sky have paid for some of FOM's 4k equipment (FOM were using Sky's own equipment in the interim apparently). Apparently Sky "WON’T be getting access to anything other broadcasters won’t have, But there will be a closer working relationship between Sky & FOM going forward as far as sharing equipment/resources go (TATA Network included)." Which is good to see. Also it's been all but confirmed that the 4k feed won't be unique to 4k viewers, it'll just be the 'master' feed, and the SD & HD feeds will be downscales of it. I notice that BT have stopped doing a separate 4k feed for their own football matches as of the new season, the HD feed is just the 4k one downscaled. Even though i have a 27" 1080p monitor, I still preferred watching the 4k feed anyway - the picture is sharper and even when they were doing a unique 4k feed one, I preferred that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4461 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,396
|
The current feed is 50i. You have 50 fields of temporal resolution (i.e. each field is from a different frame), which the interpolator/deinterlacer then re-creates 50 progressive images with (unless you're still using a CRT, in which case they're just shown interlaced.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4462 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
|
Quote:
The current feed is 50i. You have 50 fields of temporal resolution (i.e. each field is from a different frame), which the interpolator/deinterlacer then re-creates 50 progressive images with (unless you're still using a CRT, in which case they're just shown interlaced.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4463 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,063
|
Quote:
Interestingly (and as things are, UHD will be shot at 50fps progressive), but with the switch to US owners, and a more US focus
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4464 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 2,535
|
Quote:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fo...trials-828786/
Will be good for the few hundred people watching it in UHD on UHD capable TV's i guess ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
#4465 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yardley, Birmingham
Posts: 5,980
|
Quote:
Ah, but when launched will it encourage you to buy a UHD capable TV
![]() |
|
|
|
|
#4466 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,844
|
Quote:
Not happening unless they re-introduce refuelling.
That's the core of the issue - the simulations are now taking so many variables into account, and there's so much computing power available to crunch all the data that the most effective strategy at any time is almost always known, and quite often it's the more boring one to watch. I don't see how we can go back to the days where the computer would basically tell them if it was a 2 or 3 stop race beforehand and it was down to driver and engineer to figure it out from there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4467 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Whatever...
Posts: 2,210
|
@ Kirstie
Crikey ... You should be a professional tour manager !! I'll be in NYC... thinking of you lasses out there. 楽しむ Jp ( PS.. Has anyone read the comments section on that UHD story at Motorsport dot com?...Holy mother of discombobulation, these sad sacks have the attentiveness of gnats ) I shall NEVER complain about the quality of comments in this thread ever again. |
|
|
|
|
#4468 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 234
|
Quote:
Surely refuelling will make things worse, not better? If the simulation shows that saving fuel will cost a driver x amount of time, and a pit-stop will be x+15 seconds or something, the driver will still be told to lift and coast. The only way to eliminate fuel-saving is to force teams to brim the tanks and keep a fuel-flow limit which prevents them from 'burning off' too much fuel.
With re-fuelling they have to go as quickly as they can in order to open up gaps to make the fuel stop bring them out in the right place. They can't afford to coast because that will mean they aren't going quickly enough to make their spot when they come out. PLUS they'll be fuelled for X laps at the start and unlikely to be able to save enough to extend that, so therefore no point in fuel saving. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4469 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
|
Quote:
@ Kirstie
Crikey ... You should be a professional tour manager !! I'll be in NYC... thinking of you lasses out there. 楽しむ Jp ( PS.. Has anyone read the comments section on that UHD story at Motorsport dot com?...Holy mother of discombobulation, these sad sacks have the attentiveness of gnats ) I shall NEVER complain about the quality of comments in this thread ever again. ![]() A) Just because they're broadcasing in 4k now, doesn't meant they're going to stop broadcasing in HD and SD... B) Even if they did, torrent uploaders would just downscale the 4k feed and create an HD version of it anyway... C) most people won't be downloading the raw broadcast anyway... |
|
|
|
|
|
#4470 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,694
|
Quote:
Interestingly (and as things are, UHD will be shot at 50fps progressive), but with the switch to US owners, and a more US focus, the world feed may (in a few years) be shot at 30i/60p, rather than the current 25i/50p it is at the moment.
Atleast once per page, your on about framerates and then you're wrong anyway! 25i and 30i are not tech standards used in broadcasting or filming! 25p and 30p are possible but again, not used apart from online playback services such as BBC iPlayer and SkyGo etc! And, F1 is shot at 50p and converted to 50i, which is not hard to do at all and can be done on the fly as it is and has been for years! Same as live football you see on TV, its shot at 50p and converted to 50i. As for if they'll go to 60p, no! Because converting that to 50p and 50i leaves skimming on th screen where graphics look like they're being torn apart by heavy wind. Converting 50i or 50p to 60i or 60p is alot easier and don't cause skimming of the graphics and pixels! Also, the Blu Rays are interlaced and there is no conversion necessary! They're actually 50i and then your player will either include the repeat flags to take the playback to 60i if that is what your player requires or ignore them like it would for region 2 player! If through a tower or a laptop connected to your TV, your it will still ignore the flags and allow the player software you use (Such as VLC) to correct it for output to your screen depending on the refresh-rate selected!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#4471 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 2,457
|
Quote:
I saw a comment on another F1 fansite that said the reason why FOM were switching to UHD is because it'll stop people torrenting the races apparently, because 'a raw 4k broadcast is something like 100gb and people won't want to download that'.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
#4472 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
|
Quote:
I for the life of me cannot fathom your obsession with this!
Atleast once per page, your on about framerates and then you're wrong anyway! 25i and 30i are not tech standards used in broadcasting or filming! 25p and 30p are possible but again, not used apart from online playback services such as BBC iPlayer and SkyGo etc! And, F1 is shot at 50p and converted to 50i, which is not hard to do at all and can be done on the fly as it is and has been for years! Same as live football you see on TV, its shot at 50p and converted to 50i. As for if they'll go to 60p, no! Because converting that to 50p and 50i leaves skimming on th screen where graphics look like they're being torn apart by heavy wind. Converting 50i or 50p to 60i or 60p is alot easier and don't cause skimming of the graphics and pixels! Also, the Blu Rays are interlaced and there is no conversion necessary! They're actually 50i and then your player will either include the repeat flags to take the playback to 60i if that is what your player requires or ignore them like it would for region 2 player! If through a tower or a laptop connected to your TV, your it will still ignore the flags and allow the player software you use (Such as VLC) to correct it for output to your screen depending on the refresh-rate selected!!!!!! Also when you say that 25i and 30i are not tech standards, are you simply referring to the name? Well it's perfectly valid as long as you clarify what the number represents - frames or fields. If it's a progressive frame - that's a single field per frame, otherwise if it's an interlaced frame, that's 2 fields per frame. 25i = 25 interlaced FRAMES per second (an interlaced frame containes 2 fields) 50i = 50 FIELDS per second. it's the same thing... Also i've had it personally confirmed by FOM themselves to me that they shoot interlaced - at 25 frames per second (either 25i or 50i depending on how you express it). As for them ultimately not deciding to shoot in 60i/p - I can see your point. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4473 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,396
|
No, it is not 25 frames per second - it can't be. It's captured at 50 which is then broadcast interlaced. Otherwise it would look like film, which it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4474 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
|
Quote:
No, it is not 25 frames per second - it can't be. It's captured at 50 which is then broadcast interlaced. Otherwise it would look like film, which it doesn't.
If you are producing a feed interlaced - which will be shown by the broadcasters also interlaced, why would you first shoot it in progressive and THEN have to interlace it before sending it to broadcasters, when your camers can shoot in native interlaced anyway? The Cameras that FOM use (Grass Valley LDK-8000) are capable of shooting in 1080i as well as 1080p. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4475 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Whatever...
Posts: 2,210
|
Can we go back to talking about Japan.....Or meteorites or shopping trolleys?
Jp |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:02.





