You don't hear this much because people don't want to admit it but its almost always possible to remove these things with a bit of effort and maybe some lube.
I think if there’s a positive to be taken from COVID-19 it’s that we have time now for reflection. I think many of us have neglected human connection in our lives and COVID is exposing just how lonely we are. I am sure it’s difficult being alone but it’s also a chance to think about what you value most. A serious question: should we rely on work for a social outlet? Should we instead try to become more a part of the communities where we live rather than where we work?
In my case I had a strong community outside of work: local theatre. Unfortunately that's now dead and likely to be amongst the very last things to return. I've seen a lot of friends since lockdown lifted but it's not the same as the regular rehearsals and annual shows and socials to look forward to.
Not raced cars but raced motorcycles and the very real difference is the vast sensory overload when you’re approaching corners, while in traffic, late braking trying to overtake, trying to stay in the power, being in the right gear, while protecting. By the way all of this is on the edge of your ability, you walk a line crossing back and forth between triumph and catastrophe. The heat is a very real thing and really wears you down physically and mentally. While physically able there were times I approached corners in traffic at very high speeds when my brain felt overloaded like I couldn’t process quickly enough everything that’s happening. My speed was more limited by my brain getting used to the speed than it was to ability to lean, apex, etc... In the real world there is physical danger and real significant consequences to making a mistake. A mistake can end your life. In a game you just lose.
Interesting, as I'm on the opposite end of that one. I've never found sensory overload to be a significant issue in anything I've flown/driven/ridden/raced (including motorcycles). The fastest stuff has required a session or three for my brain to come to grips with the rate of sensory input and get fully on top of it, but after that it's never been an issue and it normalizes to no longer being stimulating just for the sake of the thrill of speed. (Which isn't to say there isn't something fast enough to saturate my brain's ability to process my sensory inputs.) Rather, it's the competition and pursuit of excellence that keeps it interesting.
What I will say is that maintaining full situational awareness and keeping my racecraft sharp is more difficult in a sim, because the quantity and quality of the inputs just aren't as good as the real world.
Sims obviously aren't nearly as physically demanding (though a full-length grand prix will still leave me in a sweat by the end from concentration), but I find I have significantly more mental overhead in the real world as it's far more intuitive. And if the physical risk is a persistent stressor that takes attentional overhead while racing, then congrats, you're wired like a functioning human, not a racing driver!
> In the real world there is physical danger and real significant consequences to making a mistake. A mistake can end your life. In a game you just lose.
Games can also get immersive and your adrenaline pumping. Now I'm not a racing pilot, and have very little track experience, but I know a few people who have, and have a nice setup for iracing at home, which according to them allows them to hone their reaction speed and try out moves and train moves. Yes you remove the physical part, but you do get immersed in the situation.
Point in case, Max Verstappen trained a specific overtake move on the Spa circuit at the Blanchimont corner on iracing with his teammates there [1]. And then he pulled off exactly that same move in a real race [2], which was one ballsy move to pull off irl.
But it's a very good example of the sims allowing them to fail without much risk gives them the possibility to experiment at will, and at least partially train their brains to handle such a situation.
Seriously? What exactly is brilliant about stealing designs? If he was so brilliant, he’d know what to do better or differently. He’d have been able to work around Google’s IP. That’s true brilliance.
Not only is he a thief, by his own admission, but it probably wasn’t the first time he did this. The way he stole the designs he wasn’t worried about getting caught. This is not something someone does for the first time. It’s a pattern of behavior built up over a long time.
I’m seriously worried about the lack of basic morals in technology where behavior like this, like Andy Rubin’s, etc.... goes unpunished because these people are “brilliant.”
I have worked with ex-cons back when I worked in food service, making pizzas for rich suburbanites. I say give him a chance to redeem himself. But I'm a romantic...
I agree that people should have a chance to redeem themselves, but serving time is meant to redeem him in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of the profession or industry.
The onus is on him to demonstrate why his reputation in the industry should be restored.
The problem is that at the level that he was operating at, he would need to reenter industry in a leadership position of some sort, and most people would not trust him as a leader after this.
The ex-cons you worked with didn't have this issue because they probably didn't commit their felonies in food service, but rather in some other criminal situation or enterprise.
Also, fair or not, most people have less sympathy for those who commit felonies after they're already wealthy or powerful, versus people who commit felonies when they are largely poor or powerless. The criminal justice system, however, could be argued to have the exact opposite bias.
I think he will need to try extra hard after this to prove his honesty. But black black ball him entirely? I would still give him a chance. Just my opinion.
He downloaded schematics and pcba designs, documents, etc, onto a thumb drive and transferred those contents outside of Google. Call it whatever you want. It’s called theft.
* The files that Levandowski is alleged to have stolen contain drawings and schematics pertaining to circuitry and LIDAR laser-sensors that were used in Google’s self-driving cars. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine, plus restitution, for every count.*
Why are you pulling from an article from last August? There is news happening in real-time about this with updates. The DOJ dropped all those charges. If they could have proven it they wouldn't have allowed a plea. He was accused not convicted...He plead because he's bankrupt from a civil suit with Google and the DOJ let it drop because their case isn't strong enough. Look at the Fitbit case. And funny enough - GOogle went on to buy them just a few months after.
> agreed to plead guilty on Thursday to taking sensitive documents
> Prosecutors accused Levandowski of stealing materials in late 2015 and early 2016 after deciding to leave Google and form his own company
> I downloaded these files with the intent to use them for my own personal benefit, and I understand that I was not authorized to take the files for that purpose
That's the material in the article. Any hints of said thief's brilliance must be elsewhere, if they exist, and the burden to produce them is on those who would claim they should be given weight.
China’s handling of this is the reason we are all in this situation. They had a chance to contain it and they chose to shut down information that would have stopped the spread. Now the Chinese government are some kind of heroes?
I really don't get this sentiment. China fucked up their initial handling of the situation, but it took over a month for them to figure out that they're dealing with a dangerous new pathogen. These things aren't apparent from the first few cases that get discovered. Meanwhile, the rest of the world had two months of warning about the danger, and we fucked up worse. Blaming China for not containing it is ridiculous and completely unfair - I doubt anyone would've fared better. US handling of the situation in particular proves it would fare even worse (complete with suppression of data).
I race motorcycless and so have some experience with high horsepower small engines. My first thought is I wonder how high the compression is to get this HP with only 3 cylinders? With high compression, everything wears much faster and components like pistons, connecting rods, and bearings need to be replaced at regular intervals for the engine to remain reliable. Additionally frequent oil changes become necessary as the oil breaks down more quickly under these conditions and metal shavings from wear build up in the oil. Things like connecting rods become stressed and need to be replaced at regular intervals for the engine to remain reliable.
I’d imagine that the Konigsegg buyer probably doesn’t care about maintenance costs but they might be irritated at the service intervals.
Interesting that they use the mean of the absolute value instead of root-mean-square as in other sinusoidal applications (63.7% of the peak value vs. 70.7% for RMS).
RMS has all sorts of interesting properties, being directly proportional to effects that result from the square of the quantity being measured such as force on the connecting rods or acceleration of the piston, but mean piston speed is easier to calculate from familiar quantities to an automotive engineer like stroke and RPM. I wonder if engine longevity is actually proportional to mean piston speed or RPM, it would be easy to mistake the 7% difference given all the confounding factors...
If they're only different by a constant factor, then both have the same interesting properties and neither is much more difficult to calculate than the other -- at least for sinusoids.
If something is proportional to one, it's naturally proportional to the other.
Almost anyone on this website could answer better than me for this, was always weak in math, but I believe they differ by a constant factor for a sine, but for a more complex waveform they will not (well, the amount they vary by would be different for each waveform).
It's true that the factor between RMS vs peak-to-peak is different for e.g. a sine vs a sawtooth wave, but for other waveforms its still a constant (just a different one), and for this engine it should be just about a sine wave anyway.
And Formula 1 engines are only meant to last hours (yes really, most engines don't even last one season), albeit at ridiculously high stress levels.
If we extrapolate from this, where high performance drag cars typically last minutes (20 years ago they only lasted seconds), that would mean this engine might only be good for a couple of hours of driving around the track. Assuming this is true (I am not saying it is), this engine would be pretty worthless for anything other than being a collector's item or being used for 1 or 2 races before it had to be retired.
and F1 tires only last a few laps. it’s all designed in. the F1 engines don’t expire in a few races because they can’t build them more robust, they expire in a few races because the rules require them to last that long. they could last all season (yes, with same performance) if they were required to do so.
Indeed. Back in the days they used to weld the cylinder heads to the engine block before qualifying, so they could run it that bit harder to get that extra bit of performance. Obviously not something that increases the lifespan of the engine...
Similarly in current F1, they know quite well how much life they have of the engine, and how much life a quali lap takes from the engine compared to a calm outlap.
If the regulations mandated a single engine per season they could do it, though they'd mostly just turn everything down.
I'd be surprised that they could build tires to go on for 22 GPs with the same performances, but who knows. The goal was raw speed when there were multiple manufacturers. The only year with a rule to forbid tyre changes during a race was 2005. Maybe you remember that Indianapolis GP with only 6 cars racing because thr banking destroyed the tires of the other manufacturer (which won all the other GPs.)
7 races per engine including Saturday practice and qualifying. It's about 5 hours per weekend times 7. 35 hours, which a commuter car does in about 10 days.
> yes really, most engines don't even last one season
"Even" one season? If they last more than one race it means they didn't push it hard enough so it makes sense that the engine last just marginally more than the race.
The new rules set the limit at 3 engines per season, which is 21 races plus testing. So it's a balancing act, but you definitely need to reuse the engine for more than 1 race.
And for those not in the know, a F1 race is ~305km, and they have do two days of practice plus qualifying in a race weekend using the engines they have (same engine for qualifying as for racing). There's some more detail in this[1] article, where they point out the Mercedes F1 engine did over 3000 miles (~4900km) during pre-season testing without issues (most in race-like conditions).
That said, from my impression it is usually the turbo or the hybrid systems that break down, it's rare for the actual engine block to be the issue barring specific production issues.
Koenigsegg Gemera use their direct drive system, with only one gear. So the engine will only see max revs when you're traveling at top speed, which will probably be quite rare since it's 400 km/h (249 mph).
Cars in the class of Koenigseggs are actually rarely driven, things like wear and tear are often not a concern at all, what's more important is exclusivity and exotic-ness. Maintenance is something a buyer in this class doesn't even consider in my experience.
I'm curious if it will be adopted. I assume cost is a big issue. Hyundai considered it, but decided to roll their own (of course they were already pretty invested in their own technology, but Hyundai is known for reliability and Koenigsegg is not).
Exactly. VVT (variable valve timing) was promising for decades, starting back from the early 1900, then in the 1980's VTEC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTEC ) was much more promising, and now this. The delay between each major step is approximately half the previous one, let's plan for a new one in ~20 years.
1.0 litre 3 cyl petrol engine in my car makes 120hp and gets 50mpg extra urban. It has dynamic servicing and first service is currently shown as 550 days away. Obviously the 2.0 konigsegg makes 5 times the HP, but maybe double the cylinder volume and half the service time and you can ramp up the compression enough to multiply the hp by 5?
That's relatively low hp for the displacement, so it's harder to extrapolate.
For another comparison the 3 cylinder 765cc engine from Triumph (street version) does about 120 or 125 with a red line of 12.5k if I recall correctly. In racing form (i.e. the moto2 engine version) it pushes about 140 (I think mostly via tuning and a bit higher red line). This is naturally aspirated but probably a good rough guestimate for bounds of what you can do on regular fuel and air. This also shows you why just ramping up the compression won't get you there, you need to change the air pressure too.
For the street version of the triumph engine the service interval is something like 10k miles, valves every 2nd one.
If you scale that linearly you still "only" get close to 350 , so you have an idea of how much stress is on this design to push 600 on 2l.
By comparison the inline 4s in motogp make 250+ from 1 liter, so that's getting closer. They do probably represent something close to what is possible without induction though.
> If you scale that linearly you still "only" get close to 350 , so you have an idea of how much stress is on this design to push 600 on 2l.
-Removed, I misunderstood the original post, still you can design an engine with more power if torque requirements are low, and they claim 280hp at 2l which is a lot but doable if you don't intent to run it like a roadcar and have infinite budget like with those super/hypercars-
Agree low torque requirements help, which has a lot to do with the rest of the drivetrain, i.e. how you want to actually deliver power and at what speeds.
It’s also a high rpm motor, which will still require lower tolerances and better materials. I don’t recall but don’t higher rpms have a lower rate of wear than higher compression?
Tolerances are like margins of error. As the error range goes down, the exactness of the specification goes up. Or as the others said, the precision.
If it makes you feel any better, I have to pause for a beat any time I try to put an adjective in front of 'tolerances' to make sure I don't sound like a dope.
The cylinders are especially large, but the displacement is still only 2ℓ. I think the unusually high horsepower for a 2ℓ engine is not just because of high compression but also because ⓐ they normally run it at especially high revs, like your motorcycles; ⓑ they run it on a two-stroke cycle at low speeds, up to 3krpm; and ⓒ they optimized it to run on alcohols, which as you know have lower energy density but are better at keeping the engine cool.
Car oil can get additives that motorcycles cannot get because the engine and transmission share oil. Friction modifier can extend effective oil lifespan. 600 hp also requires e85.
It would be good but not sure that radiologists are the dominant cost. Radiological equipment is heavily regulated because it can cause significant harm to people if the equipment malfunctions.
I think the GP is suggesting that as soon as you are moderating speech, a powerful moderating authority can quickly lose trust by deleting discussions. Or it could be that the moderating authority already is untrusted so deletions legitimate or not are always suspect.
I think you’ve missed the point now twice. It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption. The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP.
I've only responded once so I don't know how you figure I missed the point twice.
> It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption.
The top poster made a claim of fact, that anti-misinformation rules were used as a front to silence criticism. Whether that fact is true or not is the point I'm interested in. I get that you're interested in something else, but I'm not. You get to be interested in what you want, but you don't get to claim that the top poster said something other than what they did.
> The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP.
Big assumption. If the moderator has acted in good faith and whatshisface still doesn't trust them, that may say more about whatshisface than the moderator.
