What they meant by this is to use all power available. They got 100l of fuel to go full 1½h race. The fuel flow is limited to 100l/h. That means they need to use around 67l/h on average, this of course decreases during braking and is almost at max during acceleration. Also energy recovery and the release of that energy has some leeway to be used in different ratios, it is limited to 33s per lap. How that energy is divided, is up to the team.. So they will have the full boost of 160hp from ERS and full 100l/h fuel flow when using "push to pass" button but it's nowhere near the common definition of that function. Traditional push to pass is high boost, on 2014 F1 it means few percentages of power. The correct term would be "overtake mode".

RBR infringed fuel flow rule and no other team had been even warned, FIA has guidelines that teams should calibrate with enough margins to void minor differences between sensors. RBR refused to do this and counted on FIA not counting that marginal change. FIA had stated pre-season that in no case there will be extra fuel flow allowed, it's almost zero tolerance policy.

They've done this before, made a marginal rule infringement and got away with Charlie Whitings slap on the wrist:"change it to the next race".. Their camera mountings is already one of those little things that is technically legal and at the same is not.. It all depends if the TV crews can find a suitable camera. If they say "no", the rules are clear: they need unobstructed view.. That small hole hardly allow high quality picture, the only lens that could even remotely suffice is fisheye lens with a mask: it is not their standard equipment.. RBR most likely will have to change those too (imho, so should merc camera pods and mclaren parachutes too). Compare that to Williams 360 camera pod and it's pretty clear what FIA means by "enough room to fit camera" means.

Last year they had holes on the floor in monaco: ruling was, change them to the next race.. Then there was the TC scandal, RBR used illegal engine mappings.. They used them last year too when there was a ban of feeding fuel to exhaust during zero throttle to feed the blown diffuser: RBR chuckled and used them anyway.. They still have the duct inside the nose, it violates the intention of the rule but is legal technically. Of course the severity of the punishment is a clear sign: FIA just showed that no more of that bullshit, RBR has to start respecting rules.

Not exactly.. It is limited by time and amount of energy. There is no "push to pass" button but they have some leeway on how to spread the extra energy around the lap. You can use it more on one corner but for the rest of the lap, you're total power output is reduced.

First race is now over, RBR got disqualified due to too much fuel was being fed to the engine... Also the dreaded "they will save fuel" phase was over in 10 laps. There were lots of technical DNFs, 14 cars made it to the finishline, which was miles better than worst fears. Some of the cars made their first race distance. But the main change was..

Almost unlimited torque at the low revs.. The cars were sliding, they were skittish, there were 3rd gear opposite locks.. They are once again more powerful than the grip what tires and aero can produce. Turns like T2 and T5 in Albert Park used to be "non-corners", they just pointed the nose to apex and floor it.. Now.. totally different thing. Even T9 exit was dangerous, which it hasn't been since 1999.

Eau Rouge will not be a flat out, easy corner but terrifying rollercoaster that eats lives if you don't respect it..

Only thing we lost is the sound, the new V6 uses energy so much efficiently that sound is not as loud.. On the plus side, you can hear the tires squeeling and the audience cheering. It's not V10 screech but low throaty roar.

It's been tested and the "best" audiophiles can't hear differences between 14bit and 16bit, nor can they hear differences between 44.khz and ANYTHING higher. In some tests they could use12bit sound with 36khz sampling frequency... The differences they hear are inside their head. Thus the description of improved sound is always "air", "brilliance", "organic" etc.. Don't be fooled by their fancy gear, most of it is for nothing. Cables: i am always willing to bet my months salary on doubleblind tests, 10 000€/m against a coat hanger, no audible differences.. It's all about confirmation bias, you think there's a change and suddenly you hear it.

About MP3s vs PCM:
Here we have audible differences. But. Put on high enough energy, ie turn your amp high enough, suddenly double blind studies can't find which is which. But it can be audible, mp3 is lossy format and even 320kbps can be heard. Not with all material, it's about in the limits of human hearing. Some might hear high end loss, if you're in your twenties. Once you hit 40, everything above 17khz is gone, forever. You will never hear 20k again. And to really notice the difference, you need good gear. Your laptop earphone output most likely won't even output anything past 18khz well and it's dynamic range can be represented with 8bit depth.. It can be just horrible. Fix that with usb box, around 80€: you can take that box anywhere on planet to the most "hifiest" guy out there and he can't hear the difference between his 10000€ A/D converter.. In fact, 5€ A/D converter can produce the same output as 3000€ one... That's not why i said buy a external.. It's more to do with RF and other shielding, protection against the noises a computer makes than A/D conversion quality. Note, i'm talking about audible differences, you can find faults with measuring equipment and 95% of the gear price is about "just to be sure".

If you want a good sound, first, treat your room. Dampen it, shape it.. If you spent 10k on stereo and 0 on acoustics, you will not have a good sound no matter what you do. Spend the same amount on acoustics than what you do on you equipment, room makes a lot more differences than gear. Next comes speakers, they are the worst link in the chain by a large margin. Quality costs, still wouldn't go to extremes here either, the changes are again "just to be sure", not always audible.. Then amps, beefy, low noise, A/B. You don't need to spend a huge lot of money but some. Then cables.. Take the 50€ version instead of 300€ or 3000€. Build quality and connectors, durability. Those are the reason to buy more expensive than 5€. Not because of sound quality.. There will always be group of people that will swear they can hear the differences, that's bullcrap. Human ear CAN NOT detect any chances, even meters are having a REALLY hard time getting any changes. You need to either amp up the signal to saturation point, or use frequencies in the Mhz ranges, thousands of times higher than what media needs to get any changes between cheapest crap and high end scams.

Audiophiles can't be convinced they are wrong, they are suffering from the same thing antivax people do: give them facts, they will be even more convinced they are right.

True dat, first time is.. a surprise, lets' say...

Really interesting.. We, Finns, also have no he or she and we were amongst the very first to give voting rights to women...

Our school got these nice "ergonomic" chairs.. Man they are awful, there's no lock, there's a spring and in order to stay in good posture, you have to simultaneously keep your self up, lean on your elbows and push back.. When you lean forward the back support follows you and pushes slowly you to the edge of your seat and when you lean back it's like you got nothing there and the whole thing feels like it's gonne capsize. It's simultaneously too stiff and too soft. It takes about 2 hours and i get back cramps.. And they claim they are super healthy as you can't relax.. If i ever meet the guy who designed those, i'm gonna kick him in the nuts. I'll take my gaming chair anyday..

Having the same problems as many here, how is still unexplained. I've heard this "explanation" given in multiple occasions. None seem to think that we would like to know how it computes, not what quantum is...

How can you trust a computation that you have no way of monitoring? A computation that magically gives the right answer? "It just happens, trust us" seems to be the way. Until someone comes up and explains it, it's hocum.

A lot of us in these internet days have a good grasp of what the leading science is about. Not detailed information but the basic concepts are well understood. Quantum is old news, string theories, multiple dimensions.. We are not children in science anymore so don't treat us such.

Hmm, if something gets bigger, it must have a center. And by definition, an edge too. (yeah, i know, infinity can get bigger while it never ends but that does not apply to volume). From our perspective, the universe is so massive that we don't know how massive it is and thus, from our perspective, it has no edge or center.

Personally, i'm a firm believer that we are missing some very basic principles when observing the universe. But, for now, in this point in human evolution, it's not yet important.