On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't think it's that easy to engineer, in the sense of finding a > track that is fast enough and still safe. It could be a matter of > millimeters or single degrees in the banking turns. We know that > nobody designs a track to be lethal (at least until the next Bond > movie). The choice isn't between the fastest and the slowest course as > any track in use in competition today is going to be faster than a > track from 30 years ago. > No, it is not easy to engineer, that is why they needed to listen to the feedback earlier on so they would have more than 12 hours to fix it. I also assume they did not intentionally design a lethal course - what they tried to do is engineer the fastest track. The point from many athletes and observers has been that there is a point at which the technology allows a track faster than what the human brain and body can handle. When we reach that point (and it may be that we have) then human judgment had to intervene and restrain the technical skill that would allow a faster track. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
