iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 08/06/2026

Whoa that must have been a nightmare to chase down! But thanks for the head's up on it!

080

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

Ha that might better lol than if it worked properly

170

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 03/06/2026

@julesonracing.bsky.social is a furriner and I just copied him on the assumption he was correct. It was that or Kyle so I was playing the odds...

080

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 03/06/2026

That did not happen for me. Hope it got fixed tho, sounds annoying AF.

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 03/06/2026

Delighted you're still willing to admit it, lol!

050

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 23/04/2026

In the past, when Porche left the prototype LM class, they set the car up to break track records and also were faster. OTOH none of these cars mentioned has/ had any restriction from rules or finance basically.

050

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 23/04/2026

So if you defined it as fastest round a purpose built road circuit currently only Aston Martin and Red Bull (but not the F1 team) have cars that will potentially be faster than current F1 cars. And those are both not cheap and mostly exist for the sole purpose of record setting.

140

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 16/04/2026

So whole wheat would be cross-ply then...lol

070

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 16/04/2026

Holy upward failure!!! Total travesty! To recap, PU was the underpowered unit in the back of the Alpine 22-25, rated as 15-30 bhp down and developed with full knowledge of the freeze on development. Is he the reason Viry shuttered its F1 show? Well he's not not the reason that's for sure.

0112

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 15/04/2026

And consider, re that, so much of that has intentionally stirred by the teams to try and game the rules in their favor.

020

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 13/04/2026

So don't get too attached to that terminology, once some company figures out how to make money off it by putting it on a label none of it will mean anything lol.

020

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 12/04/2026

Oh... did you see the Giro stage finish into Siena last summer? I was hoarse for days shouting for Wout lol...

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 10/04/2026

Do you know the process by which these rules came to be? Won't bore you with them if you're not interested but it goes a long way to explaining why things wound up this way. TLDR not sure design is the word I would choose lol

110

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 10/04/2026

I have seen at least one movie and several documentaries on Group B, an amazing (and horrifying) story all at the same time... IMO this F1 ruleset featured a poker game between Audi and Mercedes and somehow everyone lost. Again, hazards of allowing competitors to make rules for themselves...

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 10/04/2026

Here is the audio for those that prefer to listen open.spotify.com/episode/3biS... oh and yes, it does in fact answer, amongst many others, the age old question: What kind of things would Bernie say to Charlie in the back of a car at an F1 venue?

open.spotify.com

Missed Apex F1 Behind the Barriers Mark Hughes (Not That One) Interview

040

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 10/04/2026

Hey F1 peeps, if you want some new F1 content check out my latest Missed Apex: Behind the Barriers interview with Mark Hughes, (no, not that one, the other one).. Mark is the Winston Wolf of F1 circuits, need an entire venue in 8 months? No problems (well maybe a few lol). youtu.be/HwwMvy8Aaf0

youtu.be

Missed Apex F1 Behind the Barriers - Mark Hughes Interview

YouTube video by Missed Apex F1

3140

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

yeah inherent self interest is problematic when they also get to make the rules. Really, in a lotta ways, still down to Audi bc original regs had spec MGUH which solves all these probs. Still don't know why they were THAT important as its not the first time F1 has done this sort of thing...

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

to reduce or eliminate the worst operating characteristics of the PU. Rest of the car is actually pretty fine. Caveat, don't want to lose some of the genuine racing that has also happened.

110

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

power is far too wide. BTW you'd have a similar issue with regen, in that drivers will sometimes experience very different levels of braking bc the equations being solved have a very narrow solution set. Answer, which honestly was probs well known as they have been running sims, adjust parameters

110

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

monotonic throttle draw on torques. Issue being with DC energy being 50% of the equation (allegedly lol, or optimistically maybe) that the available torques range from 400 kW to over 700. It's not so much AI driving the car, the demand comes from the driver, it's that the range of available

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

ye one of my observations is that one of the largest issues is that what would normally be called "drivability" is the issue here, in that the driver has an unpredictable platform when applying throttle. The issue stems (IMO) from overly prescriptive deployment rules and from the requirement of

110

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

hahaha well in this case, I am not the one denying reality. The underlying tech you cite as ruining the sport has been there since the early 90s. And AFAIK pointing out a factual error isn't trolling. But do go on being both ignorant, and wrong, it is amusing in a toddlerish kinda way

020

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

Must be tough to be unable to read and process simple sentences. Your first post was factually wrong, and every reply since has had no relevance to what you were wrong about. I am sorry reality is interfering with your posting but well, that is a you problem...

020

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

They banned it bc it became dangerous as other teams tried to replicate it. F1 is an engineering contest, so banning engineering does not, in fact, seem the way to go...

130

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

Computers have been running engines since then, both road cars and race cars. Including your V10s and V8s. Nothing about control electronics is new in F1.

020

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

They banned ride height adjustments aka active suspension, not the control electronics. They have been onboard ever since.

020

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 08/04/2026

You mean 1992 surely. FW14B used algorithm to program ride height adjustments and I think some settings could be remotely adjusted from pitwall. Think initial use of that kind of tech might even go back to the mid 80s, when it first reached a size that could be used in a single seater.

010

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 08/04/2026

Ahh that was the best! Those cars were bonkers!

020

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 08/04/2026

Haha excellent! What year was that? Think the last race I attended was 21...

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 08/04/2026

lol I spent some time a while ago covering FE so I was genuinely surprised and googled, but a lap with Jr sounds memorable indeed!

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 08/04/2026

Welp there goes my morning googling super critical CO2 engines lol

030

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 08/04/2026

In attack mode yes, similar, but non attack is 450 kW and that is most of the race. WRX cars back in the day also were faster to 100 than F1 cars in case you'd like other examples of non F1 cars being better than F1 cars at a thing.

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 06/04/2026

And yes, they have been partially successful so its important not to chuck that out as they try to tune these regs (they were never going to fully work which the stakeholders very well knew when they sent them off for approval).

100

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 06/04/2026

So the challenge from a rules POV is to have a car that is able to be at or near adhesion limit thru turns, while allowing trailing car to be close enough for good racing and being fastest cars around non oval circuits by a decent margin while keeping manufacturers happy lol.

100

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 06/04/2026

Yes that helps but at any speed the trailing car experiences losses. More important (relative to '22) are the chassis changes including DF reduction. As teams find ways to reclaim DF you'll see a reduction in those types of moves. Increased DF=more wake turbulence = greater losses for trailing car.

110

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 06/04/2026

If you (not you you, formal you) are planning to make the argument that this is categorically different to DRS, you are not being serious in the slightest. And as you(you you this time) suggest, there was a very good reason for DRS in the first place that predates the 2014 rule set.

101

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 05/04/2026

Go on kick me some more while I'm down lol

100

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 05/04/2026

That's a per quarter for us with work covering the other 80% ish. And that's considered lucky lol

100

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 05/04/2026

Yeah and what do you pay for health insurance again? lol I defo remember paying north of $5 at one point maybe Covidish times

100

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 02/04/2026

After a bit more discussion they decided the engineers were quite clever and in fact would probably figure it out, aka the underpants gnome strategy. I wish I were kidding but...

050

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 02/04/2026

Its pretty simple really. Original regs included a spec mguh which would have avoided all this mishegas. But when those regs went to the Tech Committee the PU manufacturers on it (new ones) torpedoed it. Front axle regen was then proposed but one of the manufacturers said no, bc Audi.

250

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 01/04/2026

haha it is some sort of cursed diminishing returns thing, the harder I try to be absolutely clear, the less anyone understands. To the point I do sometimes wonder if I am speaking the same language lol. OTOH, like basic forms will take me hours to fill out bc each word could mean so many things!

020

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 01/04/2026

Apropos of exactly nothing, but for anyone else in the same boat, I seem to have the rather singular talent of writing something, then immediately after hitting send, thinking of the 19 ways it could be misinterpreted then clarifying all of them to the point no one understands anything. IYKYK lol

3190

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 31/03/2026

thanks appreciate the effort!!! Good to know!

000

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 31/03/2026

Much like golf it is mostly an excuse for all the other stuff (beer, hanging out etc)

120

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 31/03/2026

As a musician I learned that theory lags practice so I'm sure there must somewhere exist an exceedingly complicated justification for this that would be entertainment to read. OTOH English not not consistency either so...

210

Yes *that* Matt Trumpets @mattpt55.bsky.social · 31/03/2026

Thx! still amazes me that your furniture has a gender lol so i can't wait to see what the committee on genderification has decided.

100