Huge thanks to our partners @Bitdefender for providing us with special access to this legendary race! Find out more about Bitdefender’s two decades of unparalleled cybersecurity excellence: bitdefend.me/StarTalkTA
Thanks Star Talk Family!!! Love this content. Quick question you didn't respond to, G-force vs personal vision and how a driver can see while banging crazy turns. Thanks!
For material science it's cool to talk about how they can create carbon that bends perfectly at speeds to reduce drag yet stay stiff enough to pass thorough tests of rigidity. For aerodynamics, you weren't given the info on their main source of downforce. Through ground effect venturi, tunnels these modern cars create downforce primarily through their floors. Otherwise great and hope you start to enjoy more races.
Correction: Hans doesn't help drivers keep their necks straight, it helps to prevent breakage of the neck in case of a crash. They still use their neck muscles to keep their heads looking in the right direction.
You guys missed an opportunity to talk about the most important part of the aerodynamics. You started to touch on it. But the current formula of cars are ground effect cars. They have giant venturis under the car creating extremely low pressure under the car. Most of the top surface aero shapes are more for channeling the air where they want it to create the greatest delta p between the top and bottom of the car. They have to use air flow on top to seal off the edges of the floor so the air flows clean and fast under the car. The problem that they ran into mostly in the first year of these regulations was what's called porpoising. As the car hits higher speeds the delta p gets so high that the ride height drops so low that the air flow either stalls, or the car hits the track, losing massive amounts of suction, raising the cars ride height, which immediately raises the delta p, pushing the car back into the ground until it hits again. You get a bouncing up and down that was literally injuring drivers.
@@Thisandthat8908 I doubt that Ferrari told them not to mention ground effect. There is no secret about the physics behind it and how much downforce is generated and so on.
The top body aero surface still generate about 40% of the downforce, if I remember correctly but they are even more important as those, and in particular the front wing, can be tweaked during a weekend and allow to create the appropriate aerodynamic balance that makes the car driveable
No it's not. The modern F1 is just FIA making rules to block innovation. They limit the budget, they limit the hours of CFD and wind tunnel, they limit the tests, they limit the power, they limit the number of engines per season etc.
@@nicoladc89 isnt that what makes innovation thrive. if you're limited by a lot of things you're more likely to think outside the box and create something interesting.
This could easily have been a longer video, I hope you're working on a longer version. Glad to see Neil discovering all the engineering and physics that go into F1.
the HANS device - the "neck brace" - has nothing to do with the G-forces whilest driving. it's a safety device to prevent neck injuries in a crash. what you should have pointed out is that F1 drivers all have massive neck muscles because that is what's actually countering the G-forces: pure muscle power.
They missed a great opportunity to show older footage of drivers getting out of cars and being totally exhausted or footage of when the divers head would flop in the turns to demonstrate the force put on the necks and the driver as a whole.
I spent 40 years in Mechanical Engineering Design, but it all came from a love of Physics in school. Absolutely love this crossover approach in Startalk. I feel there are massive opportunities to develop this, as an internet or RUclips educational tool. Much more even than the F1 people do (although that is quite good itself - Tech Talk etc.). Anyone else interested in this? Where could we go from here? Inspiring our future STEM people - Scientists, Technologists, Engineers, Mathematicians.....
There was this show in BBC that Richard Hammond hosted called Engineering Connection where they pick u very popular pop culture (double adjective, I know) items and break down the scientific and engineering elements of it. One of the most popular episodes was when they talk about F1 cars
Having worked at Silverstone as a chef for the last 3 months really opened my eyes to the world of racing. I've been to all the events and watched all the races this year and nothing comes close to the f1 cars on that track. The second best thing was the motor GP. One of the best experiences of my life
@JayRock907 honestly bro I didn't when I first got there. But after spending so much time trackside, seeing all the car races and shows I have a big appreciation for Silverstone and what it represents
@@masonfarnsworth1801 i was literally responding to someone saying babies drink coffee instead of milk from their moms. what are you talking about. crazy mf
The cool thing that surprises a lot of people about F1 cars is that with a normal car, the faster you go through a corner the more likely you are to lose traction because the friction of the tires isn't enough to overcome the momentum. In F1, if you go *too slow* in a corner you're more likely to lose grip because you aren't generating enough downforce for maximum traction.
In the blown diffuser days it was even more dramatic since you needed to push out gases to increase traction, so.. applying throttle literally gave you more grip and letting go of it decreased rear downforce..
It's about getting heat into the tyre, more than downforce. If you push at full throttle on cold tyres, you will spin off, at a speed, you wouldn't on hot tyres.
@@akyhne You definitely need the tires to be warm, but an F1 car also generates enough downforce that if you had an upside-down road, it could drive on it. That much downforce is only generated at higher speeds, and if you lose it you won't have as much weight on the tires in the corners, so it'll be more likely to spin. I know Richard Hammond talked a lot about not having enough heat in the tires when he drove one, and he was right, but he was going *really* slow all the time because he was scared out of his wits (as he should have been). If he'd gone full speed in the straights to keep the tires warm, then slowed down too much for the corners, he'd still have lost grip due to lack of downforce.
Finally!!! Neil talking about cars!! We need more of this! Please do a deep dive into the physics of the automotive industry. As a technician in this field, I know there is so much to explore.
As a fan of star talk and avid fan of F1, this was a great crossover. I was surprised you didn't talk more about ground effects which the current regulations are based on
Great video guys. We were very pleased to see one of our favourite topics featured on one of our favourite channels. A few things: 1) The HANS device is simply a safety item, it isn't used to keep driver's heads from lilting under high G loadings. Drivers spend a lot of time bulking up their neck muscles to deal with sustained lateral forces. 2) There was a time when there were no speed limits in the pitlane. 3) F1 cars/races are seldom conducted at full speed. There are a number of factors that prevent this, including tyre preservation, fuel flow limitations and engine longevity. As a result, races are often won at the slowest speed possible.
I have never thought of that, but as an engineer, I must confirm that we are lost without constraints. If safety was the only constraint, there is a full infinite half-space on the other side of that inequality. Fortunately, we have costs, weight, size, and many other limits.
F1 drivers have massive necks, due to respective physical training, to handle the lateral forces. I visited the F1 Exhibition in London last week. One exhibit compared G forces for different modes of transportation (IIRC, incl. the Space Shuttle). Although only for a split second, an F1 crash (I don't remember the incident/driver and exact number) was measured with several _hundred_ G's. Apart from the physics and material sciences, what surprised me most - engineering-wise - was how tiny the (I assume titanium) bolts are that connect the carbon fiber tub to the - for lack of a better term - engine/gearbox assembly.
7:45 missed opportunity to further explain ground-effect, might be worth it’s own short episode one day. Great example of ground-effect are the Soviet Ekranoplans or micromouse races.
soviet ekranoplans are not using ground effect to generate lift, or to be clear it is called "ground effect" but a completely different phenomenon. F1 car speeds up air beneath it thus lowering partial pressure and creating downforce, whilst ekranoplan takes benefit of a, confusingly same named, ground effect that creates higher partial pressure under the wing and thus creates lift.
the ground effect of ekranoplans and the ground effect used in f1 are not the same. ekranoplans produce lift in the same way as an aircraft except that it is more efficient as a result of it being very close to the ground. since it is more efficient it needs relatively smaller wings. thats the ground effect being referred to in that case.
It's about time you talk about the biggest science contest in the world. This is the greatest combination of science and physical skill on planet Earth...
@8:02-8:33 Correction: In that specific incident (2023 Las Vegas GP, Carlos Sainz) it wasn't actually a manhole or drain cover like was widely reported at the time, and the car's vacuum effect didn't suck it up like you've described (although such a thing can and has occurred in other races). It was a much smaller diameter object without a removeable cover: the head of a water shutoff valve. It protruded slightly above the paved track surface, enough that Sainz' car's floor struck it head-on. The aerodynamic forces did push the car down closer to the track surface and did likely play a role in the incident. just not in the way that is described.
Thank you for clarifying that. As a 50 year F1 fan I get high blood pressure when the facts about F1 are distorted or ignored just to dumb down the story "so people can understand it".
@@JoelNekritz-te3gl Well this exact thing has happened as recently as 2019 Azerbaijan GP with George Russell, see watch?v=F5f87xjg-m4 It's just that it's not what happened this time.
@@lonestranger It was a flat 12" cover that should have been welded down. There were a number of them that had to be inspected, which is why it took so long. There isn't going to be something sticking up on a race track, much less an FIA F1 spec track.
Ground effect creates faster moving air under the car and lower pressure here, leading to a further increase in down force.... not lift as you and your graphic would suggest. A F1car creates more down force than it weighs and therefore it is said could be driven upside down at over 150mph.
I think what they meant is the car sucks the ground up. Which is the same thing as pushing the car down. Yeah, the animation in the video is not very good.
Please watch this part of the video again. In the graphic they are clearly talking about the upwards force things on the ground (such as manhole covers) are experiencing due to the low pressure. They are physicists, they of course know what downforce is and that it pushes the car down. They literally explain it with the upside down airplane wing analogy.
@@coin5207 they literally say the floor drags air with it bruh they can be physicists but they now nothing about aerodynamics, also they say they add downforce on the rain just on the rear to have more traction on the rear wheels💀
@@Sbinott0 "They can be physicists but they know nothing about aerodynamics" My guy do you not know aerodynamics is a subfield of physics?? Fluid dynamics is something covered by every undergraduate physics degree. "They say the floor drags the air with it" - yes?? What problem do you have with this statement? The underfloor is specifically designed to accelerate the air below it along with the movement of the car which you could describe as "dragging" the air with it - obviously there are probably more technical terms but the purpose of this video is to explain these things to the average person in simple terms "They said they add downforce on the rain just on the rear" Well they were probably told by the Ferrari person the team brings specific high downforce rear wings for wet races (which is for traction on the rear tires). And then assumed that is the only thing the team does. It is incorrect but them being physicists would not give some big advantage in knowing this since it's an F1 car specific thing, road cars won't have anything more advanced to adjust than maybe a rear wing if it's a sports car. As opposed to the other two things mentioned which are clearly about physics. Describing this as an "error fest" is just inaccurate. You will hear comparable mechanics related mistakes and what not on a normal f1 broadcast when pundits or anyone who isn't an engineer speculates about the cars
11:29 "the piano has 88 keys and, within those 88 keys, *I'm* infinite. But in an infinite keyboard there's no music you can play: that's god's piano" (1900 - the legend of the pianist on the ocean)
I got to race Silverstone maybe 10 years ago in a Caterham R300 (which I rented as part of a track experience) for a full day of just going around and trying to go faster and faster. At the start of the day I was overwhelmed by the car (also because it was drizzling), and by the end of the day I wish I had at least twice the power. Still, the experience emphasized how unimaginable F1 speeds really are.
@StarTalk Neil, we have relationships with cars in NYC... They just usually happen to be cheap Honda Civics poorly built (not by engineers) screaming around the Bronx lol. Fantastic show here, and glad you got to experience the joy (and science) behind F1.
F1 is a unique science project for each of the teams. Starting with the boundaries set by the rules and regulations, which one engineer (I think it was Adrian Newey) who said he reads the rules and regs twice, first time to see what they say and again to see what they don't say. The cars are designed and built by each team to meet the limitations set by those parameters. It's the best engineers who can design the most efficient car to operate within the rules and maximising their design around any loopholes that they have uncovered in the rule book. With some teams employing over one thousand people in the design and production of each car and the participation in 26 races all over the world, the devotion and commitment by all those involved is inspiring.
I love how they covered a point I thought about when they mentioned space exploration vs F1. The feats in space flights are incredible, but Formula 1 teams have to make a new car every few years and it has to be better than at least 9 other equally as motivated teams. In the 60's, space flight was far more advanced than F1, but today, I am sure aerodynamic development in F1 is far more impressive because of their sheer efficiency. Whereas NASA can spend decades getting a single project to completion, F1 teams have had to learn to work much more effectively. I think if F1 teams had a space program, it would move space exploration technology to a whole new level. With that said, people work at their best on passion projects and it's unlikely F1 engineers would find the same passion in a space program as they do a competitive sport.
@@trance9158 I highly doubt there's any significant overlap, and even if there is, the work philosophy remains completely different. NASA is not known for being a particularly efficient entity in terms of development. All 10 F1 teams put together operate on less than 5% of NASA's budget this year. This isn't because there's something wrong with NASA either, they're in different worlds. F1 is a top-level competitive sport where any efficiency gain is a potential advantage over your opponents. NASA is a collaborative science project, where safety and accuracy are primordial. That doesn't mean there aren't things they can learn from each other's journey.
@trance9158 there are thousands of engineers in F1, there must be some. But I doubt it's a particularly significant proportion of all the engineers in F1.
The physics of Formula One racing is fascinating, especially when it comes to the G-forces that drivers experience, which even draw parallels to concepts in astrophysics. As these cars navigate high-speed corners, accelerate, and brake, drivers can experience lateral G-forces exceeding 5 Gs meaning they feel a force five times their body weight pushing them sideways. This is similar to the forces astronauts experience during rocket launches and re-entries, where they face extreme accelerations. In F1, these forces result from the incredible grip provided by the tires, downforce from the aerodynamics, and the immense speeds the cars can achieve. Managing these forces requires cars to be engineered for stability and drivers to be in peak physical condition, as sustaining such forces over long periods is extremely taxing on the body. It’s a true testament to the interplay of physics, human endurance, and the extreme conditions seen in both motorsport and space exploration.
As a huge fan of F1 and Astronomy/Star Talk this was very cool to see, and i would love to maybe see an f1 engineer on startalk as a subject matter expect in the future? The few little snippets we were able to listen in to as you were talking in the garage were quite interesting, how cool it would be if it was in the shape of a usual 1-hour-ish episode!
There's a fair bit of physics to explore here. It's definitely worth it to explore more of the science and engineering principles driving the shape and performance of race cars since they are, as you said, science projects.
If I wasn't already disappointed enough that I couldn't go to the Grand Prix, now I'm finding out that I may have seen the two of you there as well.... It is a cruel cruel world at times. Loved the vid though as Always. More F1 science please, Pretty please.. Thank you.
The length of the car helps the driver correct oversteer easier. If the rear spoiler loses the downforce battle with the mechanical grip of the rear-tires during cornering, centrifugal force takes over and the car spins. The longer the car is, the more time the driver has to correct the spin.
The HANS Device around not only F1 Drivers but in many motorsport series, is designed to stop the separation of the skull from the spine as in Dale Earnhardt’s crash that sadly killed him. With the G Forces the drivers train there necks for the stresses it put on there body and you will find they have padding in the cockpit so that the drivers rest there heads when there struggling with there necks, it happens especially with rookies. The monocoque cell of an F1 Car is designed to be compact and designed to a high standard of safety.
Before Nigel Mansell became a World Champion driving for Williams, he drove for Lotus. Colin Chapman at Lotus realized that 'ground effects', the Bernoulli effect under the car that suck them down onto the track, was a terrific opportunity to make his cars faster. He, and his design team, built their first 'ground effects' car and took it to a track to test it. But the drivers could not take the corners faster, until one of the designers convinced Mansell that if he drove quicker through the corner than he thought possible, the ground effect would hold the car down. Mansell was brave enough to try and was immediately 10 mph faster than his team mate who didn't have that confidence in the designers arguments. Truly great drivers have big balls!
@5:54 THIS! This right here will sky rocket my opinion of someone way more then if everything they say is 100% true and really intelligent. They ability and willingness to admit they did not know or even though the opposite after learning something new.
I want Neil to dive deeper into ground effect specifically because that’s what these generation of cars are using which hasn’t been seen in f1 for a few decades.
@@vickramgangaram2925 I never said it was banned, there were just different regulations up until 2022 where true ground effect cars are back again which are way different to the previous cars prior to 22
@@nateflores8160 oh I didn't read that last bit properly. I'm assuming you're talking about the current undertray having a curvature to it like the late 70s early 80s era.
Good afternoon (night or day, wherever you are), Neil and Chat - today was easy, love your show, and love F1 since I was 6 year old, on 1966 - thank you for the "double deal"
This was a really cool and fun format. I hope you guys can continue this in the future. Sort of like field trips to different activities and explaining the physics as they apply. Well done! 😊
Fun fact: The shuttle (as a metric) would do a max of 3gs during liftoff. If you got the the fair and get the chance to ride a ride called 'The Gravitron', it does 3gs as well. Its also sustained. So, you can experience the same G load as the astronauts in the shuttle during takeoff. Personal, I love Gs. I can't say to what degree. I've done, maybe, 4gs (just a guess) max my entire life, so I dont know what it would take for me to blackout. That being said: If given the choice, I'd rather test my limits and increase Gs until I blacked out...then have to go negative Gs at all. Even 0G, like freefall.... ugh, makes me feel sick. The only rollercoaster I like is the original (as in the prototype from Knoxberry Farms) Corkscrew, since the the entire thing, except the initial drop, is all positive Gs or close to 1G. so, I get that sick (other find it exciting but I'm odd, I suppose 😂) feeling from the drop, but then the rest of the ride is a blast and feels super enjoyable. Every other coaster.... pure torture to me. All of them. The log flume is literally to low of a G experience for me. I can do it...but it doesn't feel good. 😂 It's a 10'-20' drop, maybe? ....and I'd rather ride the inverted coaster (with a, something like, 30' drop) a dozen times, rather than the log flume once. 😂
The least seen and commentated element of F1 is the power unit. Its there in plain sight but you never see the close up and partly disassembled elements. And the floor.
I'm surprised you misunderstood the airflow under the car. It does not generate lift: quite the opposite. Most of the downforce acting on current F1 cars comes from the underfloor, specifically the venturi-effect tunnels that create a partial vacuum by accelerating the airflow. The manhole cover was sucked up because of the negative pressure under the car.
I would love to see a video about Top Fuel races. It’s completely nuts. They are so away from the box in which every other motor sport is. An they are the king of G’s - 6 and acceleration 0 - 530 kmh in under 4 seconds!
@@pawewielgus2105 They average ~4 for a few seconds, 5 with the chute. F1 only does ~2g accelleration, but hits lateral peaks of ~7 , sustained ~3-5 in many corners, 6+ g under braking - many times per lap; lap after lap for 2 hours. A bit more of a g workout..
I’m surprised there were no mentions and explainers of the ground effect used in these cars which one of the main distinctive features of this era of formula one cars
Buffs there's a lot of misinformation and misconceptions here... HANS it's not for Turning G forces, the driver have to deal with those, and they're trained to deal with those for almost 2 hours 😅 The Hans it's for crashing, when they crash, they can have peaks of 200Gs The aerodynamics it's not only for the rear tyres, it's for the front tyres as well, they have to press the whole car against the floor with a balance, if you overload your rear tyres, the front end of the car wasn't going to turn at the speed you wanna turn And if your overload your front tyres the rear will become loose and harder to control, hence, slower lap times
I never followed sports and what Neil said at the end is exactly why I love F1 now. It's a huge science project that somehow beautifully works like rockets and our computer systems among many other things. Beautiful
@@Hawatree Yeah but most of the grid is, so he is not wrong. Karting costs at the very least around 10k a year as a hobby - this is if you acquire everything second hand and try to be as cheap as possible. When you climb the ladder, the rises and rises, probably to around a 100k a season. Obviously you try to get as many sponsors as possible, but I don't how realistic that is for a no name kid. So let's be honest here, very few people can put that much money to their kid's hobby. It only get more expensive from there in the single seaters. We are talking about millions for one season at the F2 level if you get that far. Obviously for the best talent around the idea is to get into an F1 academy team as soon as possible. But the bottom line is, it's probably not possible for families who do not have the top 1 % wealth. Lewis Hamilton came up the ranks 30 years ago and his family had to sacrifice a lot. Probably is not possible these days. Fact is that only very, very, very few people even start karting due the cost. It's a realistic hobby for people like Kimi Räikkönen's son lol.
I've notice the star talk project (or _enterprise_ if you prefer) has stepped out its game lately. It's been a lot more professional, more focused on ads, merch and patreon, which I'm all favorable to, and the results are showing. The content is shifting from an almost amateur-ish looking youtuber thing to something like, professional studio and stuff. I hope it grows a lot. One of my fav channels.
Oh my Dear Lord . . . I never thought of I was going to be able to see 2 of my favorite shows joined together in one video Star Talk and Formula1 . . . Now imagine an episode with Star Talk hosts and Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond (I know the retired already , but you know) . . . Oh boy !!!
12:19 getting really sick of the misrepresentation of this statistic. You are at full throttle for 60% of the lap DISTANCE, not 60% of the lap duration. Considering the vastly disproportional amount of distance covered when at full throttle vs when on the brakes (which transfer far MORE energy in much LESS distance), this isn't the glorious stat that they propose it to be. It's just basic math. Yes Silverstone is a speedy track, but I wish they would use proper terminology when describing it.
Huge thanks to our partners @Bitdefender for providing us with special access to this legendary race! Find out more about Bitdefender’s two decades of unparalleled cybersecurity excellence: bitdefend.me/StarTalkTA
1:05 And Ferrari also sponsored by Palintir, which has a goal of breaking Bitdefender's security. Kind of.
Neil should watch Sam the Tech analyst on F1tv he might enjoy it a lot
Thanks Star Talk Family!!! Love this content. Quick question you didn't respond to, G-force vs personal vision and how a driver can see while banging crazy turns. Thanks!
Thank you Bitdefender!!!
For material science it's cool to talk about how they can create carbon that bends perfectly at speeds to reduce drag yet stay stiff enough to pass thorough tests of rigidity. For aerodynamics, you weren't given the info on their main source of downforce. Through ground effect venturi, tunnels these modern cars create downforce primarily through their floors. Otherwise great and hope you start to enjoy more races.
Correction: Hans doesn't help drivers keep their necks straight, it helps to prevent breakage of the neck in case of a crash. They still use their neck muscles to keep their heads looking in the right direction.
Which is why their necks are about the size of an average human thigh.
I was just going to say this, let’s make this the top comment
Exactly.
this almost made me stop watching....then looked into the comments and atleast i'm not the only one who noticed
True. Along with the graphic suggesting that underneath the car there is a lift…
Feel like this video is dedicated to noobs and not all correct.
You guys missed an opportunity to talk about the most important part of the aerodynamics. You started to touch on it. But the current formula of cars are ground effect cars. They have giant venturis under the car creating extremely low pressure under the car. Most of the top surface aero shapes are more for channeling the air where they want it to create the greatest delta p between the top and bottom of the car. They have to use air flow on top to seal off the edges of the floor so the air flows clean and fast under the car. The problem that they ran into mostly in the first year of these regulations was what's called porpoising. As the car hits higher speeds the delta p gets so high that the ride height drops so low that the air flow either stalls, or the car hits the track, losing massive amounts of suction, raising the cars ride height, which immediately raises the delta p, pushing the car back into the ground until it hits again. You get a bouncing up and down that was literally injuring drivers.
I think the term is “porpoising” as in the movement of a porpoise (aka dolphin) through water, and not “proposing”.
i suspect Ferrari had a say in what they could and couldn't talk about. Or at least show.
@@aamontalto i guess the autocorrector did its thing...
@@Thisandthat8908 I doubt that Ferrari told them not to mention ground effect. There is no secret about the physics behind it and how much downforce is generated and so on.
The top body aero surface still generate about 40% of the downforce, if I remember correctly but they are even more important as those, and in particular the front wing, can be tweaked during a weekend and allow to create the appropriate aerodynamic balance that makes the car driveable
Formula 1 is the world's biggest science fair. That perspective change is what made me fall in love with the sport.
used to be. not any more.
@@SVPSkins what is it now?
@@hugge8229 It's still the exact same thing, but some people like to cry about the "good ol' times"
No it's not. The modern F1 is just FIA making rules to block innovation. They limit the budget, they limit the hours of CFD and wind tunnel, they limit the tests, they limit the power, they limit the number of engines per season etc.
@@nicoladc89 isnt that what makes innovation thrive. if you're limited by a lot of things you're more likely to think outside the box and create something interesting.
16:06 It's a Sainz project
A “ Carlos Science” project! 😂😂
(Props to Lollipop Man)
😅😂😂😂
WTF!? Cever! 😂
Slow clap. Well played.
@@Artois2011 I WAS GONNA SAY THAT!!!!! Carlos the quantum physicist
Startalk and F1 - my two favorite topics in one video!!!
Literally my two favorite topics, this is unbelievable!
So true 😂
We need Adrian newey and/or Gordon Murray to join this conversation
Spot on!
Spot on, me too!
This could easily have been a longer video, I hope you're working on a longer version.
Glad to see Neil discovering all the engineering and physics that go into F1.
the HANS device - the "neck brace" - has nothing to do with the G-forces whilest driving. it's a safety device to prevent neck injuries in a crash.
what you should have pointed out is that F1 drivers all have massive neck muscles because that is what's actually countering the G-forces: pure muscle power.
They missed a great opportunity to show older footage of drivers getting out of cars and being totally exhausted or footage of when the divers head would flop in the turns to demonstrate the force put on the necks and the driver as a whole.
I actually thought he was about to say they all have massive necks when he put his hands up then I was disappointed
Just put the same comment, didn’t see yours 😂
Lmfao me to @@travisthree11
And the car's headrests and shown when Bearman mauled his headrests in Saudi Arabia. Bro's neck was destroyed.
I spent 40 years in Mechanical Engineering Design, but it all came from a love of Physics in school. Absolutely love this crossover approach in Startalk. I feel there are massive opportunities to develop this, as an internet or RUclips educational tool. Much more even than the F1 people do (although that is quite good itself - Tech Talk etc.). Anyone else interested in this? Where could we go from here? Inspiring our future STEM people - Scientists, Technologists, Engineers, Mathematicians.....
There was this show in BBC that Richard Hammond hosted called Engineering Connection where they pick u very popular pop culture (double adjective, I know) items and break down the scientific and engineering elements of it. One of the most popular episodes was when they talk about F1 cars
Having worked at Silverstone as a chef for the last 3 months really opened my eyes to the world of racing. I've been to all the events and watched all the races this year and nothing comes close to the f1 cars on that track. The second best thing was the motor GP. One of the best experiences of my life
MotoGP, no r.
@BubbaSmurft that's how little I know 😅
omg you are so lucky to work over there!!! i am jealous haha
You would have loved the old V10 and V8 F1 cars. The sound was something else...
@JayRock907 honestly bro I didn't when I first got there. But after spending so much time trackside, seeing all the car races and shows I have a big appreciation for Silverstone and what it represents
4:24 never change Ferrari
I'm the man I am today because my mother fed me Formula One when I was a baby.
in costa rica mothers feed their children coffee instead of breastmilk
@@esteban4284 tragic
@@armanromana1580 you have a tragic life. learn to smile and love and wakeup everyday telling yourself that today will be a good day. goodday ^^
Happy to have you with us!
@@masonfarnsworth1801 i was literally responding to someone saying babies drink coffee instead of milk from their moms. what are you talking about. crazy mf
The Las Vegas F-1 Grand Prix weekend, is Nov. 19-21. You should be there, Neil.
He's probably one of the few people who can afford grandstand tickets for the event
It's Nov 22-24.
The cool thing that surprises a lot of people about F1 cars is that with a normal car, the faster you go through a corner the more likely you are to lose traction because the friction of the tires isn't enough to overcome the momentum. In F1, if you go *too slow* in a corner you're more likely to lose grip because you aren't generating enough downforce for maximum traction.
In the blown diffuser days it was even more dramatic since you needed to push out gases to increase traction, so.. applying throttle literally gave you more grip and letting go of it decreased rear downforce..
It's about getting heat into the tyre, more than downforce. If you push at full throttle on cold tyres, you will spin off, at a speed, you wouldn't on hot tyres.
@@squidcaps4308 And don't forget the fan car. :D Only ran once back in the 70s but man was it cool.
@@akyhne You definitely need the tires to be warm, but an F1 car also generates enough downforce that if you had an upside-down road, it could drive on it. That much downforce is only generated at higher speeds, and if you lose it you won't have as much weight on the tires in the corners, so it'll be more likely to spin. I know Richard Hammond talked a lot about not having enough heat in the tires when he drove one, and he was right, but he was going *really* slow all the time because he was scared out of his wits (as he should have been). If he'd gone full speed in the straights to keep the tires warm, then slowed down too much for the corners, he'd still have lost grip due to lack of downforce.
also the brakes. if you go too slow you will not put enough heat in the brakes to work properly, so you got to go fast if you want to slow down
Finally!!! Neil talking about cars!! We need more of this! Please do a deep dive into the physics of the automotive industry. As a technician in this field, I know there is so much to explore.
I've never heard anyone say they want more of Neil
@@muszr00m You must be new here. Welcome!
You must not follow him then @@muszr00m
As a fan of star talk and avid fan of F1, this was a great crossover. I was surprised you didn't talk more about ground effects which the current regulations are based on
You can only talk about things that Neal can understand.
@@stephensegal5187Or the U.S. audience.
Great video guys. We were very pleased to see one of our favourite topics featured on one of our favourite channels.
A few things:
1) The HANS device is simply a safety item, it isn't used to keep driver's heads from lilting under high G loadings. Drivers spend a lot of time bulking up their neck muscles to deal with sustained lateral forces.
2) There was a time when there were no speed limits in the pitlane.
3) F1 cars/races are seldom conducted at full speed. There are a number of factors that prevent this, including tyre preservation, fuel flow limitations and engine longevity. As a result, races are often won at the slowest speed possible.
I have never thought of that, but as an engineer, I must confirm that we are lost without constraints. If safety was the only constraint, there is a full infinite half-space on the other side of that inequality. Fortunately, we have costs, weight, size, and many other limits.
F1 drivers have massive necks, due to respective physical training, to handle the lateral forces.
I visited the F1 Exhibition in London last week. One exhibit compared G forces for different modes of transportation (IIRC, incl. the Space Shuttle). Although only for a split second, an F1 crash (I don't remember the incident/driver and exact number) was measured with several _hundred_ G's.
Apart from the physics and material sciences, what surprised me most - engineering-wise - was how tiny the (I assume titanium) bolts are that connect the carbon fiber tub to the - for lack of a better term - engine/gearbox assembly.
Dear Neil, please do a series on F1. We really enjoyed this episode a lot
@@theMobileJourno hopefully nobody is forcing you to watch this content on a gun point.
as a ST fan and an F1 fan, I am demanding more of this please and thank you.
7:45 missed opportunity to further explain ground-effect, might be worth it’s own short episode one day. Great example of ground-effect are the Soviet Ekranoplans or micromouse races.
Agreed
soviet ekranoplans are not using ground effect to generate lift, or to be clear it is called "ground effect" but a completely different phenomenon. F1 car speeds up air beneath it thus lowering partial pressure and creating downforce, whilst ekranoplan takes benefit of a, confusingly same named, ground effect that creates higher partial pressure under the wing and thus creates lift.
the ground effect of ekranoplans and the ground effect used in f1 are not the same. ekranoplans produce lift in the same way as an aircraft except that it is more efficient as a result of it being very close to the ground. since it is more efficient it needs relatively smaller wings. thats the ground effect being referred to in that case.
It's about time you talk about the biggest science contest in the world. This is the greatest combination of science and physical skill on planet Earth...
Old enough to remember Gary playing for Crystal Palace and retiring into broadcasting, so to see him here doing this is really nice.
@8:02-8:33 Correction: In that specific incident (2023 Las Vegas GP, Carlos Sainz) it wasn't actually a manhole or drain cover like was widely reported at the time, and the car's vacuum effect didn't suck it up like you've described (although such a thing can and has occurred in other races). It was a much smaller diameter object without a removeable cover: the head of a water shutoff valve. It protruded slightly above the paved track surface, enough that Sainz' car's floor struck it head-on. The aerodynamic forces did push the car down closer to the track surface and did likely play a role in the incident. just not in the way that is described.
Thank you for clarifying that. As a 50 year F1 fan I get high blood pressure when the facts about F1 are distorted or ignored just to dumb down the story "so people can understand it".
Did they just Stallone Indy/Champ Car movie that incident? 😂
@@JoelNekritz-te3gl Well this exact thing has happened as recently as 2019 Azerbaijan GP with George Russell, see watch?v=F5f87xjg-m4 It's just that it's not what happened this time.
@@lonestranger It was a flat 12" cover that should have been welded down. There were a number of them that had to be inspected, which is why it took so long. There isn't going to be something sticking up on a race track, much less an FIA F1 spec track.
@@JoelNekritz-te3glhaha OMG i forgot about that movie DRIVEN! 😂
Ground effect creates faster moving air under the car and lower pressure here, leading to a further increase in down force.... not lift as you and your graphic would suggest. A F1car creates more down force than it weighs and therefore it is said could be driven upside down at over 150mph.
I think what they meant is the car sucks the ground up. Which is the same thing as pushing the car down. Yeah, the animation in the video is not very good.
This video is an errorfest
Please watch this part of the video again. In the graphic they are clearly talking about the upwards force things on the ground (such as manhole covers) are experiencing due to the low pressure. They are physicists, they of course know what downforce is and that it pushes the car down. They literally explain it with the upside down airplane wing analogy.
@@coin5207 they literally say the floor drags air with it bruh they can be physicists but they now nothing about aerodynamics, also they say they add downforce on the rain just on the rear to have more traction on the rear wheels💀
@@Sbinott0 "They can be physicists but they know nothing about aerodynamics"
My guy do you not know aerodynamics is a subfield of physics?? Fluid dynamics is something covered by every undergraduate physics degree.
"They say the floor drags the air with it" - yes?? What problem do you have with this statement? The underfloor is specifically designed to accelerate the air below it along with the movement of the car which you could describe as "dragging" the air with it - obviously there are probably more technical terms but the purpose of this video is to explain these things to the average person in simple terms
"They said they add downforce on the rain just on the rear"
Well they were probably told by the Ferrari person the team brings specific high downforce rear wings for wet races (which is for traction on the rear tires). And then assumed that is the only thing the team does.
It is incorrect but them being physicists would not give some big advantage in knowing this since it's an F1 car specific thing, road cars won't have anything more advanced to adjust than maybe a rear wing if it's a sports car. As opposed to the other two things mentioned which are clearly about physics.
Describing this as an "error fest" is just inaccurate. You will hear comparable mechanics related mistakes and what not on a normal f1 broadcast when pundits or anyone who isn't an engineer speculates about the cars
11:29 "the piano has 88 keys and, within those 88 keys, *I'm* infinite. But in an infinite keyboard there's no music you can play: that's god's piano" (1900 - the legend of the pianist on the ocean)
Bro this is a severely underrated comment 💆♂️
@nathanielmaramba5308 thanks 🙏
You should visit one of the f1 team’s factories, your head would explode with the level of engineering excellence that they possess.
I got to race Silverstone maybe 10 years ago in a Caterham R300 (which I rented as part of a track experience) for a full day of just going around and trying to go faster and faster. At the start of the day I was overwhelmed by the car (also because it was drizzling), and by the end of the day I wish I had at least twice the power. Still, the experience emphasized how unimaginable F1 speeds really are.
@StarTalk Neil, we have relationships with cars in NYC... They just usually happen to be cheap Honda Civics poorly built (not by engineers) screaming around the Bronx lol. Fantastic show here, and glad you got to experience the joy (and science) behind F1.
F1 is a unique science project for each of the teams. Starting with the boundaries set by the rules and regulations, which one engineer (I think it was Adrian Newey) who said he reads the rules and regs twice, first time to see what they say and again to see what they don't say. The cars are designed and built by each team to meet the limitations set by those parameters. It's the best engineers who can design the most efficient car to operate within the rules and maximising their design around any loopholes that they have uncovered in the rule book. With some teams employing over one thousand people in the design and production of each car and the participation in 26 races all over the world, the devotion and commitment by all those involved is inspiring.
OMG! Star talk and F1! Literally 2 of my favourite things combining😍
I love how they covered a point I thought about when they mentioned space exploration vs F1. The feats in space flights are incredible, but Formula 1 teams have to make a new car every few years and it has to be better than at least 9 other equally as motivated teams. In the 60's, space flight was far more advanced than F1, but today, I am sure aerodynamic development in F1 is far more impressive because of their sheer efficiency. Whereas NASA can spend decades getting a single project to completion, F1 teams have had to learn to work much more effectively. I think if F1 teams had a space program, it would move space exploration technology to a whole new level.
With that said, people work at their best on passion projects and it's unlikely F1 engineers would find the same passion in a space program as they do a competitive sport.
Where do you think these engineers come from and go to? NASA and F1 engineers have swapped jobs many times over the years ..
@@trance9158 I highly doubt there's any significant overlap, and even if there is, the work philosophy remains completely different. NASA is not known for being a particularly efficient entity in terms of development. All 10 F1 teams put together operate on less than 5% of NASA's budget this year. This isn't because there's something wrong with NASA either, they're in different worlds. F1 is a top-level competitive sport where any efficiency gain is a potential advantage over your opponents. NASA is a collaborative science project, where safety and accuracy are primordial. That doesn't mean there aren't things they can learn from each other's journey.
@@charles-antoinemartel-roy want to bet that engineers in F1 don't have NASA experience?? And vice versa??
@trance9158 there are thousands of engineers in F1, there must be some. But I doubt it's a particularly significant proportion of all the engineers in F1.
@@charles-antoinemartel-roy actually quite a few... And many junior engineers that eventually transfer to NASA or other aviation group.
Star Talk goes Ferrari! That's really cool for me, since I'm Italian. Thanks for choosing Scuderia Ferrari to talk about the science of F1.
The physics of Formula One racing is fascinating, especially when it comes to the G-forces that drivers experience, which even draw parallels to concepts in astrophysics. As these cars navigate high-speed corners, accelerate, and brake, drivers can experience lateral G-forces exceeding 5 Gs meaning they feel a force five times their body weight pushing them sideways. This is similar to the forces astronauts experience during rocket launches and re-entries, where they face extreme accelerations. In F1, these forces result from the incredible grip provided by the tires, downforce from the aerodynamics, and the immense speeds the cars can achieve. Managing these forces requires cars to be engineered for stability and drivers to be in peak physical condition, as sustaining such forces over long periods is extremely taxing on the body. It’s a true testament to the interplay of physics, human endurance, and the extreme conditions seen in both motorsport and space exploration.
Neil talking about F1... My bucket list is here by complete!
I am so happy StarTalk went to F1! Maybe the next F1 video could be interviewing drivers! :)
As a huge fan of F1 and Astronomy/Star Talk this was very cool to see, and i would love to maybe see an f1 engineer on startalk as a subject matter expect in the future? The few little snippets we were able to listen in to as you were talking in the garage were quite interesting, how cool it would be if it was in the shape of a usual 1-hour-ish episode!
There's a fair bit of physics to explore here. It's definitely worth it to explore more of the science and engineering principles driving the shape and performance of race cars since they are, as you said, science projects.
🏁Who on the StarTalk team do you think would win in a F1 race: Neil, Chuck, Gary or Charles Liu?🏁
Chuck of course!
Chuck would win
Neil using physics while driving 🚘
@@anshumanawasthi8693
Neil couldn't fit in the car.
Well... maybe with Nigel Mansell's seat (no seat).
DUUUUDE, DO A NASCAR VERSION!!!!
If I wasn't already disappointed enough that I couldn't go to the Grand Prix, now I'm finding out that I may have seen the two of you there as well.... It is a cruel cruel world at times. Loved the vid though as Always. More F1 science please, Pretty please.. Thank you.
Ayyyy, that's the collab I needed for the USGP!
The length of the car helps the driver correct oversteer easier. If the rear spoiler loses the downforce battle with the mechanical grip of the rear-tires during cornering, centrifugal force takes over and the car spins. The longer the car is, the more time the driver has to correct the spin.
The HANS Device around not only F1 Drivers but in many motorsport series, is designed to stop the separation of the skull from the spine as in Dale Earnhardt’s crash that sadly killed him. With the G Forces the drivers train there necks for the stresses it put on there body and you will find they have padding in the cockpit so that the drivers rest there heads when there struggling with there necks, it happens especially with rookies. The monocoque cell of an F1 Car is designed to be compact and designed to a high standard of safety.
Before Nigel Mansell became a World Champion driving for Williams, he drove for Lotus. Colin Chapman at Lotus realized that 'ground effects', the Bernoulli effect under the car that suck them down onto the track, was a terrific opportunity to make his cars faster. He, and his design team, built their first 'ground effects' car and took it to a track to test it. But the drivers could not take the corners faster, until one of the designers convinced Mansell that if he drove quicker through the corner than he thought possible, the ground effect would hold the car down. Mansell was brave enough to try and was immediately 10 mph faster than his team mate who didn't have that confidence in the designers arguments. Truly great drivers have big balls!
OMG two of my favourite things to watch on RUclips combined into one! mind exploded!!!
1:26 major meme potential
Occasionally asserting dominance 😳
OMG. I looked up right when I read your comment! 😂😂😂
.gif it already haha
Startalk and F1 I'm here for it.
This man wanted to get a tax write off and attend a f1 race and I’m here for it. Absolute Chad of a man no shade here.
@5:54 THIS! This right here will sky rocket my opinion of someone way more then if everything they say is 100% true and really intelligent. They ability and willingness to admit they did not know or even though the opposite after learning something new.
Well said. An open inquisitive mind is a virtue.
I want Neil to dive deeper into ground effect specifically because that’s what these generation of cars are using which hasn’t been seen in f1 for a few decades.
Technically the flat floors still generate some ground effects to an extent so I would say it was restricted rather than banned.
@@vickramgangaram2925 I never said it was banned, there were just different regulations up until 2022 where true ground effect cars are back again which are way different to the previous cars prior to 22
@@nateflores8160 oh I didn't read that last bit properly. I'm assuming you're talking about the current undertray having a curvature to it like the late 70s early 80s era.
Good afternoon (night or day, wherever you are), Neil and Chat - today was easy, love your show, and love F1 since I was 6 year old, on 1966 - thank you for the "double deal"
Who's here after a Ferrari 1, 2 in Austin
Here
Wow Neil at Silverstone, one I didn't expect to see. You should have taken him to Brooklands that would blow a physicians mind 😊
Physicist*
@@TheFinalMeowntdown agh the autocorrect I didn't even notice
Startalk and F1?! The collaboration i never knew I needed!
This was a really cool and fun format. I hope you guys can continue this in the future. Sort of like field trips to different activities and explaining the physics as they apply. Well done! 😊
So proud of my fellow Romanians from Bitdefender. Amazing work guys, you rock!
Did Neil just get hooked on F1?
Combining two of my favorite things. Physics and F1.
The hans device isn't for lateral G-forces it's for stopping the head moving forward and breaking your neck during rapid deceleration (a crash)
8:20 very Bernoulli 😆
Fun fact: The shuttle (as a metric) would do a max of 3gs during liftoff.
If you got the the fair and get the chance to ride a ride called 'The Gravitron', it does 3gs as well. Its also sustained.
So, you can experience the same G load as the astronauts in the shuttle during takeoff.
Personal, I love Gs. I can't say to what degree. I've done, maybe, 4gs (just a guess) max my entire life, so I dont know what it would take for me to blackout.
That being said: If given the choice, I'd rather test my limits and increase Gs until I blacked out...then have to go negative Gs at all. Even 0G, like freefall.... ugh, makes me feel sick.
The only rollercoaster I like is the original (as in the prototype from Knoxberry Farms) Corkscrew, since the the entire thing, except the initial drop, is all positive Gs or close to 1G. so, I get that sick (other find it exciting but I'm odd, I suppose 😂) feeling from the drop, but then the rest of the ride is a blast and feels super enjoyable. Every other coaster.... pure torture to me. All of them. The log flume is literally to low of a G experience for me. I can do it...but it doesn't feel good. 😂 It's a 10'-20' drop, maybe?
....and I'd rather ride the inverted coaster (with a, something like, 30' drop) a dozen times, rather than the log flume once. 😂
This is the type of American F1 content I can genuinely get behind
The least seen and commentated element of F1 is the power unit. Its there in plain sight but you never see the close up and partly disassembled elements. And the floor.
10:54 The happiness in his face. The happiness of knowing the car of tomorrow might still rev fiercely and loudly.
7:13 oriented the airfoil with the trailing edge as the leading edge when flipped on the car, whooops
I need to see an hour long version on this subject with Neil, Martin Brundle & Adrian Newey
Love this kind of real life science application videos you guys should do also in medical devices like nmri how it is connected to space research
this was such a cool episode! and as a Romanian, I felt really proud to see Bitdefender along with such legendary brands.
I'm surprised you misunderstood the airflow under the car. It does not generate lift: quite the opposite.
Most of the downforce acting on current F1 cars comes from the underfloor, specifically the venturi-effect tunnels that create a partial vacuum by accelerating the airflow.
The manhole cover was sucked up because of the negative pressure under the car.
Appreciated From Kolkata City Eastern India 🇮🇳 😊😊
“I timed them” and “They will get it sub two” is all I need to hear to know they never watched F1 before being invited to the garage
What a video! Would love to see Neil go to a WRC1 event and watch the cars go at speed down gravel country roads
I wonder how a conversation between Neil and Newey would go.
Neil would tell him he is doing it wrong
In the early years of F1 right up to the early nineties, there were no speed limits in the pits.
I would love to see a video about Top Fuel races. It’s completely nuts. They are so away from the box in which every other motor sport is. An they are the king of G’s - 6 and acceleration 0 - 530 kmh in under 4 seconds!
@@pawewielgus2105 They average ~4 for a few seconds, 5 with the chute. F1 only does ~2g accelleration, but hits lateral peaks of ~7 , sustained ~3-5 in many corners, 6+ g under braking - many times per lap; lap after lap for 2 hours. A bit more of a g workout..
F1 isn't just a motorsport. It's an engineering sport, and that's the main reason I love it
I’m surprised there were no mentions and explainers of the ground effect used in these cars which one of the main distinctive features of this era of formula one cars
Wow!! 2 of my favorite things, F1 and Startalk (and not in that order) Brilliant!
I’m finding Neil harder and harder to tolerate but I’m interested enough in these topics to still tune in.
I really wish this video was an hour long. Love watching the Science of Formula 1!
Buffs there's a lot of misinformation and misconceptions here...
HANS it's not for Turning G forces, the driver have to deal with those, and they're trained to deal with those for almost 2 hours 😅
The Hans it's for crashing, when they crash, they can have peaks of 200Gs
The aerodynamics it's not only for the rear tyres, it's for the front tyres as well, they have to press the whole car against the floor with a balance,
if you overload your rear tyres, the front end of the car wasn't going to turn at the speed you wanna turn
And if your overload your front tyres the rear will become loose and harder to control, hence, slower lap times
F1 by misinformed people for unknowledgeable people
I never followed sports and what Neil said at the end is exactly why I love F1 now. It's a huge science project that somehow beautifully works like rockets and our computer systems among many other things. Beautiful
Get niel watching some LMH/LMDH cars. Those hyper hybrids are peak technology and sound amazing coming out of the pits
I just saw a video of Neil telling everybody that SpaceX should not do rockets, as only the government should. Was 2015 I think.
Yes it would be nice for him and another science brain to do a video on wec hypercars
Couldn’t ask for a better topic on this blessed Thursday, also it’s race week in Austin 🎉❤
On top of that, yall go into my professional field and have a cyber security segment…
imagine u fall in love with this sport because of all these and then a random man tells u "you only like this sport because of hot men"
F1 on StarTalk, never thought i'd see it but here we are. What a treat!
6:23 that's the 2022 mercedes car 😅
😂😂😂😂
Ah, shear joy! I love F1, and watching Neil introduced to it and it's incredible engineering is so cool!
9:45 there never used to be a speed limit in the pit lane
Wrong. The speed limit had been 80kph for many years already. Many drivers have had tickets because they drove too fast in the pit lane
@FrankDijkstra sigh, pit lane speed limiter was introduced in late 80s or early 90s, so before that they did not.
There is since 1994. Usually it's 80 kph, on some tracks (Monaco) it's 60 kph.
@@SiqueScarfaceexactly 😂
"Never" being the last 40 years?
We need more Startalk and Sports crossover!!
Not being born rich is a larger barrier of entry to F1 than anything else in the sport.
Lewis Hamilton was not rich growing up he turned out pretty good
@@Hawatreeyeah turns out you can go from being broke to lecturing people about carbon emissions from your yacht pretty easily
@@Hawatree neither was Alonso
@@Hawatree Yeah but most of the grid is, so he is not wrong. Karting costs at the very least around 10k a year as a hobby - this is if you acquire everything second hand and try to be as cheap as possible. When you climb the ladder, the rises and rises, probably to around a 100k a season. Obviously you try to get as many sponsors as possible, but I don't how realistic that is for a no name kid. So let's be honest here, very few people can put that much money to their kid's hobby. It only get more expensive from there in the single seaters. We are talking about millions for one season at the F2 level if you get that far. Obviously for the best talent around the idea is to get into an F1 academy team as soon as possible. But the bottom line is, it's probably not possible for families who do not have the top 1 % wealth. Lewis Hamilton came up the ranks 30 years ago and his family had to sacrifice a lot. Probably is not possible these days.
Fact is that only very, very, very few people even start karting due the cost. It's a realistic hobby for people like Kimi Räikkönen's son lol.
@@mcspiffington Or Kimi (Räikkönen)
finally neil to F1 very happy to see .. a start of an interesting journey
wish you all the best in the rest ..
There are so many huge, glaring inaccuracies in this video... and the map at 1:47 with the completely wrong route for the pit exit is hilarious.
I've notice the star talk project (or _enterprise_ if you prefer) has stepped out its game lately. It's been a lot more professional, more focused on ads, merch and patreon, which I'm all favorable to, and the results are showing. The content is shifting from an almost amateur-ish looking youtuber thing to something like, professional studio and stuff. I hope it grows a lot. One of my fav channels.
Neil deGrasse is having the fun of his life with this one. love it
Oh my Dear Lord . . . I never thought of I was going to be able to see 2 of my favorite shows joined together in one video Star Talk and Formula1 . . . Now imagine an episode with Star Talk hosts and Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond (I know the retired already , but you know) . . . Oh boy !!!
In before 1M views.
1,772 views 12 minutes in.
Please do another neil. The engines.. the hybrid.. the ground effects. Sooooo much more. 🎉
12:19 getting really sick of the misrepresentation of this statistic. You are at full throttle for 60% of the lap DISTANCE, not 60% of the lap duration. Considering the vastly disproportional amount of distance covered when at full throttle vs when on the brakes (which transfer far MORE energy in much LESS distance), this isn't the glorious stat that they propose it to be. It's just basic math. Yes Silverstone is a speedy track, but I wish they would use proper terminology when describing it.
☝️🤓