Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by DeeJayOne

  1. Lots of dramatic views here.


    For me, it is what it is.


    The most controversial thing in my mind is that they maybe did a couple of laps to fulfil contractural obligation of having a classified event (sponsors, promoters, etc). The ramifications outside of this would affect the promoters, FIA and even the teams and drivers (remember, teams and drivers have sponsors and have to fulfil the obligations to their sponsors for a classified event too — there’s very little chance of any legal challenge around the championship based on points at the end of the season because it would open EVERYONE up to potential action or loss of revenue, including the teams). I reckon some promoters or linked organisations would go under in the current climate if full refunds had to be given all round.


    What can’t be argued is that it was unsafe to start the race ‘proper’ (without a safety car). So, fundamentally the right decision was made. They ran as much of the ‘race’ as they safely could in the circumstances.


    The FIA are now looking at the rules and have added it as an agenda item at the next big FIA meeting, so hopefully something will be done for the long term, but as things stand there is little argument that it was, in reality, the right thing to do.



  2. 2 hours ago, Ellis Rimmer said:

    Ok I'll give it another try


    A computer expert or team of experts made a computer program, where if you ran it on your computer your computer could find you what they called a bitcoin - which was intended as a currency


    It became popular and people actually started using these bitcoins they found as a currency


    Every time a bitcoin was found it became harder to find the next bitcoin, so at first a computer by itself could find a bitcoin, but as it became progressively harder it has evolved to what we have nowadays-a load of computers are needed to find one bitcoin 




    That's a better, more concise explanation! 



    It is important to note that Bitcoin was created to be totally decentralised and not controlled by any person, state or entity. The idea is to democratise currency on a worldwide level.


    Effectively, Bitcoin controls Bitcoin. It runs on a 'blockchain' system. Every computer connected and mining is also validating every transaction to prevent fraud and other issues (some of the complex computing problems being calculated are validations of the system, integrity and transactions, etc).


    It is really complex, as you'd expect for something like this... so it does take a lot to get your head around it and it is understandable people don't understand it properly (I'm not sure I do totally!).



    • Like 1
  3. 12 minutes ago, BIG D said:

    Thanks but I'm struggling to be honest




    I'll try simpler... 😬


    - There are really, really, REALLY complex mathematical equations that need to be solved to advance computing and computer science, etc (among other things). These are pretty much the most complicated mathematical equations ever attempted and constantly get harder and harder (as one equation is solved it creates more complex equations).

    - To solve these problems really powerful computers are needed to constantly run software to work them out. These equations can take literally years to solve even with the most powerful computers of our time.

    - In order to reward people for having their computers run these problems for such a long time, a bitcoin is awarded if your machine is the first to solve a problem.

    - Bitcoin is then used as a currency, etc, so has an intrinsic value to reward people for using their computers to constantly run and solve these problems.



    To put it in context, I think on average now it takes the more powerful computers of our time around 5 years to achieve one bitcoin.... so imagine the power needed to constantly run a massively powerful computer at its maximum computing power (and all the fans/cooling needed to stop it from overheating) for five years... Then expand that out to huge warehouses of 'mining farms'. That's the environmental problem we face with it.



  4. 34 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:



    Is it really economically viable to run these mining farms?





    Thats the big question... and one that is growing in intensity.



    The big hit to Bitcoin's price in the last year came after Elon Musk denounced Bitcoin and Tesla stopped taking it as payment when they realised how bad the whole thing was for the environment (that's after Musk and Telsa essentially pumped the price beforehand though... but that's another longer story!).



    • Thanks 1
  5. OK, in a simplistic manner (it can be far more complicated that this, of course).


    You can 'mine' Bitcoin electronically using a computer... think if it like getting a reward for being the first to solve a really complicated mathematic problem.


    So, people connect their computers to the Bitcoin blockchain (network) and it is constantly running equations that are solving various problems to improve computing and/or even just running the network itself (processing transactions, etc). If your computer is the first to solve a problem, then you get rewarded a Bitcoin for the effort.


    The problems get more-and-more complicated over time as things are solved and newer more difficult equations are then discovered, so essentially more power (i.e. more powerful processors and the power drawn by them from the grid) is needed to then solve the more complicated problems... hence the concerns that mining Bitcoin is actually damaging the environment due to the sheer draw on electricity grids.


    People buy more and more expensive processors or GPUs to run the problems (there are even companies that have set up giant 'mining farms' or warehouses full of specially built processing computers made just for mining bitcoin — this is pretty much the only way to mine bitcoin effectively nowadays, rather than the days of home computers doing the work) so more power is consumed, creating more difficult mathematical problems to solve which in turn requires more power... its kind of like a never-ending chain of self-propogating issues in that respect. It has even led to a worldwide shortage of the necessary components (which has led to a massive price spike in things like GPUs, which in turn has led to things like the shortages of the new Playstation 5/Xbox consoles, etc).


    ...again, this is a simplistic kind of explanation, but hopefully that makes a little sense?



    • Thanks 1
  6. 2 hours ago, Screen Door Slams said:


    Yeah , i know they have live bands on at night in the church house , any idea if they have a DJ Saturday afternoons like the Yorkhireman used to ?


    I'm not sure it is a regular thing on Saturday afternoons, but they do have DJs on at various times.


    There's always good music on in there at pretty much any time though.



  7. 5 minutes ago, darklord said:


    F1 is bonkers organisationally. 

    You got F1 itself but even a spring body then the fia. Then you have teams by some have vetos, etc.. 

    Quite messy r0eally


    Can't argue with that to be honest.


    I was more talking about "in race" decisions, but you're right... overall there is a mess there. 



  8. There's also a limited pool of ex-drivers who are willing to spend a GP weekend cooped up in a small room assessing multitudes of footage and telemetry data instead of enjoying the GP weekend or doing other things following retirement...


    ...BUT, they find an ex-driver for EVERY race.



  9. And at the risk of monopolising the thread, here’s another “also…”



    • Like 1
  10. 7 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

    I’ve totally forgotten who the driver steward was this last weekend. I want to say Pirlo, but I’m almost certain it wasn’t Pirlo…. A similar name perhaps?

    Quoting myself here… 😬


    It was Pirro:



  11. I’ve totally forgotten who the driver steward was this last weekend. I want to say Pirlo, but I’m almost certain it wasn’t Pirlo…. A similar name perhaps?

  12. 9 hours ago, Roy Of The Roasters said:


    I'm happy to go on record as saying that Lewis was more at fault than Max. But probably only in the ratio 60 : 40.


    The thing is that we as viewers have the luxury of time and detailed information to consider these things. We get to see multiple replays. We get to see more replays of the incident from different angles. We get the TV commentators analysis of the incident. We get frame by frame views of the collision while the commentators describe exactly what happened. Basically, we have plenty of time to review, absorb and understand what happened. For Lewis, though, this all happened in a matter of seconds while he and Max were literally wheel to wheel racing, and he was hardly in a position to crunch the numbers.


    Personally, I think the stewards decision was a good one and the penalty (the second lightest available to them) was appropriate, whatever RB claim to the contrary.

    As a Lewis fan, this is totally my point of view too. Full agreement from me.


    8 hours ago, darra said:

    The thing to remember is that the stewards have lots more information at hand to make their decisions. I still think it was a racing incident. That's why as I said earlier there should be ex drivers on the stewards panel. It's ok looking at streams of data and videos but they would know what they would do and how they'd react in such situations holding the steering wheel.

    There is always a former driver on the stewards panel.


    4 hours ago, darra said:



    Another opinion


    They say that your peers are the best judge and in this case that is the other drivers. Other than connections of Red Bull there does not seem to have been any condemnation from the other drivers that Hamilton was totally at fault. 
         The other drivers were in fact seen congratulating him on his win including Charles Leclerc who Hamilton had just pipped for the race win. 
         They must all have seen replays of the incident during the lengthy suspension of the race to have formed an opinion.
         So far this season in the previous races one of the two has been much more aggressive than the other one and that one has not been Lewis Hamilton.
          The condemnation by Red Bull of the racist abuse aimed at Lewis Hamilton has something of a hollow ring taken in the context of the language used by Christian Horner in particular after the incident. I know feelings were running high but that is the time to carefully consider the words. 
          To say that Hamilton is a "desperate" & "dirty driver" has no basis in fact given that Hamilton has driven 1000's of Qualifying & 1000's of Race Laps in his racing career and there have been no suggestions whatsoever that he would intentionally take another driver out of the race in the way that a couple of former World Champions would and did not hesitate to do.


    I think it is ridiculous to suggest *current* drivers have a say in the potential disciplinary actions of a *current* race.


    Theres so much politics and bias behind the scenes that would just make it a farce.


    Personally I think the current set up that ensures at least one former driver on the stewards panel for every race is pretty sufficient — and for the most part the stewards get it right.


    It frustrates me when people say, for instance, there were “too many penalties” applied in the previous race — there were a number of penalties simply because there were a number of infractions. Similarly, the stewards on this occasion ruled based on their interpretation of the rules, with the input of a former driver on the panel. Fair play for me.



    A few years ago people were complaining about the stewards and FIA being “Ferrari International Assistance” or Ferrari-biased. They weren’t. They were just applying the rules on a case-by-case basis based on the interpretations of the time. They were often completely correct when you drill into it.



    Now, if the argument is that the rules need changing for various reasons (which would be fair), then the teams have the power to try to instigate those changes. 

    BUT, complaining on this occasion was for emotional reactions and mindset reasons and not based on interpreting the rules in my opinion. Some teams want to try and influence the ‘ref’, so to speak… and likewise some teams want to get into the heads of close rivals if possible and influence the points going forwards if they can. It makes F1 fun and interesting… and we’re still talking and debating about it now, so something must be workingabout it. 😉

  13. 18 hours ago, scram said:

    Don't understand why it doesn't count as an official pole position?


    Same qualifying criteria as other races so it should count imo


    I know the sprint is the decider of grid positions for the gp but just seems odd


    One of the big challenges they have been facing in creating this format is that they do not want to take away from the 'prestige' of the Sunday full race.



  14. 37 minutes ago, trev said:

    Great lap by Hamilton.


    But..wow..that Q2 lap by Russell with all the fans cheering was epic.


    Really enjoyed that. 




    New rumour is that Bottas has signed up to move to Rallying next year. 😮



  15. 34 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

    Saying on F1 Qualifying just now that Russell is about to be confirmed as Hamiltons partner at Merc next season. 


    Toto was asked and he said their line up will be confirmed before the summer break (after Spa), but he didn't deny it. 


    Did you see the Russell interview on The F1 Show?


    Basically said there wasn't going to be an announcement this weekend, but when pressed wouldn't deny it. Interestingly used the same line as Bottas last week "I'll have Mercedes power behind me".




  • Create New...