|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
22 Aug 2017, 18:39 (Ref:3760995) | #2326 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,985
|
I don't see what an autonomous safety car would achieve. But in saying that, the problems raised aren't really issues.
- Could it avoid debris? Yes. Cars can already detected humans, deer, potholes, and debris on public roads. A race track version wouldn't even need to be as advanced as public road versions. - Could it avoid being rear ended? Yes. If it can avoid objects in front, it can be programmed to avoid objects behind. I believe the high end Mercedes, Teslas and BMWs can do this. Chevys cannot. - Could it measure grip levels? I don't see why not. We already have TC systems that overstep the mark. All you're doing there is taking that feedback and giving it a human set scale. When the grip levels the car experiences drops to, lets say, 5 on the scale, it's too dangerous. Whether or not that's a good enough metric to measure is another matter. But if a human can judge it, with enough work so can a machine. These cars are already proving safer than humans in uncontrolled circumstances. Put it on a controlled circuit and it'd be an easier engineering problem to solve. But despite all that, I don't see what it really achieves. You'd still need just as many staff to run it. Making Bernd Mayländer redundant doesn't really add anything does it? I see no reason for technology to hold it back, I just don't see the positive side of it. |
|
|
22 Aug 2017, 20:14 (Ref:3761009) | #2327 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,929
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
22 Aug 2017, 22:14 (Ref:3761030) | #2328 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,921
|
I expect to see the future Mercedes AMG Project One as a safety car.
Especially after some complaints of out of pace of the current safety car. |
||
|
29 Aug 2017, 08:34 (Ref:3762551) | #2329 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
Totally different subject, we see every F1 race the problem of following closely and "dicing" for a place. We accept that aerodynamics causes this and have a rule that allows a movable aero device to be employed to allow a car to pass.
Last night I watched my recording of the ELMS race from Paul Ricard and watched as many as 5 or 6 LMP cars dicing at once for places with ease and no apparent problem getting close. The aero on LMP cars is significant so what is different, what is it in the wake of an F1 car that makes getting close so difficult, what is the difference in the rules between F1 and LMP regarding downforce? Is it just a matter of scale? |
||
|
29 Aug 2017, 12:05 (Ref:3762597) | #2330 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,921
|
Quote:
I hope some of the guys here will correct me if I'm wrong. |
|||
|
29 Aug 2017, 16:09 (Ref:3762666) | #2331 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,358
|
Quote:
https://youtu.be/xjsUwFHQbWo https://youtu.be/qXKQezyl2Oo |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
29 Aug 2017, 21:19 (Ref:3762769) | #2332 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,553
|
Quote:
|
||
|
29 Aug 2017, 23:18 (Ref:3762796) | #2333 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,358
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
30 Aug 2017, 01:39 (Ref:3762812) | #2334 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
31 Aug 2017, 15:12 (Ref:3763212) | #2335 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,358
|
According to this, Ross Brawn says team bosses are pushing for an end to grid penalties.
http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/131532 |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
1 Sep 2017, 10:24 (Ref:3763400) | #2336 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,472
|
It pretty much makes a mockery of qualifying all these grid penalties pre quali. So I do see where he's coming from. And getting rid of DRS would be good too
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
1 Sep 2017, 16:27 (Ref:3763458) | #2337 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,714
|
For me the obvious option if F1 is to continue with the "limited" number of power unit bits, would be to hit the teams with championship points penalties.
But struggling teams (possibly because of engine issues) may not be getting many points, so do we want to see the lower places in the contractors championship decided in a battle between teams in negative numbers? Likewise imposing a fine on teams wouldn't work either, what is beer money for Mercedes or Ferrari could be a significant amount over the season for a smaller team. My solution would be a secondary points structure. Firstly lets start with a reasonable number of bits to begin with for the season...lets face it 10 or 12 are built per car as spares for the 4 that are allowed, plus any new development bits as the season goes on. Each race where a constructor uses 1 additional part they are racing for a revised constructors points list of 2 points less than normal scored and have to finish in the top 9 to score points. 1st: 23pts, 2nd: 16pts, 3rd: 13pts, 4th: 10pts, 5th: 8pts, 6th: 6pts, 7th: 4pts, 8th: 2pts and 9th 1pt. If 2 or more parts are used then a points list of 4 points less than normal and have to finish in the top 8 1st: 21pts, 2nd: 16pts, 3rd: 11pts, 4th: 8pts, 5th: 6pts, 6th: 4pts 7th: 2pts and 8th 1pt. Drivers points would remain the same. Edit to add If there was a way of including gearbox into this in a fair way, I'd be for removing that grid penalty as well. Last edited by ScotsBrutesFan; 1 Sep 2017 at 16:36. |
||
|
3 Sep 2017, 08:04 (Ref:3763994) | #2338 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 989
|
A sollution for going negative with constructor point penalties could be just don't let it go negative.... If a team has 5 points and gets a 10 point fine it will just go to 0 instead of -5.
You have to be careful not to make it too complicated. Yes teams that have too little points would benefit, but relatively speaking the same penalty hits them much harder than a top team anyway. Secondly they probably are not the ones designing the engine, so they probably aren't the ones determining the engine life in the first place. |
|
|
3 Sep 2017, 15:00 (Ref:3764081) | #2339 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,929
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
3 Sep 2017, 15:20 (Ref:3764085) | #2340 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,406
|
A lot has been made about how half the grid have received penalties. But half the grid didn't, and that other half have not received engine penalties all season.
Should they suffer because the others have got it wrong? The size of the penalties is also a strange one, as they are caused in part due to the compounding of multiple element changes in an overall PU package. The way the technical regulations are constructed leads to the 'massive penalties', but the below standard build quality is the cause of the penalties in the first place and it is this area that I feel efforts should be made to address the problem. How though, I'm not sure if it would work but an idea is for the penalties to be applied to the engine manufacturer through a separate championship. E.g, we have a constructors, drivers and PU championships. Penalties are applied as point deductions in each respective table. Therefore, this weekend would have seen Ricciardo and Verstappen starting up the front, but Renault would suffer in the PU table. |
||
|
3 Sep 2017, 21:07 (Ref:3764274) | #2341 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 989
|
Quote:
In principle you're right of course it would technically come down to the same. However a few reasons it would be practically different and received more favourable by fans: 1 It hurts the constructor, not the driver as it should. 2 It doesn't mess up the qualification and thus race result. 3 It's generally less intrusive to the Grand Prix weekend. You could do it differently by splitting an absolute penalty in an absolute and relative part. So for instance an engine penalty would mean you lose 5 points plus 5% of your collected constructors points. That way it doesn't overly hit the bottom teams the way absolute constructors penalties would. I would still not let it go negative, but with this approach the chance of that to happen would be much reduced in the first place. I reckon this would be an acceptable compromise, that would go a long way to solving the issues with the current set up while not being too complicated. Last edited by Taxi645; 3 Sep 2017 at 21:14. |
||
|
11 Sep 2017, 19:15 (Ref:3766137) | #2342 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,921
|
Quote:
https://scontent.fsst1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...c2&oe=5A5F29DC |
|||
|
11 Sep 2017, 19:27 (Ref:3766140) | #2343 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,472
|
That looks like a good one to use, so yeah, should be used soon enough
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
24 Sep 2017, 04:14 (Ref:3769527) | #2344 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Bob Fernley of Force India complaining about all talk and no action from F1's new owners.
Nice dig at Zak Brown too. https://www.pitpass.com/60181/All-ta...n-says-Fernley |
|
|
24 Sep 2017, 04:50 (Ref:3769531) | #2345 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
||
|
24 Sep 2017, 08:30 (Ref:3769539) | #2346 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,472
|
Future Rule Changes
I just want to say that the people who are in the sport are not getting the chance to make the sport better than it is
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
10 Oct 2017, 09:54 (Ref:3773382) | #2347 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,406
|
31st October 2017, 2021 engine rules to be revealed.
|
||
__________________
When did I do dangerous driving??? |
10 Oct 2017, 11:56 (Ref:3773407) | #2348 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,521
|
||
|
12 Oct 2017, 17:36 (Ref:3773888) | #2349 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,778
|
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
12 Oct 2017, 19:45 (Ref:3773909) | #2350 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,914
|
Whatever is proposed it will be awful.
They could continue with what we have. That would be awful. It will show they don't want to make F1 better. We shall hate it. They could make the engines simpler and cost effective so all teams can buy them for twopence and it allows more engine manufacturers in. This will result in a boring lack of variety and development. We shall hate it. They could reintroduce real variety. Number of cylinders, turbos or not, etc... this will lead to the teams with the most cash being able to push ahead, try different things and someone will dominate. Back to the old days? We shall hate it. Or we just have one engine for all. Fair? We shall hate it. Or maybe somewhere in between these and we'll have a dilution of the best bits and achieve nothing. We shall hate it. Who'd write rules to try and make people like them. People want different things and some people just don't like anything anyway. So in the same way that the next race will be boring, so the next set of rules will be awful. Prepare yourself. FWIW, I favour more variety even at the expense of a close grid. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |