|
Yeah I realize that but it would have been an interesting diversion to think about if the 2017 wages were similar to 2016 wages, Mr fun hater.  Oh wait. Forgot where I was posting. Carry on.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Tsaedje posted:Those are 2017 wages, so the answer is undefined as there are 0 points to divide by Yeah, I mean doing it in November when we have the relevant information. I tried looking for salary charts from last year but again didn't get bonus information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
The dataset is also just dumb because of the including bonuses/excluding bonuses stuff get gigasperged, pals
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:The dataset is also just dumb because of the including bonuses/excluding bonuses stuff I am still only a green belt in Excel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
No one thinks McLaren might actually be paying the best driver on the grid 40m to sit in a lovely car and hope for the best? Here are some autism things: McLaren, like a lot of teams, divides their sponsors into different tiers based on how much money they pay them. Castrol had originally been listed as a direct replacement for Mobil, but at some point in the last week they moved them down to "Official Supplier," which basically means they're not paying any sponsorship dollars at all. Which is probably...not good at all, considering the relative importance of fuels and oils and the fact that every other top team has an oil company as a major sponsor/supplier. They've also re-added Johnnie Walker, which is a little interesting because everyone expected them to leave McLaren once they started sponsoring the sport as a whole, and yet their logos kinda just stayed on the car. tldr more Hondabux plz wicka fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Dallara says F1 sucks and will get worse this year. Dallara should post in this thread. http://en.f1i.com/news/88935-dallara-baffled-f1s-new-rules.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
What I read from that is F1 should be a spec series and Dallara would be pleased to help
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Dallara says F1 sucks and will get worse this year. Dallara should post in this thread. I find myself unable to disagree with him, yet desperately wanting to be wrong. My hope is that Brawn will look to allow greater freedom in the rules so that teams can follow their own designs rather than being straitjacketed into a formula that promotes single/dual team dominance. If a midfield team like Force India, Williams or Sauber could implement a design that went against what the top teams do with ludicrous aero budgets and focus more on clever mechanical grip developments we'd see much more interesting and unpredictable races. Right now, none of those midfield or backmarker teams have the freedom to do something different because the rules don't permit it or because Ferrari poo poo the bed and moan it into being declared illegal. I mean, who really gives an ornery gently caress if the cars can take Parabolica at 200mph or Eau Rouge flat if the race is just a procession? Theophany fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
The year that made Nico Rosberg unironically a WDC must surely be rock bottom, can't get worse from there
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Theophany posted:I find myself unable to disagree with him, yet desperately wanting to be wrong. Opening up the rulebook massively benefits bigger teams, since they have the money to test multiple development paths simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Now I want a Castrol livery in F1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
poty posted:The year that made Nico Rosberg unironically a WDC must surely be rock bottom, can't get worse from there Two words. Alonso's third.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
poty posted:The year that made Nico Rosberg unironically a WDC must surely be rock bottom, can't get worse from there MODSSSS MØĐŞŞŞŞ ?¥#$$$$$ ¿[○•••• Žąļğöööö
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Seems like a lot of anger in the Hamilton household.Anthony Hamilton posted:Hamilton senior said, “Anybody who goes up against Lewis needs to have planned their career correctly because it could be a career-ending move when you go up against Lewis.” https://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/594222/Formula_1_driver_salaries_for_2017/
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
wicka posted:Opening up the rulebook massively benefits bigger teams, since they have the money to test multiple development paths simultaneously. I don't think that's necessarily true. If there's more dead end alleys to go down there's more chance a big team will make a misstep. Williams was a dominant force in the 80s and 90s on a shoestring budget and as soon as the rules became prescriptive then they were a spent force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Uh, I don't think 80s and 90s Williams had a "shoestring budget".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
I'm exaggerating but their budget was pretty weak compared to McLaren and Ferrari. I know their first championship with Alan Jones they had like no money whatsoever. Im not saying somebody like Sauber is going to win because that just very obviously isn't going to happen, but it used to be a team like Williams could win and that just isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I don't think that's necessarily true. If there's more dead end alleys to go down there's more chance a big team will make a misstep. Williams was a dominant force in the 80s and 90s on a shoestring budget and as soon as the rules became prescriptive then they were a spent force. Yes, and they can make 12 missteps as long as the 13th concept works. Small teams can't. E: Like if there are 100 different ways to build a car, big teams can test all 100 and determine which is best. Small teams have to just pick a couple, or just one, which massively reduces the chance of them building a fast car. wicka fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
poty posted:The year that made Nico Rosberg unironically a WDC must surely be rock bottom, can't get worse from there Oh no no no no my sweet summer child. Real Commitment to a sport is continuing to watch it after a Damon Hill Championship, or not walking away after Rubens is ordered to move over for Michael for the 30th time. Watching Lewis melt down and a genuinely exiting last race of the season is actually quite the treat when you look at the quality of F1 over the years as a whole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93igduisgzY
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
There's a limit on testing as a reason and its helped with this, it's just that the bigger teams find some loophole around it and then spend a poo poo load of money into that instead and the FIA ignores it for five years. The chassis beds should be banned in my opinion, they cost a poo poo load of money and it certainly caused Mercedes and Red Bull to move away from the field. That's the real issue, if we are limiting testing then it should be a true absolute limit on testing, not just a couple of areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:There's a limit on testing as a reason and its helped with this, it's just that the bigger teams find some loophole around it and then spend a poo poo load of money into that instead and the FIA ignores it for five years. The chassis beds should be banned in my opinion, they cost a poo poo load of money and it certainly caused Mercedes and Red Bull to move away from the field. That's the real issue, if we are limiting testing then it should be a true absolute limit on testing, not just a couple of areas. If you'll do that you'll get a massive amount of tears from Ferrari. And F1 will not allow them to leave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
wicka posted:Opening up the rulebook massively benefits bigger teams, since they have the money to test multiple development paths simultaneously. It's a principle of engineering that eeking the last few percentage points of performance is where all the cost is. With a set formula, rich teams can throw money to make 98.6% optimum 99.2%. Poor teams can't. Poor teams can however have a vany idea that they can implement with 98% efficiency, that ends up being 2% quicker because their idea had the potential to be 5% faster. Other teams will copy and optimise but there's a window where they can do it. I know you hate "old F1 was better" but the above is essentially how it used to work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
I really don't see what's confusing you guys about such a fundamentally basic concept as "it costs money to try things, more money = trying more things."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Honestly, if f1 gave a poo poo about parity, they would have implemented BoP years ago. Will the new organizers care about it? We'll see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
wicka posted:I really don't see what's confusing you guys about such a fundamentally basic concept as "it costs money to try things, more money = trying more things." There's a difference between "we have options a-z and don't know which one is best" and "rules say we need to build X so let's build X1-X24 and monitor the efficiency gains at each stage" and that's what I'm trying to say. If you want upset wins you need to open it up so there's various solutions to problems. Right now there is a very clear development path to these cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:There's a difference between "we have options a-z and don't know which one is best" and "rules say we need to build X so let's build X1-X24 and monitor the efficiency gains at each stage" and that's what I'm trying to say. If you want upset wins you need to open it up so there's various solutions to problems. Right now there is a very clear development path to these cars. No, there's not. In both cases you have multiple options, and in both cases the rich teams can explore more of those options than poorer ones. This isn't complicated, stop trying to adjust reality to fit the fantasy you're constructing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
wicka posted:No, there's not. In both cases you have multiple options, and in both cases the rich teams can explore more of those options than poorer ones. This isn't complicated, stop trying to adjust reality to fit the fantasy you're constructing. Go tell an engineer this, wicka. I'll say it again - optimisation of a given design costs more than having a design idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Khablam posted:Go tell an engineer this, wicka. IT ALL COSTS SOMETHING RICHER TEAMS CAN HANDLE MORE COSTS jesus wept, this is literally loving indisputable
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Seriously Wicka there is a very distinct difference between incremental improvement of a single concept versus testing 24 different basic concepts and evaluating which one is worth developing, even the big teams don't have the resources for that. You do need to talk to an engineer to understand the difference if you don't get this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
I'm not arguing this anymore. It's literally an indisputable fact that richer teams can explore more design concepts than poorer teams. Stop trying to move the goalposts, stop trying to fit everything into your fantasy of "all old F1 was beautiful and good." Just stop, it's exhausting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
wicka posted:IT ALL COSTS SOMETHING This would work only in a system where more money gave a linear relationship to what you can do, and nothing is ever a pre-requisite. It would also only work if you assume all teams have exactly the same ideas. This is not reality, this is your aspie argument construct. Seriously, you are ignoring basic principles of engineering so stop yelling that people don't understand; we understand what you're saying you're just wrong. It used to be commonly understood to be a 80:20 relationship but with modern computer design its more like 98:2 - it takes as much time/effort/money to wring the last 2% out of a given thing than it does to get the first 98%.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
CratSock posted:Seems like a lot of anger in the Hamilton household. Well Nico's career ended so he's not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
CratSock posted:Seems like a lot of anger in the Hamilton household. Seems like overkill to be hurling these threats at Bottas, of all people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Sauber will win the WCC and the hearts of racefans everywhere in the first year of the relaxed rulebook by making sure their engine is really loud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
You can have 24 ideas yes, but this is a sport where they need to invent parts and go into unknown areas of physics to make your ideas work in practice. No one got the money or staff to be developing two completely separate designs, (although red bull probably collaborate with Toro Rosso far more than they should) there may be points where you can go off in different directions and you can try both, either in the simulator or in the case of something like front wings in free practice. This is both Honda and Ferrari's problem, they picked the wrong idea right at the start and had to stick with it or explain to their bosses why they need several hundred million more euros in funding. At this point the bosses have to look at what they will earn from points with the current car Vs how much they would earn with a new car and in Ferrari's case they were high enough in the points + legacy payments with what they had.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Khablam posted:It's a principle of engineering that eeking the last few percentage points of performance is where all the cost is. With a set formula, rich teams can throw money to make 98.6% optimum 99.2%. Poor teams can't. This also costs a lot of money. If you don't have the money to develop the idea correctly the car simply isn't going to work. See: Leyton House CG901B
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Bottas hasn't even driven the car yet and the Hamilton family petulance machine is already running at full speed with DRS open. Love it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Double post https://twitter.com/McLarenF1/status/831539885630689286 It still has that fart can sound, which I kind of liked, but doesn't give me good vibes when it comes to winning or being fast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
McLaren Honda has always sounded completely sick to me. As in 'man that engine sounds like it is about to explode' instead of the wicked cool sick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
BubbaGrace posted:Double post Doesn't sound like it's getting complete combustion there. Probably a fuel setting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:43
|
|