|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
2 May 2018, 02:22 (Ref:3818772) | #2801 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
Quote:
I certainly want the hybrid gubbins removed. Aerodynamic surfacing is not really tech, it's just a consequence of a racing car that travels fast in an atmosphere rather than in a vacuum. F1 cars should be fast beasts that zip through corners in an astonishing way IMO. (And they should have naturally aspirated V12s, hehe.) |
||
|
2 May 2018, 04:55 (Ref:3818792) | #2802 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,406
|
HAD the best PU. Not anymore. The Ferrari PU is marginally ahead so far in 2018.
One of those teams is powered by Ferrari. So your point that Mercedes and their customer teams have only voted for their own advantage is flawed. You are indeed entitled to your opinion, but you are coming over as an unbalanced crank regarding the Mercedes PU. |
||
__________________
When did I do dangerous driving??? |
2 May 2018, 05:04 (Ref:3818795) | #2803 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,406
|
On the subject of the Ferrari PU, the FiA are keeping a close eye on the Ferrari ERS. They have had an initial look at it, and will apparently be having a closer look at the entire system in Spain.
Wonder if this has come about as a result of former Ferrari Chief Engine Designer Lorenzo Sassi (was fired from Ferrari last year), who is now with Mercedes? Maybe he has some "secrets" to be revealed. Personally, I doubt the FiA will find anything at all. Can you imagine the uproar if they did and had to take away points from Ferrari?? |
||
__________________
When did I do dangerous driving??? |
2 May 2018, 06:49 (Ref:3818806) | #2804 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,778
|
Headline - "Ferrari PU ruled illegal and banned - Ferrari given financial support to help with the re-design and extra points to compensate them for any losses due to rule interpretation"
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk |
||
__________________
Midgetman - known as Max Tyler to the world. MaxAttaq! |
2 May 2018, 11:04 (Ref:3818843) | #2805 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,292
|
Quote:
In this case, the point is that all 3 Mercedes powered teams, and one Ferrari powered team, are pushing for this change in aero regulations. So surely the factor to consider is the aero - not who has the best PU. It would seem that those 4 teams involved feel that they want to eliminate other team's aero advantage(s). Why only those 4 teams? Red Bull and McLaren claim the best chassis - perhaps Mercedes see RBR and McLaren as a genuine threat, and likewise with Sauber/FI/Williams view of STR? I would definitely prefer to see discussion of the reasons behind the decision here - as opposed to throwing insults at other members - unless you are saying that the cause for the decline in Mercedes dominance is due to crank balancing? |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
12 May 2018, 11:42 (Ref:3821671) | #2806 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,722
|
It is very interesting to read the transcript of the Friday press conference in Spain.
The four manufacturer engineering chiefs put the whole development of the Hybrid power units in perspective. None of them are happy to loose the MGUH but they seem resigned for that to happen even though they seem to consider it is the most useful, and challenging part of the current engine. There seems to be some doubt that the loss of that as a research area will in fact attract other manufacturers. Even Honda, who purportedly have had the greatest difficulty on getting up to speed in that area will be disapointed to loose it. I am still concerned that we are dumbing the power units down purely because a fixation by some fans, and some pundits, that energy wasting noise is vital to the continuation of F1. A greater concentration in eliminating aero technology that has little use outside single seat racing would make a far greater contribution to the show. |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
13 May 2018, 10:33 (Ref:3822008) | #2807 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,147
|
F1 is such a rudderless mess in terms of where the rules are going, its pretty farcical. To have all these multimillion dollar companies involved and they contiunue to make bonehead decisions time and time again with little accountacy is just astounding to me. I for one am completely for a reduction in aero, however the 2017 rules should never have come to pass in the manner in which they did. For all of Christian Horner's moaning and obvious vested interests, he is spot on with his comments. Why change the rules for 2019 only to change them again in 2021. F1 will forever continue to shoot itself in the foot and waste billions of dollars in the process.
|
||
|
13 May 2018, 10:45 (Ref:3822013) | #2808 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
The increase in aero should never had happened. If anything aero should have been reduced, with tyres made bigger and DRS got rid of. But the people inside of the sport don’t seem to realise this
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
13 May 2018, 15:09 (Ref:3822117) | #2809 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
||
|
13 May 2018, 17:58 (Ref:3822139) | #2810 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 184
|
I havnt been able to watch the F1 this weekend and ultimately keep up with the news. But I keep seeing something about Pirelli have change the tyre construction half way through the season? Which has benefited Merc and Red Bull
|
|
|
13 May 2018, 18:24 (Ref:3822141) | #2811 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,425
|
They have changed the construction of the tyre after blistering issues at Barcelona during testing. I believe this construction is also going to be used at Paul Ricard and Silverstone.
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
14 May 2018, 01:47 (Ref:3822237) | #2812 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
||
|
14 May 2018, 01:50 (Ref:3822238) | #2813 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,923
|
||
|
14 May 2018, 07:40 (Ref:3822269) | #2814 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 184
|
But should they be allowed to change the construction of the tyre half way through a season? I can fully understand if it was for a safety issue. But it’s clearly not otherwise they would change the construction fr the Monaco race.
|
|
|
14 May 2018, 08:45 (Ref:3822277) | #2815 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
Maybe it should be up to the tyre company, within the rules obviously. At the end of the day I don't like this control tyre thing. More tyre manufacturers would make racing more exciting.
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
14 May 2018, 15:08 (Ref:3822338) | #2816 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,719
|
for me the concern of multiple tire manus is that one team will sign up an essentially bespoke deal with a tire manu and the two will use their money and size to further tilt the scales to their advantage....but then again thats really my problem with everything F1 related.
anyways, i think what we are seeing from Pirelli is just a function of more testing....with every test they complete they will naturally collect more data and as a result modify the construction of their compounds accordingly. certainly prefer this pattern to the lack of testing paradigm that plagued the early days of the Pirelli era. |
||
__________________
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 |
14 May 2018, 15:54 (Ref:3822350) | #2817 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
I think after 7 years they finally figured something out... 2017 was a pretty decent year and Bahrain was a great race because drivers were able to push the tyres. What you ideally want is for there to be two choices during a race: either push hard or save tyres. For all the Pirelli years bar last year there was always one clear better strategy: saving. Now with better tyres that don't degrade as much teams have a choice again.
I maintain the only way to get good racing in a near-spec series like F1 is to give drivers and teams as many strategy choices as possible. |
|
|
14 May 2018, 16:22 (Ref:3822357) | #2818 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
I’m not sure what was worked out. 2017 was good, but could have been much better. Bahrain was as good as could be though. Really though we do not need tyres that are below par. It would be better to have another tyre company to push Pirelli along
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
14 May 2018, 16:38 (Ref:3822368) | #2819 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 16,760
|
are you kidding? the last thing f1 needs is a tyre war.
the scary thing is that those days will be upon us again if pirelli ever decide not to renew their contract or another company outbids them. |
|
__________________
devils advocate in-chief and professional arguer of both sides |
14 May 2018, 16:45 (Ref:3822371) | #2820 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
No, F1 needs a lot less things than a tyre war. By not allowing competition, it’s been to easy for Pirelli. I’m sure Pirelli are here to stay, but they need to provide the teams with the best tyres available
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
14 May 2018, 17:47 (Ref:3822391) | #2821 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,719
|
yep no tire war for me either.
maybe if F1 sorts out its other issues first then i would see more appeal but all things equal i would have to think fixing F1, whether that be through aero, engine, money rule tweaks, then keeping the tires a constant would make that work easier to accomplish no? Quote:
i dont think things have really been that easy for Pirelli. the teams complain far too much for that. |
|||
__________________
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 |
14 May 2018, 17:49 (Ref:3822394) | #2822 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,325
|
Well no tyre war means less likely to see an underdog do well. Really though we need less aero more than anything. Then it’s up to the tyre companies to decide how to design their tyres. They need to open it up for more companies to join
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
14 May 2018, 19:16 (Ref:3822410) | #2823 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,425
|
Quote:
to be a bit silly for fun I'd have them change it randomly before each race and not tell the teams what they were getting. |
|||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
14 May 2018, 19:21 (Ref:3822411) | #2824 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,803
|
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." |
14 May 2018, 20:29 (Ref:3822421) | #2825 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,425
|
I guess the suggestion is that we used to get results like Minardi on the front row at Phoenix with Pirelli.
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |