SHARE

Join Grace and me as we chat about this weeks news. I was under the weather and my mind was on my dog so apologies for the lack of “focus” on my part. As for Grace and the news? Well, we discuss Williams, Ferrari, Paddy Lowe’s first day on the job, the Magic 8 ball, Canada and the lack of a race and much more plus awards.

Fashion award here.

That Roscoe sure is a cute dog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A “Hollywood” actress:

Carmen… the “Hollywood actress”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Actress:

Helen Mirren

 

Play
SHARE
An F1 fan since 1972, NC has spent over 25 years in the technology industry and as a CTO, he focuses on technology integration in commercial workspace design, AV systems integration, digital media strategies, technology planning, consulting, speaking, presenting, sales, content strategy, marketing and brand building.
  • Ab345

    Look forward to listening to pod. Wanted to share attached YouTube video short : Just stumbled across this #sportingromance #f1 @AnttiKalhola brilliant simply brilliant http://t.co/WyKDLX21Ls

    • I saw that video a few months ago and like the Spaghetti western music. Surprised it hasn’t been taken off youTube for using all that F1 video content. FOM is usually strict about that. PErhaps he got permission to use it… who knows?

  • niyoko

    I had to go and check out the dogs of the F1 drivers. I couldn’t resist.
    Kimi has best dog of the current field, but Fittipaldi’s dog’s wins the fashion award! Bling! Bling!

  • J.V. is no longer an owner of Newtown. From what I recall it was sold to the same group that runs Le Baton – an upscale ribs joint. So Grace can still have overpriced Guinness. According to StreetView, it is still operated under the Newtown name ( http://goo.gl/maps/Xyt5Y )

    J.V. is doing colour commentary for the French pay-TV station Canal+ . He is sort of the James Hunt of modern broadcasting, being outspoken and sometimes creative with the stats he presents. He does seem to do all sessions, Q1 through to the race.

    Cheers!

    • Thanks Bert. Someone told us that a couple weeks ago and Grace and I promptly forgot who he was working for. Shows you how much we follow JV’s career. Shameful on both our parts. I like JV and you’d think I would commit that to memory wouldn’t you? Sheesh!

  • And as I said, I apologize for the nose blowing issues but I wanted you to suffer along with me…i’t like reading the trip through Mordor… you suffer with the Hobbits! ;)

    • MIE

      So is it Grace or yourself playing Frodo?

      and is the other Samwise or Gollum?

  • Rapierman

    1. …..and then I’d have to ask why, of all things, you wrote about a dead dog. :-P

    2. Welcome to my world. I normally have to deal with allergies, and with the Mexican crop burn, my eyes have gone blurry as hell.

    3. I would assume that it’s in the Canadian government’s best interest to stay in there.

    4. Ye gods, another musical chairs game. :-P

    5. Do you really believe that there’s not a safety issue? Seriously?

    6. Good luck with that, Caterham.

    7. “No >bleepahem< It's my "Indy" also, thank you.

    10. Ugh. That was "ruff" ;-)

    11. I'll take eight zeros, thank you. :-D

    12. Isn't always that way with Bernie?

    13. BTW, Todd….gesundheit.

    14. Hey, all I did was ask! It just seemed…strange.

    15. I'm going with Alonso, Rosberg, Vettel. FO is Perez

    16. ….and if anything happens, I know I'm watching it, so I might be able to provide a few comments.

  • Pull rod front suspension will probably be very popular in 2014 and I’m surprised more teams didn’t make that move this season. It seems to take about a year to fully understand it and develop it (see Ferrari). McLaren should be right there again in 2014.

    • Jack Flash (Aust)

      Some info gleaned from Motor Engineering forums:

      Under current F1 tech regulations: The only reason to move to pull-rod front suspension is one of weight lowering (ie. move the tortional spring damper assembly to the lower position in the front of chassis). But it comes at a cost. The regulations of chassis dimensioning relative to the wheel hubs, makes the pull-rod shallower (flatter) than a push-rod solution. Thence, in the current chassis diemsioning rules, the push-rod is a better suspension solution, as it steeper rod-angle gives greater fidelity to control.

      If a Team is happy to have a push-rod front suspension spring damper weight at the higher CoG, in compromise for the superior suspension range (and perhaps a shift of weight elsewhere to compensate some), then there is no need to follow the Ferrari or McLaren suffragettes. JF

      • MIE

        Jack Flash, with the lower noses next year will pulleod become more favorable?

        • MIE

          Sorry pullrod

        • JackFlash(Aust)

          No. I don’t believe so.
          The nose cone projects from the front-wall of the chassis. The suspension spring damper assemblies (and brake reservoirs if I recall rightly) are contained in the space between this front-most chassis wall and the front of the driver safety tub.

          So like you say MIE, the nose’s maximum height above skid-plate reference plane is being lowered for safety reasons (reduce spearing risk to drivers from side collisions), but I didn’t think the top height of the safety cell/chassis is being lowered (i.e. That would sorta defeat the purpose of the nose lowering).

          Of course I prefer to know… so I had a look at the FIA tech regulations, comparing 2013 to 2014 published versions. Comparison of Body clause 3.7.9 in both versions provides the confirmation.
          ————–
          2014 TR clause 3.7.9: “No bodywork situated more than 1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above the reference plane.”
          ————–
          2013 TR clause 3.7.9: “With the exception of an optional, single piece, non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate (whose precise lay-up may be found in the Appendix to the regulations) which may not be more than 625mm above the reference plane at any point, no bodywork situated more than 1950mm forward of rear face of the cockpit entry template may be more than 550mm above the reference plane.
          The external surface of any longitudinal or lateral cross section taken through the above fairing may contain no concave radius of curvature less than 50mm.”
          ————–
          Apart from the 2013 modesty panel (fairing) caveat, the 2013 and 2014 clauses are the same. What works this year, will work next year too!

          My interpretation detail: [*** The point 1950mm in front of the rear face of the cockpit entry is 150mm in front of the survival cell front plane (ref Drawing 4 vs Drawing 5), and ~level with the leading wishbone fix point (ref Drawing 1). The push or pull rod is behind this point a ways. Therefore the clause 3.7.9 transition to a lowered nose happens in front of the suspension attachment zone ***]

          Of course, it will help if some F1B’ers check through my TR interpretations, to ensure I haven’t missed something, or messed up somewhere. It was a quick-check. JF

          • MIE

            There is an extra paragraph in clause 15.4.4 of the 2014 regulations:
            No part of sections taken at the lines A-A and B-B may lie more than 525mm and 625mm respectively above the reference plane.

            So the height of the front bulkhead has dropped by 100mm? This is why they don’t need the modesty panel next year.

          • JackFlash(Aust)

            Good spotting MIE.
            That is a 2014 TR change to make the front bulkhead of the Survival Cell (Section A-A , Drawing 5) lower by 100mm. One would expect a that the Survival Cell top would slope down from the Section B-B 625mm height down to the front-most Section A-A 525mm with a pretty linear line.

            The nagging thought I have on this is whether this enforces ‘bodywork’ to be this low, at that point in the chassis. The rules say you don’t have to be at a bodywork 550mm level until you reach 1950mm from the rear of Safety Cell; whereas the Section A-A point is only 1800mm in-front of the rear of the Safety Cell. That supplies a 150mm of extra forward projecting chassis to blend down to 550mm level.

            Not sure what that may provide for teams to take advantage of?
            I am mindful that the suspension torsional spring damper assemblies and brake reservoirs etc. are not inside the Safety Cell, but packed in front of it, behind the front-most chassis bulkhead (not A-A).
            ———–
            Anyway….
            Let us for argument’s sake suppose that teams endeavour to make the front suspension deal with a 100mm less height in the chassis [a worst case 2014 rule change], and at same time the bottom edge lowers by 100mm (cos’ the chassis cross section mm2 area minimum limits stay the same). Then the question of whether to go for pull-rod over push-rod will depend a lot on the impact of the 100mm lowering of the rod angle (shallower push-rod angle package). Will the push-rod still have a better (steeper angle)? Don’t know. There is also the possibility that the rod’s chassis connection point can be swept back a little, to gain more height as the chassis top slopes up to the 625mm level. Also..in any case, the top connection points of the front wishbones will also be driven down lower too.

            With all these variables to mentally juggle, now I am not sure what front rod-type will be better in 2014. I just don’t see it being an automatic pull-rod scenario though. It feels more…. 50/50. JF

  • Sebring71

    Ever since I voiced my approval of Chris Pook joining the New Jersey race (and actually typing “Pook’s the man!”), I’ve been hesitant to comment, for fear that Grace would verbally throw a bottle at my head. Worse yet, I find myself here with the intention of correcting her. Now, I would perhaps be the last person to defend Christian Horner, but I must point out that he was not holding his own dog, but that of Vitantonio Liuzzi. No, if Horner had a dog, it might appropriately be a large German Shepherd. In the instance of the dog viciously attacking another dog in the RBR paddock, he might be heard to calmly say “this is silly Rommel, come on”. Of course, the other dog would be his as well, an Australian Blue Heeler that’s been de-clawed and has chronic trouble trying to start it’s run to the feed bowl.

  • stan

    Montreal is awesome. I’ve lived driving distance for 3 years and have gone twice. Great city, people, event and race. Too funny with the magic 8 ball oddly enough I downloaded the magic 8 ball android app two days before listening to the podcast. Life is grand w/o the burden of decision making…

  • Philippe

    Thanks for the post of the week you guys!
    Cheers!

  • Michael in Seattle

    Ummm, Todd???? Civility and decorum? You were pretty hard on Ms Diaz, don’t ‘cha think?
    I’ll cut you some slack for having a bad cold. btw: Gezunheidt! Hope you’re felling better.

  • Julian

    I think you guys are being a bit hard on yourselves on murdering the pronunciation of international words. I am a Brit living here in California, I have heard folk from the UK say Silverston and Silverstone, I would say either way is ok. I also have never heard anyone say Monaaco.

    I do have one question though, who the hell is Jack Villanoov?

    • Michael in Seattle

      Yes, that should be Zhack Villaneff.

      • Michael in Seattle

        . . . maybe! ;)