It has to be noted, that the car was initially built for a competition named "Formula Student", where there are several disciplines and the tracks are very narrow and twisty. The team added these fans to the 2019 runner to increase grip (double from what I understand) and maximize traction especially at standstill for this record (As you said, not to prevent taking-off). And since the wings would take up too much drag, they only left the undertray with the fans in terms of aerodynamics. Aside from that it is an electric car with four powerful yet small motors, placed at the wheels. Congratz to the team and AMZRacing!

Rank1 - Airwave

Aber nicht die üblichen Versionen, sondern Lowlands "Classical Trancelations". Spezifisch die in Helsinki in 2018 aufgeführte Version.
Bin vor ein paar Tagen auf das Konzert gestossen und habe seither jeden Tag ein anderes Stück im Kopf :) Gestern war es z.B. noch Saltwater - Chicane. Wer Golden/Classic Trance mag und die Komplexität eines Orchesters mit Chor und Solisten schätzt, dem kann ich das nur empfehlen.

In principal I agree with your point, but I'm sceptical, it will work the way we wish, since there are more things connected to that, when it comes to car design and setup.

First off: The 2023 cars cause more dirty air than the 2022 runners. And I do remember a few races at the beginning of 2023 where this was clearly visible. The FIA tried adding more DRS zones to remedy this, but it's way imbalanced. At some places it doesn't make any difference, in others it's just "Push to Pass", which as a motorsports fan is frustrating.

But it must be even more frustrating for the teams. The designs and setups for their cars are always trade-offs and since DRS is part of the formula, it is part of the trade-off (Look at what McLaren was trying to do in Spa, or back in F-Duct days in Monza). Before I write a whole essay on it, let me showcase one of the dependencies: Powertrains and gearboxes are fixed until 2025. If you'd get rid of DRS in say 2024, those who made the trade-off to favor traction over high-speed will suffer and will only be able to pass if they sacrifice their Aero downforce. Or they'll keep their grip levels and just not be able to pass on track without a huge tire delta. In other words: DRS gives the designers one more degree of freedom to arrive at their concept. Without it, I fear that car concepts will merge even more, than they do now, giving aero even more of a weight and due to even less difference, racing itself might suffer. This is only one example and holds true even when changing it at the same time as the drivetrain. So it's a pretty delicate thing to balance, when taking away just one aspect.

If I only had better data :). The three weather stations around the track and Lüttich is what I'm working with. It seems that it was more cloudy than I expected and it hasn't heated up enough. So now the humid air is rising up the mountain and the rain gaining intensity. With any luck we will see some raindrops arriving at 1540-1545.

I'm less optimistic than Sam is about the chances of rain. There is a small shower cell about 40km to the west right now, but the sun is heating up the air and I don't think it'll make it to the track because of it. Maybe a few drops around 15:45 local time, but low probability. The even smaller cell he sees to arrive at around 15:05 near the track is already fizzling out. So if there aren't any humid air masses or intense vertical movement I have missed, this is most probably a dry race. There is some significant gusty wind though.

We used Matlab back where I studied and the faculty did provide the software for free through a central license server. Since internet wasn't as prevalent and stable back then, a good chunk of students did pirate it anyway... so there's that...

I've been using and continue to use SciLab and Octave privately and even at my job. It's great for calculations, simulations and for data analysis, if you're not doing it in dedicated tools and don't require a neatly designed graphic interface. Where we ran into trouble was with toolboxes, hardware integration (HiL) and safety. For a business it doesn't make sense to spend all those resources (the workers' time and skill) to build all those tools etc. when Mathworks already does it and you'll always be trailing them. Also as soon as you try for 'safe' software and are restricted to specific hardware (which is being developed and updated regularly itself), the whole process becomes way too cumbersome, while Matlab has specific toolboxes for specific hardware. And as a last point: Matlab has made alot of progress in terms of the interface and automation in the last few years, so more people can easily use it.

So there are differences but it really depends on the specific circumstances, whether they merit the price.

Is the infrastructure relevant though? As I understand it, the battery is charged by splitting water (H2O) into Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms (instead of H2 molecules, hence the name proton battery) and instead of compressing and cooling it, having a solid structure in which to store the protons. When drawing energy from the battery the opposite process takes place. So basically it is both an electrolyser when charging and a classic fuel cell when discharging with the storage of hydrogen (protons) being integrated in the same battery through a porous solid (mainly carbon). To quote from the article: >It looks like more of a battery competitor than a fuel cell competitor, though.

Next to the advantages they cite (energy and power density, abundant and environmentally unproblematic materials, recyclability, not explosive) I do wonder about the density in terms of volume. If they are bigger in size, they could constitute a better solution for big energy storages within the grid or at home, where now many are using lithium ion batteries.

Well even if we take those nonsense extrapolations seriously and had the material capacities to build that infrastructure globally (remember it isn't a local problem), what is also lacking in many countries are skilled workers who actually put that stuff together. I can't seem to find enough political action to fulfill that part. And it's not only the production side, but the transport of the energy (grids and storage) and then also the consumer side. Those heat-pumps aren't gonna install themselves, you know.

I'd add that especially in developed countries, we have gotten used to the high energy-density of fossil fuels, which is the result of millions of years of pressure, temperature or in short: energy. And we are using up this energy within two centuries. This resulted in the unsustainable lifestyle (it's everywhere we look), that would have to be curbed, if we were to get off this Jurassic Park Experiment completely.

Therefore a number of people see their very (unsustainable) way of life in jeopardy. This source of resistance is what gives that culture war BS its fuel in the first place. At least in my experience of talking with people it is this negative emotional place that leads them to embrace false information in order to keep their lifestyles. Which in turn makes cooperation impossible. To make it even worse, people in developing countries now aspire to the same lifestyle - and who can blame them? But I don't trust their (or ours for that matter) politics enough to hope for scientifically sound action to get there.