gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd imagine there's a very
> small window for adjusting the balance though -
> probably between 65% and 50% or so.
I can see no situation where a driver under normal circumstances would opt for a 100% rear brake bias. I know for a fact that F1 drivers opt for heavy rear bias these days in the wet (which confuses me, as I would think front bias would be safer). But only a pre-planned contingency consideration would call for a design parameter like a 100-0 range. I find it unlikely that Red Bull has that. 65% sounds very reasonable to me.
> Given how
> little he was using the brakes I'd guess it was a
> lot easier to manage that if he was downshifting
> and braking at the same time.
That is also what I recollect him doing, from what I could see on the TV-overlay.
As to the reason for the failure, I have seen speculations that it could be a loose stone into the brake disc. Barrichello reportedly took pictures of his helmet and battered car after the race with his cell-phone, and the engineers had to slow him down to control a late race vibration. Also Hamilton's puncture is suspected to be a result of a loose stone getting jammed in between the tyre, rim and upright.
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vettel is old school style brave. It is the kind
> of thing Senna and Villeneuve would have done.
> Meanwhile the rest of the drivers bitch about
> things whenever something is slightly out of line.
Agreed. Safety is important, but being a pussy is not.
> From now on, whenever there is a safety issue to
> be discussed they should just go speak to Vettel
> and get him to make the decision. Maybe then the
> drivers will be forced to grow some balls.
Or they will still chicken out, and Vettel will take the podiums and points they don't.
chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Id say it was no more impressive than Alonso's
> Malaysia effort...
On driver skill, maybe not. I would not know, so I won't be the judge of that. But on balls - it is! Let me illustrate this point.
You are on the Autobahn, rushing with the pedal to the metal, because you have to get to something important ASAP (your wife is dying while giving birth, friend in danger, your house is burning, whatever). The rewards for getting there in time will be great. You hear a noise from your car, and feel it does not operate correctly. You pull in at a service station and get a mechanic to check it for you. Being in a rush, you convince him to call you with his findings and recommendations, and press on.
So at close to 300 kph, your mechanic calls you, and you activate your hands-free device. He relates one of 2 things:
A) You have an engine problem. Changing gears will be very problematic, and might destroy the engine. He tells you that it will be difficult, but you can continue to push it.
B) You have brake damage, and using them could cause an instant failure. He recommends that you pull over at the next exit. When you ask if you can just ease off the brakes and continue anyway, he doesn't answer. You reach the next exit, and decide to push on.
If the engine goes, you can still handle any unsafe situation that might occur (another car wrecking in front of you, a slow car weaving and blocking your path, a couple of stray dogs or a protesting priest running against traffic). But if the brakes explode your only option, in an unsafe situation - assuming you even still have control and hence a choice - is to ditch the car at whatever speed you are going, and pray. We know this for a fact, because we know from experience, that is exactly what drivers do, when they do not have the to option to brake in time.
Thus Alonso suffered no risk to his own well-being, while Vettel did.
It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2010 02:06PM by Morbid.