|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 Apr 2018, 22:23 (Ref:3816702) | #2776 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Sarcasm is hard to detect, it seems.
But the way some people talk it's like something banned is banned forever, without any chance of revisiting when the technology is safe. |
|
|
21 Apr 2018, 04:27 (Ref:3816730) | #2777 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
The general drift of info coming from the future power unit discussion seems to be that the MGU-H is to go to reduce complexity and cost.
They seem to be also proposing a 10kg extra fuel allowance so that "racing can be at full power". As the prime purpose of the MGU-H is to extract otherwise wasted energy from heat I would think that would be nowhere enough extra fuel to compensate and it is likely that fuel saving will become even more prevalent. Sounds like we are in for dumber, slower cars just to satisfy those people who like loud noises. |
||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
21 Apr 2018, 07:33 (Ref:3816744) | #2778 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,705
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
21 Apr 2018, 09:34 (Ref:3816762) | #2779 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
<sigh>
Lower costs, more entrants, more competition. But that's a concept too hard to grasp. |
|
|
21 Apr 2018, 10:02 (Ref:3816768) | #2780 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
|
Quote:
I grasp the cost cutting concept you mention but it is still aiming at dumber slower cars. |
|||
__________________
Geting old is mandatory, acting old is optional. |
21 Apr 2018, 10:10 (Ref:3816771) | #2781 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
And that's really what we need. The clever technology has made it so that only the big manufacturers can play. As I've said previously the best solution is to dump the technology and go back to normally aspirated engines. If you one really want the technology, go watch sportscars.
It's all there and good racing too. |
||
|
21 Apr 2018, 10:18 (Ref:3816774) | #2782 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
I mean you have qualifying, which is aimed at putting the best guy in the best car in front (and the current system even further promotes that). How is a slower driver in a slower car supposed to overtake him? Minimize the performance gap, I say. |
|||
__________________
Heaven is a checkered flag. |
21 Apr 2018, 11:14 (Ref:3816779) | #2783 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,086
|
Ferrari are not going anywhere, and they never will. Let them go build IndyCars to their heart's content.
|
|
|
21 Apr 2018, 11:52 (Ref:3816786) | #2784 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Quote:
Longer braking distances through perhaps steel brake discs, a vast reduction in wake turbulence possibly through a greater use of ground effect, etc. ... Having the cars designed AROUND the safety device, instead of plopping something on the existing designs like they have stubbornly done in the past. There are a multitude of ways to improve the sport, but the only thing truly needed is that whoever is making those decisions decides to grow a pair and stand up to manufacturer extortion. |
||
|
21 Apr 2018, 12:33 (Ref:3816789) | #2785 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 943
|
I do find it a bit hilarious that people think they have the panacea to fix everything in F1, if only the big heads at the top would listen!
Ignoring the fact that they've already tried everything suggested here, sometimes multiple times, with either no or an adverse effect. |
|
|
21 Apr 2018, 13:09 (Ref:3816792) | #2786 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Quote:
But that'll be the last comment I'll make here, as the effort expended is apparently nothing but a waste. |
||
|
21 Apr 2018, 13:50 (Ref:3816796) | #2787 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,638
|
|||
__________________
It's just my opinion. |
21 Apr 2018, 14:30 (Ref:3816798) | #2788 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,107
|
Quote:
And it’s less about those in charge listening than it is about specific player refusing to participate in specific ideas as at the core many of those ideas are designed specifically to tear down their dominance of the sport. Asking someone to give up their hard fought advantages is a hard sell. However I feel it is imperative that it is done for the sake of the sport. With that said, I also feel there are some truly terrible ideas espoused here at times. And both the good and bad ideas are not new, or unique to this forum. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
21 Apr 2018, 14:37 (Ref:3816800) | #2789 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
I'm not sure any idea is terrible. That way lies failure. What we can't do here is analyse what that idea means practically which is why we propose things that we hope rather than know will work.
As everyone knows I come from the less tech, more driver input school of thought. But many see that as a backward step. What do I know? I'm just an old bloke that races cars. |
||
|
21 Apr 2018, 15:08 (Ref:3816805) | #2790 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,748
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
21 Apr 2018, 17:52 (Ref:3816815) | #2791 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,022
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
21 Apr 2018, 18:54 (Ref:3816823) | #2792 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,954
|
Quote:
it is interesting to note what background each of us have as that reflects on our perspective about which changes we think are needed and why we come to those conclusions. myself, coming from accounting/financial background probably explains why the changes i typically advocate for are about financial stability, cost controls, budgets caps, how payments are managed...the typical refrain from any good accountant i would think. |
|||
__________________
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 |
23 Apr 2018, 11:50 (Ref:3816998) | #2793 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 9
|
The problem is the more you simplify the more you risk looking like, as Marchionne said, 'global NASCAR'. And he's not change his tune even since Liberty's presentation to the teams.
|
|
|
23 Apr 2018, 12:04 (Ref:3817003) | #2794 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Can't say that I've ever equated single seaters with NASCAR. He may be referring to the standardisation of componentry which is something I'm against.
|
||
|
1 May 2018, 08:17 (Ref:3818610) | #2795 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Changes to the front wing and the rear wing flap have been pushed through by the FIA and Liberty with the support of the 3 Mercedes powered teams and Sauber.
http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/135718 Lets hope it works. |
|
|
1 May 2018, 09:15 (Ref:3818621) | #2796 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,931
|
Sauber agreeing is an interesting power play.
|
||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
1 May 2018, 10:17 (Ref:3818633) | #2797 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 342
|
It will have a "simplified front wing with a larger span and low outwash potential, simplified front brake duct with no winglets, plus a wider and deeper rear wing that will make DRS more effective."
I agree with the front wing and brake ducts but the FIA way of making DRS more powerful I don't like. The teams ran CFD tests for each change apart from extra bargeboards so that was not approved. Why all the Mercedes cars AND Sauber voting for this? |
|
|
1 May 2018, 13:09 (Ref:3818668) | #2798 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
I like the fact they are simplifying the front wing, but for goodness sake, we don't want anymore DRS influence! We just want less downforce and they should start by getting rid of all the ugly winglets that adorn an F1's bodywork these days. Or are the FIA too scared to admit they were wrong to increase downforce for 2017?
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
1 May 2018, 16:45 (Ref:3818703) | #2799 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
If it's pushed by the 3 Mercedes teams then it's bad by default.
|
|
|
1 May 2018, 23:03 (Ref:3818744) | #2800 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Divide and rule, with only 4 teams voting in favour of the change? Now for the PU change, hopefully Renault and Honda teams can vote to change the PU's, which will be good. |
||
|
|
|
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 |