Is Red Bull using KERS for traction?
- 12th October 2013, 8:53 at 8:53 am #242908
That “special mindset” you’re talking about is called an open mind. Doesn’t take much research to find out why certain things are spoon fed to the people to keep them happy. As they say “ignorance is bliss” ;) I totally agree on the kers for tc though, if its true its another case of red bull genius (I won’t attribute it just to newey, he gets all the recognition despite having a stellar team of engineers in his team).12th October 2013, 9:00 at 9:00 am #242909
But “open mindedness” can go to ridiculous lengths. There are people who believe – and written books about – beliefs like the Titanic never sank or that Charles Lindbergh accidentally killed his own baby son and then framed Hartman.12th October 2013, 12:12 at 12:12 pm #242910
That’s called being gullible. To be open minded is to not dismiss something simply because you don’t understand it or don’t know if it could be true. I was brought up to always ask why, to use any means necessary to find out the truth. It’s good to research into things you don’t understand so as to broaden your knowledge. To be ignorant is to dismiss ideas you don’t understand, or which would be inconvenient if true. Do some research into fractional reserve banking. It’s the disgusting means by which the western world is run, which ensures debt only rises, making rich richer, and poor poorer. I could go into detail but this isn’t the place for it and it would take far too long. I will say this though; if you thought the “global financial crisis” the world just experienced was bad. Wait till the next credit crunch. When the us finally can’t repay their debts. They raised their debt ceiling recently, further delaying the inevitable. But the more they do that, the worse it’ll be when the debts are called in. Seriously, look it up.12th October 2013, 12:29 at 12:29 pm #242911
Er, no thanks. I have too many normal, day-to-day mundane things to worry about and cannot fit in intricacies of running whole of the Western World. All I can say is that I am thankfully not in debt.12th October 2013, 12:29 at 12:29 pm #242912
Things like “the moon landing was staged” or “titanic never sank” are true crackpot theories. But anyone would know that after a little research. But when it comes to the tradgedy of 9/11, too many important facts were conveniently swept under the carpet in the mass media, and far far too many things don’t add up. Also, its hugely dismissive to ignore firefighters who were there, and countless witnesses, who contradict official reports. Also a bit strange one of the so called “terrorists” that was suppsedly on one of the flights, turned up alive, claiming he had no idea why he was being accused of it lol. There’s a ton of stuff that is clearly made up about the events of that day. How does uncompressed jet fuel melt steel? It can’t. How does a steel framed skyscraper collapse at the rate of freefall without being professionally demolished? It cant, not if you believe the laws of physics. Why did witnesses hear explosions from the basement? Including firemen. How did a completely unrelated third building collapse, when it wasn’t even hit by anything? There is so much more I could tell you about that day that doesn’t add up. Especially if you’ve read the official report, which ignores all the facts and comes to completely unrealistic conclusions. It’s naive to think lowly peasants are told the truth about anything that might anger them. But, as I said earlier, ignorance is bliss. If you want to learn the truth, look into these things, but don’t blame me if you’re angry about the way the world is afterwards. Otherwise, just be happy in a bubble of blissful ignorance.12th October 2013, 13:24 at 1:24 pm #242913
@fangio85 I don’t understand what conspiracy exactly you are proposing. That it was a controlled demolition?
My first point of criticism goes no further than to simply question why exactly do you think they would go to such great lengths to do such. Do you really think the same government that has politicians not even capable of keeping their sex live’s private would be able to cover up such lies and deceit? I think you’re giving them far too much credit.
Why exactly also would they not then simply evacuate the buildings and legitimately demolish them? Why would they kill so many innocent civilians in both the planes and the towers, the emergency servicemen and the airline employees? Also, why exactly would they go to the effort of crashing planes into the buildings, if it would be far more efficient to just place thermite in the structural trusses as you suggest?
To even fly the planes into the buildings also required the employment of Al Queda operatives and the need to conspire against some of the US’ own airlines. Why would the government go to the effort of doing that, if it were so much more simple to take the traditional terrorist route and detonate explosives – something they would evidently be able to achieve, as you suggest it was done yourself (so clearly concealment can’t have been a major issue)?
Even irrespective of the simple reasoning – which lands the conspiracy claims with shaky foundations – the claims that combustible materials within the structures themselves are not capable of causing significant structural (and indeed fatal for the building) damage in the softening of steel supports are simply false. Indeed, the melting point of steel is significantly higher than the maximum combustible temperature of standard Jet-A fuel, and indeed the temperature of carpets et al would neither reach that temperature. However, it is simply not necessary.
Steel expands hugely when heat is applied to it: look to power lines as an example, which sag significantly during a period of warm weather in summer months. Magnify that effect such as to be comparative to the internal temperatures in the structures themselves, and (along with the severely depleted structural rigidity of the steel beams themselves) you have a recipe for structural failure. Concrete, unlike steel, has almost no tolerance for expansion: it will simply crack under high pressure. It is the concrete – not solely the steel – that allows the buildings to remain upright (due to it’s immense compression strength). So when the steel began to loose it’s rigidity and began cracking the concrete supports, the building was doomed.
The reason no steel framed structure has suffered a comparable failure is simply because the intensity and magnitude of the fire, along with the pressure from the sheer mass of the structure, has never been matched – not even close. I cannot name a single event which even comes close.
And that, my friend, is when your conspiracy comes crashing down.
For reference purposes, here is the testimony of a firefighter along with further details about how steel structures can fail without having been subject to melting point temperatures.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”
Now that hopefully the dust has settled on that debate, back to Formula One. The same logic applies: the RB9 (specifically it’s Renault engine) has been using technology to allow it to deactivate 4 cylinders during acceleration periods all season – so as Alonso said, it didn’t sound “unusual” at all in Singapore, just that the street-circuit characteristics and Vettel’s huge lead (hence no closely following cars) accentuated the sound. Also, as has been mentioned, all cars have a standard ECU, hence making it all but impossible to disguise any TC programmes.
So the only alternative explanation is that it is a clever use of KERS charging, and that is entirely legal. The rules do not stipulate when the energy must be recovered, only how much can be recovered. So any attempts to utilise that for performance advantage are not only perfectly legitimate but also merit appreciation for design genius in my eyes – that after all is the whole point in F1 and why it is not simply a spec series.12th October 2013, 13:33 at 1:33 pm #242914Lucas WilsonParticipant
Brilliant response @vettel1
Although I have mentioned in the past that I am no Vettel or Red Bull fan, I glad that they have found a loophole (well possibly) in this era of F1 where almost everything creative is banned.12th October 2013, 13:41 at 1:41 pm #242915
@full-throttle-f1 thank you kindly :)
That’s one of the reasons I do actually support RBR (besides the fact I’m a fan of Vettel): they’re creativity is deeply fascinating! I’m partial to a really clever solution whatever the team, just Red Bull seem to be the team most able to do so consistently ;)12th October 2013, 14:04 at 2:04 pm #242916
I’ll join your club if I may Mr Jacobson. I enjoyed your deductive reasoning in the above post. Plus,I am a fan of Vettel too. :)12th October 2013, 14:17 at 2:17 pm #242917mnmracerParticipant
Another problem with conspiracy theorists is that this ‘researching’ in their mind can come to only one conclusion. The very idea that they might be wrong is a conspiracy in itself. There are plenty of people that have had an open mind and researched 9/11, myself included, and have simply come to the well-informed conclusion that the conspiracy theories are dubious to say the least. Good luck however finding a conspiracy theorists willing to accept that possibility; so much for being open-minded.12th October 2013, 14:19 at 2:19 pm #242918mnmracerParticipant
As for KERS: if it was used for traction control, the loss of KERS for Vettel today would have probably cost him more than it ended up doing.12th October 2013, 14:36 at 2:36 pm #24291912th October 2013, 22:04 at 10:04 pm #242920
You missed the point entirely. The point of doing that wasn’t to demolish the twin towers, it was to create public unrest, and hatred toward the middle east, which would enable them to have public support to go to war, which worked perfectly. Well almost perfectly. Also, the towers had pools of molten steel in the basements after falling. Like you said, that isn’t possible. Don’t try to school me on something I’ve been interested in for over four years now, after doing a quick Google. I honestly don’t give a rats what you think of me, because I was skeptical and tried to argue the point with someone I know about these things until I really did research it. Also, your theory on how the towers structural integrity was compromised still doesn’t explain how it fell at the rate of freefall. Or, how wtc7 fell, also at the rate of freefall, when nothing even hit it. Like I said, I’ve done my homework. I haven’t even told you a tenth of the how’s and why’s surrounding that event. Because I know how difficult it is to change someone’s mind, when they are too convinced they already know it all. Have a good day boys12th October 2013, 22:17 at 10:17 pm #24292112th October 2013, 23:08 at 11:08 pm #242922NickParticipant
Really, zeitgeist? When did ‘question everything’ turn into ‘believe in ancient aliens, Bigfoot, mass deception, 2012, xenu and manbearpig’?
But, clearly we are all steeple and the guy with the username of a great driver who switched cars during races and team midseason to ensure his edge over his rivals is in the right to call out the workings of Red Bull Illuminati Racing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.