Fact vs. Opinion on F1Technical.net

[Conceptual]

Should the posts on this forum be clearly defined by the poster as to if they are Fact or the poster's Opinion?

I believe that both are welcome, as well as needed for rounded discussion, but I think that for those people that come here to learn are running into alot of ambiguous information.

There are several engineers on this forum, and to the laymen, (myself included), I can see how it is easy to be misled or confused by the current trend of information communication on this forum.

There are many people on these boards that already do a great job of educating the members with their well thought out posts, their mathmatical explainations, and the graphs that make it easy to understand. A few of these members are (in no particular order):

Riff-Raff
Jersey Tom
Kilcoo33
Ciro Pabon
Belatti
Scarbs
SZ
BAR555
...and a few more that I cannot think of off the top of my head.

These members produce facts, and then lead into their methodology as to why they form an opinion in a certain way. I find these posts to be the most educational as well as the most reccomended. And I thank them for their time and willingness to share their understanding.

What this poll is all about is the clear definition of opinion in the posts on this forum. I have asked to be removed from the F1T ranks several times because it really bothers me that there are members that try to make others believe their opinion is actually a known fact. I have no problem with conecture, especially on a topic with very little information, nor an extrapolation of "best interest" motivation, as long as it is stated as such.

So, I ask the members of F1Technical.net:

Do you believe that this technical forum deserves the clarity that I am asking for here? Do you think that it is crucial to the technical nature of this forum?

Or do you think that it really doesn't matter, and gossip is king anyways?

Please vote, and voice YOUR opinion. I would really like to see what other members think about this subject.

Thank you!

[ISLAMATRON]

didnt you quit this forum a while back and ask for all your posts to be deleted?

Why arent you able to differentiate between what is fact or opinion on your own? Why do you need people to tell you?

[Conceptual]

didnt you quit this forum a while back and ask for all your posts to be deleted?

Why arent you able to differentiate between what is fact or opinion on your own? Why do you need people to tell you?

I seriously cannot even believe that you wrote this after (not) reading my post...

Maybe, because when I come here to read, and learn, I want to know if what I am reading is the truth, or a fiction based upon the posters' perspective.

Maybe because this is supposed to be a "Technical" forum, and not a gossip forum.

Maybe because the new people that come here, and do not enter with the knowledge of what posters to skip, and what posters to actually listen to could use a bit of direction in the beginning.

And yes, I have asked to be deleted, for exactly this reason.

It just goes to show which side of the line you are on. Does it make you feel good to know that you are educating people on a technical forum with pure fiction? Do you enjoy throwing new fans into the trashcan with this nonsense?

If you believe that is the readers' responsibility to wring understand from the posters blather, then you have things a bit backwards.

In the real world, it is the responsibility of the speaker to ensure understanding in the listener. Something that college professors think that they are above, and apparently you feel that you are above it as well.

Since I cannot get my account here deleted, I really wish that there was a squelch function, so at least I could have the ability to filter the posters that have nothing but trash to contribute to these educational forums...

[Giblet]

It's my opinion that fact is underrared, and a fact that opinion is overrated.

The fact is, that is my opinion.

[Conceptual]

It's my opinion that fact is underrared, and a fact that opinion is overrated.

The fact is, that is my opinion.

See, Gib, did that reall hurt you? LMAO

I can say that it split my sides when I read it! =D>

[Jersey Tom]

Many folks can't even tell if what they believe is fact, opinion, or rumor.

Really, what most motorsport engineers convey (in my experience) are observations. While the observations themselves are factual, the implications and inferences people draw are somewhere between fact and opinion.

The important thing to note is that the observations and inferences only hold true in certain circumstances. There is little or nothing in this business that is gospel and universally true, at least on my end of it. It's key to come to the realization that a lot of the great knowledge that's shared in Racecar Engineering Mag, Tune to Win, Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, and F1T is based on personal observation in one sort or another and while valuable, isn't always true.

The most dangerous people are the ones who hear someone say something, and then pass it along as fact without evaluating the validity of it. Many folks fall into that trap (I used to as well), particularly in the FSAE crowd..

[Conceptual]

Many folks can't even tell if what they believe is fact, opinion, or rumor.

Really, what most motorsport engineers convey (in my experience) are observations. While the observations themselves are factual, the implications and inferences people draw are somewhere between fact and opinion.

The important thing to note is that the observations and inferences only hold true in certain circumstances. There is little or nothing in this business that is gospel and universally true, at least on my end of it. It's key to come to the realization that a lot of the great knowledge that's shared in Racecar Engineering Mag, Tune to Win, Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, and F1T is based on personal observation in one sort or another and while valuable, isn't always true.

The most dangerous people are the ones who hear someone say something, and then pass it along as fact without evaluating the validity of it. Many folks fall into that trap (I used to as well), particularly in the FSAE crowd..

Thanks for your post, and true to form, the red lettering clearly catergorizes where your post lies on the spectrum.

As I said, I don't care what it is, as long as the reader is informed as to the nature of the information, and in this case, JT made a great statement, but made it clear that it was not fact, but an observation of his experience.

THANK YOU JT!

[marcush.]

It's my opinion that fact is underrared, and a fact that opinion is overrated.

The fact is, that is my opinion.
It's my opinion that fact is underrared, and a fact that opinion is overrated.

The fact is, that is my opinion.

honestly speaking I´m sure nobody is free of colouring or at least putting some shades on the facts in his whole life.Word is you are able to actually see less than
30% of the reality at one time..so to call something a fact ,is ths based on common knowledge ,history,or simply true as long as I´m not wiling to accept someones prove of the contrary?....simply put : when thousands of people loose their lives in public view - your perception is totally different to the fact that a similar amount of people do actually die each day because they live in places of the world where theres simply not enough food and water available.

Look into the threads ,it is more than obvious that some aspects seem to be ignored by the posters simply because they look for an answer suiting them -for example the overtaking inmprovement thread-Instead of questioning the usefulness of the whole debate ,endless iterations on how you could create overtaking opportunities-totally wrong basic question.

as JT put it bservations true in certain conditions .that is the core to it.
You can´t put use a variable in a simulation - for example HP- and run that very
simulation just chnaging exactly this variable-as of course you will only plot a change in performance the programmer put into the simulation ... it just proves nothing.

[WhiteBlue]

It would be beneficial if people would discriminate a bit more between facts and opinion. It is not always easy to do so but it helps with the thought process to do it.

I believe that over time some harsh criticism by people on this and other boards has educated me to differentiate more between facts that are generally seen as such and points that I agree with but which are disputed by other members. I tend to ad those little bits (IMO, in my view) when I am aware that I use points that I'm convinced of but other people may not.

There are certainly some figures and facts that may appear objective but are carefully massaged to stipulate conclusions that are not valid. It is long known that statistics can appear to be very objective but will not accurately reflect the issue they are referring to. So to discriminate between facts and opinions can be very difficult business and requires some intellectual honesty that is hard to carry through all the time.

[ISLAMATRON]

Many folks can't even tell if what they believe is fact, opinion, or rumor.

Really, what most motorsport engineers convey (in my experience) are observations. While the observations themselves are factual, the implications and inferences people draw are somewhere between fact and opinion.

The important thing to note is that the observations and inferences only hold true in certain circumstances. There is little or nothing in this business that is gospel and universally true, at least on my end of it. It's key to come to the realization that a lot of the great knowledge that's shared in Racecar Engineering Mag, Tune to Win, Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, and F1T is based on personal observation in one sort or another and while valuable, isn't always true.

The most dangerous people are the ones who hear someone say something, and then pass it along as fact without evaluating the validity of it. Many folks fall into that trap (I used to as well), particularly in the FSAE crowd..

Thanks for your post, and true to form, the red lettering clearly catergorizes where your post lies on the spectrum.

As I said, I don't care what it is, as long as the reader is informed as to the nature of the information, and in this case, JT made a great statement, but made it clear that it was not fact, but an observation of his experience.

THANK YOU JT!

Yes! we have it, the holy grail of F1tech, from now every post made here must include (in my experience) at the top or it will be deleted by a mod.

This message has been brought to you by Conceptuals lack of objective reasoning.

[Professor]

I'd like to express my opinion using a post or two of my own. They are from F1T. The first post is what I consider fact. The facts could be wrong, and I cannot discuss my sources, but I believe them to be true. If someone knows them to be false, please let me know. I have no vested interest in their accuracy, I just provided them as I thought they would be of interest. This is from the USF1 thread, the thread that spawned this discussion.

Steve Brown, the former R & D (research and development) officer at Brawn GP, joined USF1 earlier this year after being released from his contract on his request. I don't know his exact responsibilities, but he does have current F1 experience and will help the team in whatever role he is assigned. Ken Anderson said this, "We have some really good guys with current F1 knowledge. One of the guys we have (Steve Brown) was the head of R&D at Brawn and he got to touch every part of the car. It's not like we've been doing this in a vacuum."

Dr. Eric Warren joined USF1 as chief aerodynamicist. He is the founder of Corvid Technologies http://www.corvidtec.com and owns the computers being used to crunch the numbers necessary to do the CFD calculations. His compay has US defense contracts including some dealing with the Aegis missle defense system. His racing experience comes from the Corvette Le Mans effort.

Bernard Fergusion, former Motorsport Director at Cosworth (2007) has joined the USF1 team to coordinate efforts between chassis design and engine supply. He was in charge at Cosworth when they built their last Formula 1 engine.

Phil Morse has been named as vehicle dynamacist. Morse worked at Honda Automotive in Research and Design for eight years as a senior engineer in the Suspension/Handling research group. He was cofounder of Morse Measurements, a K&C company. He has experience with vehicle dynamics & elasto-kinematic suspension simulation, data acquisition, and vehicle lab testing. Phil has worked with passenger vehicles and production-based racers, and has designed special Kinematics and Compliance data integration strategies for Formula 1 and NASCAR racing teams. Morse graduated from Purdue University where he earned a Bachelor and a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering.

There are few opinions expressed here. As I said, I have not cited my sources, so an opinion could be offered that this is all BS. Facts could be offered that would be useful to us all. The words are all my own, from my blog, which I will not promote here as that seems a bit rude.

[Professor]

This is a second post, which is my opinion. It is not fact but is based on some facts that I believe.

I agree with you regarding the information that has been available. It leaves me with an uneasy feeling whenever I see info coming forth from the other new teams and see nothing coming from Charlotte. I want the team to succeed and I hope they will. But, there is little evidence of progress. Time is running out and I also have my doubts, but I will wait and see before I pass judgement.

I have been involved in some tough projects that I thought were impossibe, but as project manager I could not openly express my doubt. One in particular springs to mind because the project logo was a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, LoL!

USF1 has been in the news mostly because no news has come out of Charlotte. Bernie famously said that he didn't think USF1 would be ready for the first race at Bahrain. "I think one or two might not turn up," he told the BBC in Singapore. "That's what I'm being told; possibly USF1 are a doubt."

Following that, the new FIA Senate President Nick Craw said that he had a different view. He said that the team had paid their entry fee, that he had inspected their facility twice, and that "I am impressed with the progress made by the organisation since the Concorde Agreement was signed in late July."

The next news about USF1 did not come from Charlotte, but came from far away, and originated with Ross Brawn. He said, "We have been crash testing for the new car for the past two months, to be ready for the official tests. A new team should be doing the same if it wants to be ready for the beginning of the season." Brawn somehow knew what was going on in Charlotte and his comments fueled further rumours that USF1 was in serious trouble. Perhaps Steve Brown told him.

I think this represents what Conceptual thinks of when he says "Facts vs. Opinion." I have been guilty of mixing the two things together, we all do. If I have a complaint with F1T, it is that some people dismissed my facts and opinions with "opinionated bias" and no facts.

I spent 25 years as an engineering manager, and the last 6 years teaching, and I am still of the opinion that facts will correct my opinion most of the time.

[Professor]

Sorry Guys, one last thing. I find that there are a dozen or so people here that seem to color their opinion and their facts based on the opinion and facts of a specific poster. There is often an unscientific response that usually includes emotive words that are unnecessary. The hue of these posts tend to negate their value.

However, I love to read all of the personal attacks (reminds me of my family gatherings during the winter holidays). So, please continue. I find them funny, and I certainly hope that was the intent as they are never informative.

True, we must balance seriousness with ridiculousness. I seek emotional balance.

Peace and love, guys, lol!

[autogyro]

Unfortunately in the modern scientific world it is common practice to mix the meaning of fact with truth.
I believe that this is the problem you are laboring under.
Engineering as a science works by defining facts but further engineering work can change these facts, making the original facts no longer fact.
Truth in engineering is a far more difficult concept to embrace and is of a far wider importance.
Opinion is simply striving for the truth.
Without opinion the human experience is sterile and achieves little of importance.
Facts alone are stuck in time, like the concept of Atheism.

[Rob W]

Should the posts on this forum be clearly defined by the poster as to if they are Fact or the poster's Opinion?

...There are several engineers on this forum, and to the laymen, (myself included), I can see how it is easy to be misled or confused by the current trend of information communication on this forum.

....There are many people on these boards that already do a great job of educating the members with their well thought out posts

In theory it is a good idea but in practice it doesn't really work because of basic human nature: people are fallible.

Even the most competent engineer, mathematician etc may be convinced their workings/calculations point to X while another person may rightly point out that, yes they do - only if viewed as a single calculation but, as part of the whole, they are variable. Aero calculations in particular are prone to this as no single aspect can be considered fully in exclusivity of the whole package.

In my experience working with and knowing technologists (albeit not in F1) they are often very prone to overlooking other factors which contribute to something, or downplaying the importance of aspects outside of their area of expertise. (Hence why guys like Ross Brawn are legends while not being a specialist in any particular technical area - they can see the picture as a whole better than anyone else)

Likewise, many people will point to driver X being the best at Y and being able tp back it up - as are teams who've done their homework. But this also fails sometimes which you make decisions based on them. Alonso going to McLaren is a prime example. World Champion: check. Fastest driver: possibly. Good with set-up: check. Consistent over many years: check. Well, sign him up! ...I bet they didn't bank on how he and Hamilton would get along (or not as was the case) - and the effect it would have on performances.

Maybe a practical idea would be to somehow tag or highlight threads with 'technical' if they cover highly technical topics. This could let the people who just want to wank on about how awesome Hamilton or think James Allen is an authority on F1 cars know that it is a fanboy free thread. And moderate those threads accordingly.