|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
30 Mar 2016, 18:53 (Ref:3628809) | #1776 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,303
|
Yes, thank you Adam. Apologies to Red Bull.
|
||
|
30 Mar 2016, 19:01 (Ref:3628820) | #1777 | |||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
30 Mar 2016, 19:24 (Ref:3628830) | #1778 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
more recently, post race in Brazil 2007 where BMW-Sauber and Williams were investigated for the remaining on board fuel temp was lower then allowed.
there was not enough evidence (not enough fuel to analyse iirc) but Mclaren appealed hoping the disqualifications would lift LH a few spots allowing him to take the 2007 title away from Kimi. rules changes and is F1 broken?...its convenient to blame BE and the money people but the teams are not honest bystanders in all of this. we euphemistically call what they do 'tricks of the trade' but this is a dirty game and as a current trend people dont want to follow sports where the perception is one of scandal, collusion, and dishonest competition...which in fairness are traits that have always been a part of F1. personally i like it warts and all but at the same time this is a house of cards and always has been. anyways just sayin. |
||
__________________
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 |
30 Mar 2016, 21:38 (Ref:3628874) | #1779 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
30 Mar 2016, 23:16 (Ref:3628891) | #1780 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,573
|
|||
|
3 Apr 2016, 14:00 (Ref:3629868) | #1781 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,753
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
3 Apr 2016, 14:13 (Ref:3629870) | #1782 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Quote:
If they are going to change from the 2015 system then an average of 2 laps seems like a good way to go. |
||
|
3 Apr 2016, 14:15 (Ref:3629872) | #1783 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Yet another proposal: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/re...at-684341/?s=1 that will be decided on, on Thursday once the teams have had a think about it.
What seems clear though is that although all the teams favoured returning to the 2015 format, both Todt and BCE are not prepared to allow it to happen (until public demand forces them into a U-turn possibly). They deem that the format makes the result too predictable. As I have said before, they seem determined to punish successful teams for producing a car that is perfectly legal, but which others are unable to emulate. |
||
|
3 Apr 2016, 14:24 (Ref:3629875) | #1784 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Quote:
|
||
|
3 Apr 2016, 14:35 (Ref:3629880) | #1785 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,115
|
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 Apr 2016, 14:35 (Ref:3629881) | #1786 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
What Scrooge and that Powerless Extra Man want is basically camouflaged succest ballast and performance balancing.
Why they also want to prevent from going to 2015, is saving off faces from shame. These idiots don't realize it's the cars and overall rules that need changing, not some trivial qualifying format. I don't agree on "level playing fields" either, I see eye to eye with RLM's Nick Daman on this one (unlimited budgets as there have always been, + no testing restrictions), it's all the other areas that need fixing. Incl having more customer cars. |
|
|
3 Apr 2016, 14:36 (Ref:3629882) | #1787 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,294
|
Yep, F1 tends to make a habit of sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
|
||
|
3 Apr 2016, 15:07 (Ref:3629900) | #1788 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Quote:
As for the lower end of the pit lane, this is exactly how's it's always been. However, when those teams have had the right people in place who come up with brilliant ideas, they start punching way above their weight. And although I am in favour of the financial pot being distributed far more equally, I am not sure that that would result in a change in the order. I believe that the top teams spend at least 3 times the amount that they receive from FOM to produce their leading cars, so even if the back enders received more, they still need to raise more money to compete with the big boys. |
|||
|
3 Apr 2016, 18:15 (Ref:3629951) | #1789 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Mike just to put it in perspective if Williams were to win the championship with their drivers first and second they would still get less money than Ferrari even if Ferrari finished last. That is the sort of resource difference that needs to be sorted. Considering Williams would be somewhere in the middle of the pecking order from FOM.
I think there needs to be a much more even distribution of FOM money even if sponsorship levels are different that at least should help to even up the field. If you look at the top 4 finishers today, they all come from Bernie's favoured teams. |
|
|
3 Apr 2016, 19:11 (Ref:3629974) | #1790 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
wolfhound, I don't disagree that the rewards from FOM should be more equally distributed, as I said above. However, I also don't believe that the reason that the 4 or 5 top teams are successful is because FOM pays them more. They raise far more money from outside F1, from sponsors and partners or the corporate body that spawns them, than they get from FOM's coffers, and they do this with the sole purpose of winning.
Unfortunately for the other teams, success breeds popularity so that they it is easier for them to find the resources to fund the huge overheads that they have and the massive salary bill that comes with it. The only way that you could get absolute parity, from a financial point of view, would be to pay all the teams from a central pot without letting individual teams being able to raise further funds elsewhere; basically a form of communism, that has proved a failure in virtually every instance that is has been tried. I firmly believe that if the top 4 teams today had received the same reward from FOM, that they would still have been the top 4 teams. Unless you put in place strict financial rules that dictate that teams are only able to spend a maximum amount which would have to equal the amount that the team with the lowest budget is currently spending. That should get rid of the manufacturers for you in a stroke. |
||
|
3 Apr 2016, 19:32 (Ref:3629979) | #1791 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,115
|
Quote:
Overall, I mostly agree with a number of your points. Most here agree that FOM money should be evenly distributed (a few argue that it is an "appearance fee" and that the more popular teams should get more so it is fine as is) but I do agree that equitable distribution of FOM money is not going to change the balance of power. It likely would help the health of struggling teams at the bottom. It would be part of a solution, but not the complete solution. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
6 Apr 2016, 15:50 (Ref:3630733) | #1792 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,114
|
Tyre Compounds Being Revealed
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-...for-china.html
What do you think of the fact that quantities of compounds teams and drivers have chosen are available to everyone well before the next race? It's interesting as a fan to read these, but doesn't it give the teams too much time to anticipate what the others are going to do and modify their strategy based on it? Arguably, it'd be better if they were all in the dark about each others' potential strategies and then they had to react to them on the day itself, perhaps not even knowing what the others have available. |
|
|
6 Apr 2016, 16:05 (Ref:3630737) | #1793 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,958
|
that would be a nice addition imo. would be hard to keep team mates in the dark though.
certainly we have gotten to a point where some of the predictable nature of the races can be attributed to all the modeling/simulations they run before hand. limit that ability and mistakes will be made and inspired strategy decisions made on the pitwall rewarded. |
||
__________________
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 |
6 Apr 2016, 16:57 (Ref:3630748) | #1794 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
The teams still have to guess how the competition are going to use the tyres though; are they going to use some in qualifying, in what order will they use them, or indeed will they need to use all three compounds. My thoughts are that until they line up on the grid, nobody really knows what any one else is doing; heck, until the race actually starts, they probably don't know what they will doing, either.
|
||
|
6 Apr 2016, 17:03 (Ref:3630751) | #1795 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Don't forget that at least one team, McLaren run an open garage policy, with the engineers working in the centre rather than on their respective driver's far side. This is to allow a good flow of data between the sides of the garage, and I would imagine that it works well with Alonso and Button. Might not be such a good idea in some of the garages though!
|
||
|
7 Apr 2016, 09:07 (Ref:3630888) | #1796 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,114
|
Quote:
I'm actually a bit torn on the compounds being revealed, because in a sense, knowing what the others have means that teams don't just do their own thing and then find out whose approach worked best, but go up against their opposition with some reasonable knowledge of the others and knowing that they can also adjust how they use their distribute their tyres over the weekend. So there's a little bit of cat and mouse there. Perhaps it's more interesting this way in that the teams make compound selections for certain reasons, but then have to modify how they use their allocation based on what the others have revealed. Perhaps it's a happy middle ground between knowing too little and knowing too much. |
||
|
7 Apr 2016, 11:19 (Ref:3630902) | #1797 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
I'm afraid that I'm back on one of my hobby-horses; in car electronics and the teams.
The FIA introduced the new allowed and disallowed communications that are permitted between the teams and their drivers, and it came into effect in Melbourne. And immediately, one team, Ferrari, was reported to the FIA for a perceived breach of the rules. They put out a pitboard for Vettel that read "- 3.2, LFS6 P1." at a point after the race had been restarted, and it was obviously a coded message, because I certainly don't know what on earth it means and I would hazard a guess that my other reader won't have a clue either. The FIA investigated, and interviewed Ferrari, and concluded that the rules hadn't been broken. It seems as though Vettel's standardised ECU had been playing up during the race, and because the fuel strategy had to be changed because of the red flag period, they had to tell him to alter the engine mapping or something. Now, to me that is driver coaching to put it sweetly, or providing forbidden assistance during the course of a race. What is the point of implementing a set of rules that are immediately made obsolete within hours. Surely the whole idea behind the new rules is that the driver has to work things out for himself, otherwise they might as well replace the drivers with robots (some unkind souls might say that they have already when you listen to them sometimes). If Vettel was going to run out of juice by the end of the race, or end it with more than he needed, surely that's just tough luck. I then get on to wondering whether the FIA would have come to the same decision if the team in question had been Williams or Force India; I would certainly hope so, but I'm not convinced in my mind. It's about time that the FIA stopped introducing these instant change of rules without taking into serious considerations all the possible consequences. They need to take far more time to make sure that the instructions are crystal clear, and that there are no grey areas that teams can exploit. Better still, in this matter, ban all the knobs, buttons and switches on the thing in front of the driver, and return it to being just a steering wheel. /rant over |
||
|
7 Apr 2016, 11:34 (Ref:3630905) | #1798 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,114
|
This is what it says on Autosport, Mike:
'Under normal circumstances the message would not be one the FIA would allow, but Autosport can confirm Ferrari has provided the FIA with an entirely satisfactory explanation. During the race a number of teams had problems with fuel recalculations in the wake of the 20-minute red flag stoppage following McLaren driver Fernando Alonso's violent accident on lap 17. Whiting confirmed to Autosport after the race the red flag and restart raised "a number of glitches" that needed to be solved. For Ferrari, and Vettel in particular, it led to a problem with how the SECU (standard electronics control unit) software handled the stoppage, necessitating the pitboard message at the time. The FIA therefore concluded the message was permissible and will not take any action'. http://www.autosport.com/news/report...ed-pit-message Certainly, inconclusive for me as to why the message was permissible. Why was the stoppage deemed to provide an exception for fuel calculation errors? Where is the force majeure in the stoppage that makes an exception of this circumstance? Is the rule too loosely written if it's going to allow for exceptions which are not written in that rule? I think the FIA have a very flexible approach on many issues and work case by case, but it leads to dangerous precedents. |
|
|
7 Apr 2016, 11:54 (Ref:3630909) | #1799 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
I had read that earlier, BR, but I allowed myself to build up a full head of steam before I put digit to keyboard. The attitude just seems to be, as we used to say when we were young and stupid, that rules are meant to be broken, and the only crime is to be caught breaking the rules.
For all Todt's waffle about how toothless the FIA are, if they would just stick to the rules and regulations that they put in place - after they have considered in depth how the teams will try to find loopholes or abuse the system - then they might start governing F1 as it should be. |
||
|
7 Apr 2016, 12:50 (Ref:3630913) | #1800 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Well, the battle lines seem to have been drawn over qualifying for this season; the teams have, unanimously, signed a letter to BCE, Todt and CVC, stating that they want the 2015 format reintroduced from China onwards. They indicate that they have no objection to a new system (not the new musical chairs format) being trialled, but propose that those trials only take place after the 2016 championships have been decided. Seems to make sense to me.
Meanwhile, Todt and Mr E are not keen on backing down, so we may continue to have the system that nobody wants because the dynamic (that's a laugh) duo are resisting calls for them to give the option for the teams to formally agree to return to the old system. |
||
|
|
|
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 |