|
No, but when you see something repeatedly, and in a variety of series, you tend to take notice. There are certain things you come to expect from particular types of corners, for instance.
Also, I'm suspicious that some of the simulation programs, and the assumptions of a lot of people, are based on treating the cars as point particles. The trouble is, you really screw up your sums when you do that. If you're literally right on the bumper of the guy ahead of you, the time gap from the transponders is already indicating a one-car-length difference at whatever speed you're going.
In the case that you're one length behind the guy's bumper for a 45-mph corner, and then on straight, you reach 180 mph, ignoring getting a better exit or the slipstream, that physical gap will grow to seven lengths between your front and his rear. That's why it's not necessarily so great having a slow corner leading onto the main straight. (Obviously, with street circuits, you make the best of what's available to you.)
I was kind of surprised by Whincup's comments though. I mean, it was like he either expected it to be a longer track, or the track was faster than he anticipated, and so the slower corners were coming up quicker than he was thinking.
On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised to see one of the low shots along the run to the hairpin, which showed decidedly more elevation change on that stretch than I was expecting to be able to see.
|