Horner would love to sell them a power unit, would be sweet karma

Exactly

While I like the ideas with screens, and fixed buttons even more so, they haven’t gone with them despite the tech being available for a considerable time. I do wonder if its mostly down to how people use them rather than a limitation of the tech itself. Watch how many people nearly swipe or even do scrape exit parking machines, even simple parking meters stop working, people struggle to use the ones inside, then add in weather damage/proofing and vandalism and I would guess thats a big part of it. As its often a closed queue system any problem becomes a major issue almost instantly.

Lots of their drive thrus use a person to take the order, and at a busy drive thru this becomes a dedicated person or persons just to take orders. If they can flip it to AI then they could open more lanes and reduce staff. Problem is that a skilled person is going to be better than AI over a shitty audio system, look at how Alexa and Siri struggle even when they have an optimized reception setup than the crappy setup you have at a drive thru with the person sitting inside their car, with music on and so on.

UK you have the concept of black box car insurance that offered a substantial discount for having either a dedicated device installed into the car or an app on your phone that tracks a bunch of stats as you drive. It’s as shit as it sounds as it marks you down for every little infringement such as driving at peak times because that’s more dangerous. Get enough points and you can have your policy cancelled. In the UK there are knock on effects for ever having an insurance policy cancelled and you have to legally declare you did when asked.

While you can uninstall the app good luck making a claim if you don’t have it installed with data for that journey. They’d also be pretty suss with no data over an extended period of a few months.

Worst part of these is that it’s expensive to switch to a non black box policy when you can afford to as you get older and more experienced.

Musk banning Apple devices with how popular iPhones are to use twitter would hurt Musk more than it would hurt either Apple or OpenAI so it just sounds like a win win.

However with their examples you don’t need to write a script, you can solve them that way but you really don’t need to for these examples. This is some basic search refinement skills (Outlook would even help you build this unlike say a Google search with refinement filters) and either a small spreadsheet or a calculator app to max out at their level 3.

Scripting this I would put at a level 4, but I would be interested where the authors of the paper would fit that in as its their research and what sort of percentage would fit into that skill set.

I would guess that their reasoning is that the increased area allows for more/better sculpted ground effect.

They still have access to 1000 BHP for short periods, while weighing less and having less downforce that will almost certainly result in less drag for most cars. I would not expect peak speed to be that much slower than now, just average speed over the lap.

Sure the drop to 6 gears from 8 (if it goes ahead) is going to hurt but not being able to use all 1000 BHP on the straight at somewhere like Monza means you’ll just be a sitting duck all day long, RB have shown that when they had their biggest DRS advantage.

Well they can force him out of F1, either with an outright ban or a suspension. as there are reputation clauses in the Sporting Regs that are vague enough to be used for this.

Obviously RB would challenge any such ban as they believe he has done nothing wrong.

Is there enough evidence shared in that data dump to warrant a ban? Unlikely.

Agree with you about the level of standards, there needs to be some for train and bus parts but not to aircraft standards.

I also agree any part manufacturer to be audited to which level they are working at and prove a chain of custody for that part. They grey and black markets need to be squeezed out as much as possible, obviously you have to give the end customer, airlines, rolling stock owners, etc. a cost incentive with right to repair to honor the system. As any system can be hacked or broken with enough of a cash incentive.

I think the OEM having to license, at a reasonable cost, the exact spec and design for a part to third parties is an important part of any right to repair. You cannot self repair if you cannot get replacement parts for a reasonable cost.

With the fake parts scandal for airplanes I wonder if this should be mandatory for parts that impact public safety for public transport like trains, buses, planes and so on.

Dont get me wrong, I want a full right to repair enshrined in law and using a system like this just to prevent it is clearly wrong, but if it could be adapted to allow for critical parts to be made under license by third parties and helped prevent fake parts then may be a small amount of good can come from this shitty practice.

Again, only reason that happened was the veto, veto is easy to remove, its a complete non issue. Any team or group of teams trying to veto something on a safety issue of that level in modern F1 isn’t going to get very far.

If one or two teams fuck up, thats their problem, if half the grid fucks up, thats the FIAs problem. You must have missed all the complaints about tyre pressures…

Its not even just longer lasting, the tyres deliberatey have a short operating window in the sake of creating false drama, its that the ability of any tyre manufacturer in a series as complicated as F1 to make than predictable and reliable. All too often one of the two race tyres is abysmal. This often makes the race uncompetitive.

The strongest example of this is the quali tyre, it often cannot take a single full lap even after being babied on the outlap, for a full flat out lap. If that isn’t completely unacceptable to you, then I am going to call Poes law here.

We’ve already had a repeat of 2005 under pirelli or you forgetting the multiple TDs issued for tyres to make the race happen under their watch? Or the punctures suffered such as Max’s blow out at Baku?

2005 only didn’t happen because Bridgestone teams vetoed a speed reduction on one corner despite it being requested on safety grounds. Very very easy to prevent that veto or the need for it from happening again. And it’s rubbish to suggest we haven’t had similar last minute changes for safety reasons under pirelli.

You still missing the point that the tyres are artificially nobbled for F1, they are nowhere near optimal.

I’m not the one claiming that they can, just that it’s patiently false that those tyres would be competitive as you originally claimed, if you actually read what I said, I said the opposite.

The excuse that pirell could make dog shit slow tyres that lasted an entire race is just garbage. Their competitors would just make faster tyres, especially as a single stop is mandated by the two compound rule.

Your lack of understanding of how much the tyres are gamed by pirelli at the request of FIA to provide artificial cliffs for tyre life and video game style performance deltas between compounds when both are impossible irl is the problem here.

Again your lack of understanding that pirell has had some serious safety issues over multiple seasons makes a mockery of 2005 as an excuse for anybody but Michelin.

I’m not seeing how Michelins problems at one race would prevent this? It’s not like Pirelli hasn’t had multiple races with issues of exploding tyres or concerns about it happening. Sure, Michelin might still be shy but it wouldn’t prevent another company if the deal was right.

People always talk about the Pirelli claim of tyres lasting all race, which misses the point on both what I want for the rule change and Pirells statement. Tyres for race cars are a balance between performance and lifespan.

Do you really think that Pirelli could make an all out tyre that could lap at a qualifying pace for an entire race? It’s not a cost free benefit, the tyres they talk about are going to be slower. Besides we still have the two compound rule, so it’s pointless for the to make them.

Tyres that last an entire race would be slower than ones that do not. With out tyre competition it’s the same for everyone so who is more kind on tyres, such as a team with bags of performance in the bank, has a big advantage in the race. With competition between tyres you can claw back performance at the expense of laps per tyre lifespan.

The current quali tyres often cannot even do a full lap flat out, that is pathetic and down to policy not tyre limitations as the policy for false competition has gone too far. It has also made the tyres too hard to understand for all teams and made the cars too sensitive to conditions.

There is a significant scalp market for the limited release Porsche and other premium cars in the UK. Its not uncommon to double your money on some cars just for sitting in the queue for the car for 12 months or so from using a small deposit of say £5k.

Hard part is getting on the list to buy one, you need to be in good standing with the dealer from purchasing a lot of cars, which most scalpers are. You can then sell the place on the waiting list, or finance the car, run it for a short period if you want, then sell it for a big profit.

Whole point is to scrap that stupid rule. Its a hold over when the cars had too big a performance gap between the top and bottom.

Reintroduce another tyre supplier on top of Pirelli forcing competition rather than the artificial throttling of tyre life we get now in order to make racing closer. I am sick of Pirelli being told what to do with tyres to introduce competition. Lets have the cars being able to max out the tyres for longer. Make it mandatory that the grid is evenly split between brands and not by PU.

It was bad during Michaels time with Bridgestone as Bridgestone only made tyres for Michael and Michael tested endlessly to provide data to improve the tyres (and rest of the car). Testing is limited now, although we will probably need a few testing days just for tyres over and above the current schedule.

Its also a terrible way of reducing charging time for anything that doesn’t have an enormous battery like an electric Lorry/Semi. Even then its like 30 minutes for 70% charge for the Tesla Semi, which is roughly the same as a mandated break anyway for the driver.

What is more useful is making sure all EV batteries are easily swappable by third parties as this will massively extend the lifespan of EVs if you do not need to go back to the main dealer for a much marked up battery replacement when the cars battery stops holding a useful amount of charge past the 10 year mark.