50% Less Downforce in 2009

[Conceptual]

(do we need to mention the extreme case of the US gp where only Bridgestone shod cars lined up on the grid and Michael got his first (only?) win of the season).

and that wasn't the only case where driver safety was compromised to achieve performance that wasn't essential to the show of the sport.

at the height of the tyre war we used to have several scary tyre failures per year. I am not aware that anything comparable has happened last year.

I think you are missing my point here. The driver is an integral, and irreplacable part of the car, so there is a natural limit that the cars can go without killing or knocking out the driver. That wouldn't be in anyones best interest. Objective reality, the space and matter that we all live within, has some very clear rules and very devastating consequences. The concorde should be an agreement between the teams of what areas that they will not push for performance gain. Like setting a max cornering G-load at 4.5 or something, instead of forcing grooved tyres and less downforce.

The only way for F1 to acchieve what it CLAIMS that it wants, is to do just that. There are so many tangled, un-necessary, worthless and subjective problems that are caused by greed and power that it can ONLY HELP to be biased simply to justify its own existance. Break the authority complex as necessary, and realize that conscious individuals are capable to compete fairly if given the opportunity to meet, and rationally discuss the militations that they are willing to SELF IMPOSE for the sake of safety and spectacle, as well as technological. Imagine the feeder series that those agreements will bring, simply starting the training for their future operating engineer (the driver) at an early age. There are several examples of these test-tube drivers on the grid today, but a unified approach would simply expand it by exponential value.

People like Pat Symonds and Rory Byrne on the OWG is the perfect example of which I speak. In the end, the competitors have respect for each other, and they realize that co-operation post-race/season is actually a GOOD thing. I see an area of co-development that would blow the lid off of what F1 is today. Lower cost, less rules bending, sleeker machinery, more truly revolutionary concepts and values created and a spectacle that is beyond compare.

That is my perspective. I think that the IRL/CCWS merger could do something similar, and supplant F1 in speed, tech, and international recognition if constructed correctly. F1 would need to undergo a evolutionary takeover of enlightened direction to reach that place from where it is today.

Maybe on June 3, we sill get to see the first step in that direction.

Chris

[WhiteBlue]

.... People like Pat Symonds and Rory Byrne on the OWG is the perfect example of which I speak. In the end, the competitors have respect for each other, and they realize that co-operation post-race/season is actually a GOOD thing. I see an area of co-development that would blow the lid off of what F1 is today. Lower cost, less rules bending, sleeker machinery, more truly revolutionary concepts and values created and a spectacle that is beyond compare....

forgive me but to me your vision appears to be based on wishfull thinking. to get the big three teams to cooperate in the OWG took a lot of arm wrestling (since 2005) and eventually they only managed to decide it because they were saddled with majority voting.

when you look at the concord mess you see where the teams get by cooperation. nowhere! the only thing they managed to agree was to close ranks against upstarts using customer cars. apart from that they have agreed nothing. remember the concord was forced by Ecclestone/Mosley in the first place. they have been messing with the concord as long as the FIA with the 2009 rules and it will probably take another 3 years if they do it at all.

the next FIA president will be a very important appointment. he will have to see to it that the racing gets back on track. the 2009 aero cut will be crucial to achieve cars that can overtake on track. and then some of the ridiculous elements of the show can be abolished (race fuel qualifying, overtaking in the pits).

[checkered]

I hadn't even

heard about "Neo-Tech" before. Among the more benign descriptions resulting from a quick web query (foregoing such sites as "ex-cult" and "museum of hoaxes" popping up, also unfamiliar to me, apparently listing this term) Wikipedia yielded two relevant articles (replete with links of their own) in "Frank R. Wallace" and "Integrated Management Associates". The general first impression I was left with after familiarising myself with those articles was that of a vague ideology of an absolute free market supremacy, coupled with what reminded me of physicalist doctrines that in turn seem to be rather contradictorily merged with esotericist themes (e.g. a race called "Zons", in a theory about the origins of the Universe which I didn't look into). I was left at a loss as to what, realistically, the stated relationship between neo-techianism and objectivism is (other than what neo-tech itself says about it).

All this neo-tech appears to be packaged for public consumption under a variety of promotion guises and vehicles including a web presence, mail-order services, membership clubs and classic network marketing etc. I have to say I have previously encountered various sources that have seemed to have a better chance of promoting economic liberalism to my senses and sensibilities than this, if only for how the relative potential inclusiveness of other economic theories/philosophies vaguely reminiscent of neo-tech is reflected on the vitriolic tone of neo-tech seemingly labelling vast amounts of people "neocheats" or "value destroyers" (in the quote provided). This appears to have a very real chance of happening unbeknownst to "them" (as in "neocheats" etc.) or independent of "their" motives and being. This deprives "them" of any chance of using "their" consciousnesses - "their" free human will, that is - to consider whether "their" perceived self-interest contradicts anothers' so fundamentally that some sort of a diametrically opposed and absolute antagonism is unavoidable.

There would seem to be precious little room for dialogue in defining ideals and identity through negation (Only one of the reasons why I've always held anarchism and totalitarianism to share so many qualities that the traditional representation of democracy as the "middle way" doesn't apply - it's a thing apart for me). Seeking out optionless situations goes very much against the grain of my life experience and all of my more formal training and schooling, not to mention morals. Even the risk of arriving at such a predicament will prompt some kind of a pre-emptive action in me and thus what has been presented here as an ideological basis for arriving at new and improved aerodynamic rules/rulelessness appears no better an option than the uninspiring exercise of dictating the aerodynamic shapes themselves (as in a spec series). As far as economic theory and philosophy goes, there's much ground to cover in all the shapes and sizes "laizzes-faire" (not to mention other widely held beliefs and opinions) comes in - even in reflecting that to aerodynamics.

Aerodynamics will remain an inseparable part of motorsport for the foreseeable future in any case. Its image, status and significance (commercial and otherwise) in and against Formula One is subservient to the innovativeness and intelligence of how that science is applied in this motorsport environment because aerodynamics will evolve independently nonetheless. As much as the vortices and flows have fractal and chaotic qualities F1 needs to be alert about the temperamental nature of the wider interactions as well. Engineering and design are ways of having a meaningful, collective and constructive dialogue with our environment and each other. Rules, in this sense, are no different. Human beings (and other living things) are hard-wired to be empathetic (see mirror neurons, for example) - hardly a disadvantaging flaw given its almost universal prevalence. At best, this can liberate and enable us to understand the wind in our wings through F1, rules and all, a little better.

[Conceptual]

I hadn't even

heard about "Neo-Tech" before. Among the more benign descriptions resulting from a quick web query (foregoing such sites as "ex-cult" and "museum of hoaxes" popping up, also unfamiliar to me, apparently listing this term) Wikipedia yielded two relevant articles (replete with links of their own) in "Frank R. Wallace" and "Integrated Management Associates". The general first impression I was left with after familiarising myself with those articles was that of a vague ideology of an absolute free market supremacy, coupled with what reminded me of physicalist doctrines that in turn seem to be rather contradictorily merged with esotericist themes (e.g. a race called "Zons", in a theory about the origins of the Universe which I didn't look into). I was left at a loss as to what, realistically, the stated relationship between neo-techianism and objectivism is (other than what neo-tech itself says about it).

All this neo-tech appears to be packaged for public consumption under a variety of promotion guises and vehicles including a web presence, mail-order services, membership clubs and classic network marketing etc. I have to say I have previously encountered various sources that have seemed to have a better chance of promoting economic liberalism to my senses and sensibilities than this, if only for how the relative potential inclusiveness of other economic theories/philosophies vaguely reminiscent of neo-tech is reflected on the vitriolic tone of neo-tech seemingly labelling vast amounts of people "neocheats" or "value destroyers" (in the quote provided). This appears to have a very real chance of happening unbeknownst to "them" (as in "neocheats" etc.) or independent of "their" motives and being. This deprives "them" of any chance of using "their" consciousnesses - "their" free human will, that is - to consider whether "their" perceived self-interest contradicts anothers' so fundamentally that some sort of a diametrically opposed and absolute antagonism is unavoidable.

There would seem to be precious little room for dialogue in defining ideals and identity through negation (Only one of the reasons why I've always held anarchism and totalitarianism to share so many qualities that the traditional representation of democracy as the "middle way" doesn't apply - it's a thing apart for me). Seeking out optionless situations goes very much against the grain of my life experience and all of my more formal training and schooling, not to mention morals. Even the risk of arriving at such a predicament will prompt some kind of a pre-emptive action in me and thus what has been presented here as an ideological basis for arriving at new and improved aerodynamic rules/rulelessness appears no better an option than the uninspiring exercise of dictating the aerodynamic shapes themselves (as in a spec series). As far as economic theory and philosophy goes, there's much ground to cover in all the shapes and sizes "laizzes-faire" (not to mention other widely held beliefs and opinions) comes in - even in reflecting that to aerodynamics.

Aerodynamics will remain an inseparable part of motorsport for the foreseeable future in any case. Its image, status and significance (commercial and otherwise) in and against Formula One is subservient to the innovativeness and intelligence of how that science is applied in this motorsport environment because aerodynamics will evolve independently nonetheless. As much as the vortices and flows have fractal and chaotic qualities F1 needs to be alert about the temperamental nature of the wider interactions as well. Engineering and design are ways of having a meaningful, collective and constructive dialogue with our environment and each other. Rules, in this sense, are no different. Human beings (and other living things) are hard-wired to be empathetic (see mirror neurons, for example) - hardly a disadvantaging flaw given its almost universal prevalence. At best, this can liberate and enable us to understand the wind in our wings through F1, rules and all, a little better.

Checkered,

I sincerely HOPE that you are invited to purchase the Nouveau Tech Secret Society book, and read. Your view is correct, as long as you realize that it has zero basis in truth nor reality. I have learned an utterly astonishing amount since reading it, and so far, everything that I do with it has worked flawlessly.

Unfortunately, there is the ability to use these mental "power tools" that Neo-Tech teaches for bad or "neocheating" purposes, so it is available by invitation only. I can tell that you are still unconsious just by reading what you write. I sincerely hope that you are able to wake up soon, because life is passing you by!

Step 1: Define your own mysticism.

Chris

[dave kumar]

I think you are missing my point here. The driver is an integral, and irreplacable part of the car, so there is a natural limit that the cars can go without killing or knocking out the driver. That wouldn't be in anyones best interest. Objective reality, the space and matter that we all live within, has some very clear rules and very devastating consequences. The concorde should be an agreement between the teams of what areas that they will not push for performance gain. Like setting a max cornering G-load at 4.5 or something, instead of forcing grooved tyres and less downforce...

Yes, I stand corrected. I thought you were argueing for an unregulated F1 (is an unregulated formula an oxymoron...). I agree that whatever body regulates the sport should define some simple rules that promote the values we want to see. Previous threads have suggested just limit the fuel and go racing. Well I admire the elegance of that suggestion (attributed to Colin Chapman I think). With todays technology we might need a few more restrictions than that but if they were in that spirit, I for one would be very happy.

Saying all that I am looking forward to 2009 and seeing the results of the OWG being implemented. If it is a success may be they could start chucking out some of the old rules that are too fussy, too specific and that stiffle rather than promote innovation. The only necessary restrictions are ones for driver and spectator safety and ones that make F1 a sport rather than a marketing exercise.

Is there a simple way to measure the amount of turbulence created in the wake of a vehicle? Or to measure the sensitivity of the aero to airflow direction changes?

...On a side note, I would say that a major problem after TC was forbidden is that the car "downforce abilities" are extremely sensitive to yaw. Actually, I attribute to that the Massa incident in the next to last race...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5077&p=72341&hilit=Massa#p72341

If it were easy to measure one or both of these characteristics I would just set a limit on sensitivity to and generation of turbulence and leave the rest of the aero design to the teams. Weren't the wooden planks introduced to reduce the chance of catastophic loss of downforce due to the car bottoming out?
(sorry this is starting to merge with the "Unrestricted Designing of a F1 Car Question" thread)

[WhiteBlue]

... I agree that whatever body regulates the sport should define some simple rules that promote the values we want to see. Previous threads have suggested just limit the fuel and go racing. Well I admire the elegance of that suggestion (attributed to Colin Chapman I think). With todays technology we might need a few more ...

=D> =D>

it is a real shame that the opportunity to control the development of F1 by reduced fuel budgets has been missed so far.

there are few people who would dispute that aerodynamic grip is overdone and mechanical grip is lacking from the present F1 formula. it is interesting to see how this situation is aproached by different players.

1. The FIA initially went for a miracle fix in form of the CDW rear wing.
2. The teams took a systematic development approach in the OWG like they would for any other development.
3. The analysts concluded that reducing fuel waste by incentives and penalties would force aerodynamic efficiency and thus eliminate the drag problem automatically.

As much as I would prefer solution No 3 a solid empirical approach has more certainty to produce a quick fix. so it is good they did what they did. nevertheless I would welcome a redirecting of aerodynamic resources towards reduction of drag and away from downfore at any cost. this could be done by one of the simple rules that senna-toleman mentioned.

I could imagine to simply measure the amount of fuel used in a race and introduce progressive time bonuses and time penalties for being under or over the average consumption. the standardized fuelling systems can measure the fuel very accurately. it would be easy.

[modbaraban]

I could imagine to simply measure the amount of fuel used in a race and introduce progressive time bonuses and time penalties for being under or over the average consumption. the standardized fuelling systems can measure the fuel very accurately. it would be easy.

This is far too much! As I said many times I absolutely love the idea to limit engines by the amout of fuel per race, but I'm sure that almost nobody would like to see the finishing order being reordered on the regular basis! Whoever crosses the line first wins!* The simplest solution to penalize those who overused some fuel is DQ in that race. That will ensure everyone staying within the limit for the given type of fuel. Yes, and fuel types should differ as well. Bring in diesels, hybrinds, ethanol etc. whatever a manufacturer would want to develop. Any engine layout allowed too (including turbo/super charged).

Of course some aero restrictions should be present, but allow more freedom than now, esp. with the underbody.
________________
unless some rules were broken.

[Ciro Pabón]

First, welcome WhiteBlue and Senna_Toleman. I've seen some posts by SennaToleman but I missed the first ones of WhiteBlue. I was going to answer Conceptual brave argument, but I couldn't agree more with you.

On the other hand, the things you have said are an excellent summary of the most interesting I've read here and there. I don't know if everybody has followed my insistent linking to "A feasibility study into the role Motorsport can play in the development of energy efficient automobiles" (PDF warning: 5 Mb), but I think most of the ideas I've seen about fuel restriction come from that document, they even mention Chapman quote.

You can check in that study that LeMans is a source of ideas here. The "Energy Efficiency Index" cup at that race, that has been raced for decades, is a good example of a mathematical formula. As Modbaraban points out, this would confuse the final results, you need a calculator to figure out who won, nonwithstanding the fact that "true racers" want to know which is the team that is able to develop the most "balanced" car.

What seems to be the alternative, that is, simply having the car to stop in the track because of lack of fuel, also doesn't seem attractive.

The arguments of Conceptual about having just one tyre provider, well, the problem here is, in your words, that you have no "free-market" here.

The teams are so dependent on the type of tyre they choose that they are not customers, that is, they are users. By this I mean that you're a customer at your car dealer, but you're an user when you get your driving license at the DMV, there are no alternatives in the second case. So, in the end, you cannot choose freely your provider, it's extremely hard to change tyre brand at midseason.

This means that your perfomance depends on the battle between the tyre manufacturers, and, like history has proven, that's the most boring thing to watch: most of the time one of them "goes ahead" and you restrict severely the number of dominant teams.

[WhiteBlue]

Thank you Ciro for giving me that link again. I read it when you posted it long time ago.

The answer to the criticism about the finishing order could be simple. Apply penalties only and do it at the next race. Drivers and teams are in it for a championship.

[dave kumar]

We need to encourage improved part load engine efficiency and here a limit on the total fuel available for competition has considerable merit. However the question of warm up laps and the potential hazard of a car running out of fuel must both be addressed...

A reserve fuel system with automatic change-over can easily be provided for warm-up laps and to cover fuel exhaustion. We can introduce a small restriction to the peak fuel flow from the reserve system say to 95% power, thereby providing a built in penalty for excessive fuel consumption, during the race, whilst creating new opportunities for more overtaking.

"A feasibility study into the role Motorsport can play in the development of energy efficient automobiles" (PDF warning: 5 Mb)

Thanks Ciro for the link. An excellent document. I think the above is a very elegant solution to fuel restriction, with the restriction of power if the car has to switch to its reserve supply.

...By limiting peak fuel flow. This technique is used to limit the power with gas turbines engines, but it is not used with competition reciprocating engines. The advantage of this approach is that emissions immediately improve, and engines are driven towards cleaner, lean burn technologies.

Using the second technique [limiting peak fuel flow] provides additional useful spin-off. Competition engine makers will start to focus more on improving specific fuel consumption than on specific power output, and this has considerable relevance to production engines...

Another interesting suggestion for limiting power without restricting engine specs (I've heard it mentioned before in this forum but it is well argued in this document).

...We can recreate such excitement by creating low drag shapes, based around lightweight space frames with rear power trains. A great deal will be learnt from these cars, which should lead to prototypes for an entirely new racing series. We need to develop regulations that will maximise overtaking manoeuvres.

In reality we need something less than 150bhp to achieve 200mph using a low drag car. The additional 700bhp available to a Formula One car is dissipated largely in overcoming drag, which then creates severe wake turbulence. This reduces the potential for overtaking, the very manoeuvre which Max Mosley had found so addictive

I really hope the manoeuvre they are referring to is not the one that got Max in to trouble recently. But is it true that 700bhp is being used to overcome drag at 200mph?

[WhiteBlue]

I agree with the above posted by senna-toleman. In my view it isn't so important what method you use to measure and control energy use and drive down the energy budget. It is more important to subscribe to the principle. engineers will always find a good way to implement it once the strategic objective is defined.

The second problem to solve would be the limit on development cost that the FIA and most teams are demanding. Many of the current design limitations are there to stop the top teams from outspending themselves and the minions. to remove the engine freeze one would have to demonstrate that budget caps are feasible and can control the costs.

[Ciro Pabón]

But is it true that 700bhp is being used to overcome drag at 200mph?

Well, we made some rough calculations, I don't know how good they are, but I'd say yes. If you look at this post you can see that apparently you can "deliver to the car" around half of the engine-brake HP. That is, for a 700 hp engine, air drag, rolling resistance and inertia account for half of that, around 350 hp. The "other" 350 hp must be "lost" because of the shape of the power curve, gear friction, heat losses, etc.

If you watch that post, you can notice I used a air drag coefficient of 1. There are cars with coefficients of 0.3, so you could manage to get 200 mph with 1/3 of the power, that is, around 120-150 hp.

Of course, unless you manage to alter Newton's laws or you build a car that is 1/3 the weight (200 kilos) you cannot accelerate equally at low speeds, when most of the power is used to overcome inertia.

I estimate that those 150 hp should be doubled "at the engine" (you're going to lose half of it, because of gear friction, etc.), so I guess you could get an F1 car with roughly 300 hp and a more aerodynamic body, able to reach 200 mph.

EDIT: Miguel, a new member, pointed that my estimations are wrong at low speed: the engine is able to deliver only around 200 hp. At high speed he claims I should use another formula for drag (proportional to the cube of the speed), so the power he gets is around 520 hp.

[checkered]

I agree with the above posted by senna-toleman. In my view it isn't so important what method you use to measure and control energy use and drive down the energy budget. It is more important to subscribe to the principle. engineers will always find a good way to implement it once the strategic objective is defined.

The second problem to solve would be the limit on development cost that the FIA and most teams are demanding. Many of the current design limitations are there to stop the top teams from outspending themselves and the minions. to remove the engine freeze one would have to demonstrate that budget caps are feasible and can control the costs.

The idea of energy budgets

has been around for such a long time (and is so logical) that I'm beginning to suspect key people just don't want to subscribe to it. The case for it is so simple, which ever way you look at it, that I'm at a loss as to how else it can be promoted other than stating it over and over and over again. The idea certainly preceded me and I've now been doing my part in repeating it for years on different fora. My subjective perception is that at least during the last few years energy budget ideas have had an overwhelmingly positive reception. This is something that could be applied now, at this instant. So why isn't it happening?

I don't view the development costs as very problematic, only the way ideas are protected and promoted within F1 isn't well thought out, nor have the ways of profiting from F1 R&D outside the sport evolved in as symbiotic a direction as would've been entirely possible. The emphasis has been on the value of viewership, to the point of neglecting other ways of adding value (diversifying the intellectual and other assets could produce stability, removing some of the current risks of hingeing economic success on just few choice individuals). The way I see it is that either the current budgets can be seen as absolutely excessive or, taking another perspective, they're ill defined and partially misplaced. To me, the second approach would seem to be more fruitful - potentially to the point of budget caps eventually becoming sensible only through an excess of disposable income.

A good recent example of mutual interest and lateral thinking in adding value is Force India, where a number of Airbus CFD specialists have been seconded. Vijay Mallya has a standing order of 200 planes after all, most of them from Airbus, and his Kingfisher brand airline features prominently on FIF1's cars. There are in fact very many quite similar examples to be found around F1 currently, but for some reason most are not very prominently evident and I get the sense that all such standing arrangements could yet be streamlined into a more efficient and visible overall interface to accommodate the potential rewards.

Maybe this will be looked into before all the media markets F1 can muster are saturated, but I would hope to see concentrated movement on that front way before that. Perhaps Dubai's Motor City (and the "F1X" it will contain) can be seen as a conscious move in this direction, we'll have to see about that.

I sincerely HOPE that you are invited to purchase the Nouveau Tech Secret Society book, and read.

So it isn't handed to the "worthy" for free as a PDF or something, out of the nobility of purpose alone? What a disappointment, after all, some of my mailboxes are full of "exclusive and personal invitations to purchase" - they're called advertisements. And yes, I have to admit, most of those I perceive rather unconsciously. Quite often by blatant choice. Nothing against presenting ideas as such though, I just thought it necessary to emphasize that when it comes to resources and effort I tend to get much more particular about things. Barely anything about ourselves or anything else tends to be as exclusive as we'd like to believe by mere privilege, after all.

The "other" 350 hp must be "lost" because of the shape of the power curve, gear friction, heat losses, etc.

Also issues to be addressed. The potential gains in L/D ratio can have ramifications in "aerocentric" applications (and the research justified through that) but the effect will likely be quite limited within road going cars' parameters. So drag reduction in F1, viewed from a solely automotive perspective, only has the minimum acceptable effect - namely making the sport itself (and nothing much else) more sustainable or efficient. Respectable enough, but really the easiest part of the equation and a one-off solution. Inertia will be addressed to a degree with energy recovery and potentially by carbon fibre constructions transferring in a sustainable fashion into road cars as well.

[Conceptual]

I sincerely HOPE that you are invited to purchase the Nouveau Tech Secret Society book, and read.

So it isn't handed to the "worthy" for free as a PDF or something, out of the nobility of purpose alone? What a disappointment, after all, some of my mailboxes are full of "exclusive and personal invitations to purchase" - they're called advertisements. And yes, I have to admit, most of those I perceive rather unconsciously. Quite often by blatant choice. Nothing against presenting ideas as such though, I just thought it necessary to emphasize that when it comes to resources and effort I tend to get much more particular about things. Barely anything about ourselves or anything else tends to be as exclusive as we'd like to believe by mere privilege, after all.

Checkered,

The first book is about 1200 pages that is a digestion of a 7000page "encyclopedia" on human interaction and manipulative psychology. For the cost of the book, I think that it is well worth it for $150USD.

I recently contacted the society to buy a few more copies (my mother passed the book down to me, but I have 2 brothers that want it, and 4 children myself). I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to purchase YOU a copy for $150 and ship it to you, so you can read. The euphoria that you get from reading it is like nothing that I have ever read. I will literally read 5-6 pages, then have to put it down, because my right brain is making SO MANY cross-references, that it almost stops my reading ability until it is done.

Checkered, I swear that if I can buy more copies that I will pay for yours out of my own pocket. Are you willing to read it cover-to-cover and then make a post clarifying your initial stance using the actual material instead of what a Wiki states?

It is worth the $150 to me just to bring consciousness to another human being, and Neo-Tech actually classifies the most prescious thing in the universe as the Individual Conscious Human Being.

I would do that for you, are you willing to accept it?

Chris

[checkered]

The chance to have

tangible, first-hand literature about "Nouveau Tech" materialised rather quickly in light of the earlier descriptions of the overall nature of access to such information. These sorts of opportunities, I gather, are hastened by the potency of contemporary media. Your personal investment in this matter is not lost on me, Conceptual.

My answer to your offer however, is "no". That is final.

The plainness of the above statement is only so that we can spare each other from pursuing this matter any further. It is also to spare the board of a further public "OT" exchange in an interesting thread, a consideration of which I'm bemused to lose track of on my own accord, to say the very least.

I'm sure we'll continue to discern each others' continued contribution on matters pertaining to Formula One on F1T.