F1technical.net

I know some posters here have made claims as to working in motorsports or being closely associated with aspects of F1 or other race series.

People have a tendency to automatically accept such claims as gospel.

If one is willing, or bold enough to make such a statement about their employment, should they not need to provide their name as well as where they work for verification purposes?

I guess I subscribe to the train of thought that, just because someone says it is so, doesn't make it so.

Would this be a feasible option?

I believe the last motorsport employee to give that information here got sacked shortly thereafter.

Besides, it's what someone says that's important - not who says it. After all, I wouldn't want anyone to discount my opinions just because I'm not involved in motorsport. They should discount them because I rarely know what I'm going on about. Plus, I'm a typing dog - I'm not even allowed at racetracks.

Pup wrote:I believe the last motorsport employee to give that information here got sacked shortly thereafter.
...

For a racing employee to give away proprietary information should be a no-no in any circumstance, producing some sort of evidence that the claimed knowledge comes from pertinent and credible xperience would however be becoming, no?

Ah, yes. "The Dead Zone."

Pup wrote:I believe the last motorsport employee to give that information here got sacked shortly thereafter.

Besides, it's what someone says that's important - not who says it. After all, I wouldn't want anyone to discount my opinions just because I'm not involved in motorsport. They should discount them because I rarely know what I'm going on about. Plus, I'm a typing dog - I'm not even allowed at racetracks.

I think you are misunderstanding slightly. People hold up their claimed work experience as proof they are knowledgeable about things. I say if you are using work as proof, then tell us so we know for certain. A lot of people like to use the internet to feel more important than they are. It's quite easy to lie too.

Its pretty easy to tell who knows what they are talking about and who is full of it on here no need to put someones job in jeopardy

I agree, not a very long time ago there was this member claiming to have been a part of developing Lotus' active suspension system a quarter of a century ago and presented plausible anecdotes to go with it, which generated a massive amount of votes.

Then suddenly said member disappears like a paycheck, could have been copy'n paste for all that I know?

........

I would suggest that anyone who claims to be from a particular motorsport background should be able to demonstrate it without recourse to giving their name and employer's details.

If they have knowledge of a particular area then they should be able to discuss the generalities of that area in a way that demonstrates in-depth knowledge without giving away employer-specific information. The nature of the beast, however, is that people ask for further information and very quickly the 'expert' finds themselves hitting the barrier that separates the general from the specific and they have to stop or they risk censure.

It should be possible for someone with in-depth knowledge of a subject to be able to use some general proof as evidence of their position and thus how they should be regarded in the forum.

To expect someone to come on to the forum and say "my name is Bob, I work for Ferrari as an aerodynamicist and I'm telling you that the aero part works like this" is, well, naive.

Just_a_fan wrote:[...]

To expect someone to come on to the forum and say "my name is Bob, I work for Ferrari as an aerodynamicist and I'm telling you that the aero part works like this" is, well, naive.

The guy who worked for, and was subsequently fired from, McLaren did exactly that. He gave away the F-duct under a different guise: "The Dead Zone."

All true, but the problem of validity comes when a member responds, "that's proprietary info" whenever asked for more?

xpensive wrote:I agree, not a very long time ago there was this member claiming to have been a part of developing Lotus' active suspension system a quarter of a century ago and presented plausible anecdotes to go with it, which generated a massive amount of votes.

Then suddenly said member disappears like a paycheck, could have been copy'n paste for all that I know?

Too bad they didn't provide particulars about their identity because I would have tried to get in touch with Clive Chapman to see if he knew anything.

Just_a_fan wrote:I would suggest that anyone who claims to be from a particular motorsport background should be able to demonstrate it without recourse to giving their name and employer's details.

If they have knowledge of a particular area then they should be able to discuss the generalities of that area in a way that demonstrates in-depth knowledge without giving away employer-specific information. The nature of the beast, however, is that people ask for further information and very quickly the 'expert' finds themselves hitting the barrier that separates the general from the specific and they have to stop or they risk censure.

It should be possible for someone with in-depth knowledge of a subject to be able to use some general proof as evidence of their position and thus how they should be regarded in the forum.

To expect someone to come on to the forum and say "my name is Bob, I work for Ferrari as an aerodynamicist and I'm telling you that the aero part works like this" is, well, naive.

Well I feel that if you are going to start giving away employer-specific information pertaining to the design of a Formula One car, you better be willing to back up who you are, or you shouldn't bother posting anything that would indicate an inner working knowledge.

I'm sure there is a way they could check with their employer to see what the limits are on what they can say about various things.

I just don't care for people taking things for granted because it sounds on the up and up.

Anyone who just says "it is so because I say so" is likely to be taken with a pinch of salt, I agree. Someone who says "it is this way and here's some non-proprietary info by way of proof" is more likely to be taken seriously.

Anyone who can put together a cogent argument in support of their position shouldn't have to prove anything else. It's up to others to bring counter argument. Just saying "I don't believe you, la la la" is no more defensible than is "it is so because I say so".

In all of my posts (that aren't in the ying yang threads anyway ) I try to explain my thoughts and why I hold a position. It is then for others to argue their position in a similar manner. I'm not involved with motorsport at all although I have a friend who has been at a high technical level in F1. Where I have brought forward info that I've gleaned from chats with him then I have mentioned the source in that general way. Am I going to give his name insupport of my position? No I am not because it would be deeply unfair on him. If others wish to discount that information then that is up to them. I shall lose no sleep over it.

If one is willing, or bold enough to make such a statement about their employment, should they not need to provide their name as well as where they work for verification purposes?

I guess I subscribe to the train of thought that, just because someone says it is so, doesn't make it so.

Would this be a feasible option?

No, that is a ridiculous request. If you don't have the technical knowledge to figure out whether they are telling the truth exactly then you'll just have to rely on gut feel.

After all, if you think they are telling porkies, why would you believe that they are who they say they are?

My guess as to why technical people don't stick around here has got very little to do with impostors, and a great deal to do with signal to noise ratio. And for what it's worth I have worked on (and driven) Lotus active suspension cars, and have worked on a Lotus F1 car. But so what? Does that mean you have to switch your brain off when I make a statement?