|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
30 Apr 2016, 17:22 (Ref:3637365) | #1851 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
30 Apr 2016, 18:21 (Ref:3637374) | #1852 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,707
|
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
30 Apr 2016, 19:22 (Ref:3637398) | #1853 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
1 May 2016, 05:29 (Ref:3637445) | #1854 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 274
|
Quote:
Just adds another variable if someone wished to use more at a certain point. My understanding was the main point of the fuel flow limit was to limit/control the HP levels of the engine. |
||
|
1 May 2016, 07:50 (Ref:3637456) | #1855 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Quote:
This increase just means that some teams will be able to use more output per race than previously, and that is supposed to help them keep up with the Mercedes. |
|||
|
1 May 2016, 09:36 (Ref:3637478) | #1856 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 991
|
To illustrate why we are getting nowhere with the 2017 rules you simply have to look at the line of thought to defend the nature of the rule changes from McLaren racing director Eric Boullier:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mc...-fears-732388/ "I disagree with some comments in the media from my competitors," he said about the situation. "The change of the regulations have been drafted that the car will generate more [grip] from the tyres, so it is mechanical. This should not hurt the overtaking numbers. "And on top of this, the aero, the influence of the front wing, will be less as the floor itself and the diffuser will be generating more downforce as well. "All this normally allows more overtaking manoeuvres, but which may be only five percent more than today all the overtaking moves are driven by DRS and tyre degradation.” So we have a major issue; for years cars aren't able to follow each other sufficiently and F1 rules makers “in their love of motorsport” had to revert to a gimmick like DRS because they misunderstood the quality of overtaking for the quantity of overtaking. Now we get a major and very expensive rule change and likely the only major one for several years to come. And they are satisfied with how much improvement? That's right, 5%! So a mere 5% improvement, but mister Boullier thinks we shouldn't be worried. He doesn't have a clue what close racing means or what the fans want! Dear mister Boullier we don't want 5% improvement, we want such an improvement that we don't need DRS in the first place! And no, we shouldn't idealize races with three or four overtakes for a whole race, that's not what we are looking for. We want a reasonable amount of overtakes, roughly the current amount is fine. Bit less is fine as well, just make them worth watching. Reward the tactical racer even if it might take a few corners or laps in stead of one DRS-zone. F1 rules makers should set themselves that goal. To design a car that allows good and close racing without DRS and we want it properly and scientifically researched and tested. Apparently it's too tall an order. Last edited by Taxi645; 1 May 2016 at 10:00. |
|
|
1 May 2016, 11:19 (Ref:3637486) | #1857 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
In the world is a great way to get a new study for this one. I love for the rule makers of the sport to watch the old days of the same sport and I have to say that the only thing I would like to see if I could is the end of the gimmick that I have no idea what to say about. I love to see the end of DRS
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
1 May 2016, 13:36 (Ref:3637531) | #1858 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 274
|
Quote:
Remember the group c days at Le Mans? That was what they were preventing with the flow limit. |
||
|
1 May 2016, 13:51 (Ref:3637534) | #1859 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
velly4, you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. The fuel flow rate was introduced by the FIA as part of their green agenda, and has never been about the power output of the ICEs; it's supposed to be all about efficiency, wrong in my opinion as that should be left to the WEC and the like.
And the thrust of both FOM and the FIA has been, in the last couple of years of these new power-units, to see the total power output increase to 1000 bhp. So, as I said, this is not to restrict output, this is designed to allow the less efficient PUs to run flat out for longer to try to keep up with the Mercedes. |
||
|
2 May 2016, 15:51 (Ref:3637874) | #1860 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
Fuel efficiency is all very well, and plays to the road car relevance agenda, but no-one has ever had a poster of a car on his wall and thought lustfully, "God, that's so *efficient*!"
|
||
|
2 May 2016, 16:07 (Ref:3637877) | #1861 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
Quote:
And I would imagine that the same considerations are important to Renault and Honda; maybe not Ferrari though, although I think that their days of producing multi-pot engines for their road cars is probably likely to be curtailed in the future. |
|||
|
3 May 2016, 00:28 (Ref:3637992) | #1862 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Last edited by wnut; 3 May 2016 at 00:34. |
||
|
3 May 2016, 02:32 (Ref:3638011) | #1863 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 May 2016, 20:55 (Ref:3638561) | #1864 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Quote:
The missing sponsor was Rolex who's name does not appear on any cars that I have noticed but can be found trackside. The other sponsor is Philip Morris who has one Sergio Marchionne on its board, not forgetting that Ferrari's team principle worked for Philip Morris not too long ago. |
||
|
4 May 2016, 21:13 (Ref:3638570) | #1865 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
wolfhound, I think that you may be looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Rolex is an official sponsor to F1 via FOM, whilst Philip Morris have long supported Ferrari but cannot be sponsors because of various bans against tobacco companies being involved in sports. It was their company that paid Michael Schumacher's salary all the time that he was with Ferrari, and they may now be picking up the tag for Vettel. And I believe that each circuit is entitled to attend and vote at F1 Commission meetings in their own right, and not by invitation from FOM.
And I cannot see the difference between holding the vote in person at the meeting, and conducting it electronically. If pressure was placed on certain individuals to vote in favour, the result would surely be the same whichever way the vote was conducted. I am more interested in all the clauses that the four manufacturers managed to get included in the new PU deal. The full details would make fascinating reading. |
||
|
4 May 2016, 22:00 (Ref:3638584) | #1866 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
Mike it seems one of them is called the 'red bull clause' which forbids teams from criticising their PU supplier in public.
There is more on the subject in the link below. http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...e-deal-733356/ |
|
|
5 May 2016, 14:57 (Ref:3638807) | #1867 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,112
|
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." |
27 May 2016, 07:12 (Ref:3644777) | #1868 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
In yet another reverse ferret by the FIA, Charlie Whiting has now decided that drivers will not face sanctions for discarding tear-off strips from their visors on the tracks or in the pits.
Having now considered the matter further, he realises that it may be more dangerous for the drivers to place the strips inside the cockpit, and that overrides the concerns that he had had about the discarded strips compromising parts of other cars! |
||
|
27 May 2016, 16:41 (Ref:3644902) | #1869 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
Quote:
How many tear-off related incidents have there been, in the history of F1? |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
27 May 2016, 16:46 (Ref:3644904) | #1870 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,955
|
top of my head i think Alonso threw one into his own brake duct last year.
|
||
__________________
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 |
27 May 2016, 16:49 (Ref:3644906) | #1871 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,751
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
27 May 2016, 17:39 (Ref:3644919) | #1872 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
Sensible volte-face by the FIA. Incidents are very rare, and the alternative - trying to stuff it in a bag in the cockpit while you're doing 200 mph - is much worse.
|
||
|
27 May 2016, 17:49 (Ref:3644922) | #1873 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
I actually believe that it's happened twice to Alonso, once affecting the brakes and another occasion causing an overheating of a component.
Wasn't there also an occasion when a tear-off was picked up by one of the cars in the pit lane at a race. |
||
|
28 May 2016, 09:33 (Ref:3645026) | #1874 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,889
|
It appears that the cockpit halo concept will be introduced for 2017 season, although it will not be quite the design that has been seen so far. It is due to undergo further testing, and the final decision is to be made before July 1st, which has been the mandate of the FIA (unless, of course, they change their mind!).
Although the windscreen design is the preferred option for most F1 stakeholders, it has been felt that not enough time has given to consider that concept, nor sufficient testing. It is not being ruled out that it may be introduced for 2018 onwards after further consultation and testing. More here: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...17-741118/?s=1 |
||
|
28 May 2016, 15:08 (Ref:3645116) | #1875 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
I hope they take the windshield concept in time, as it still seems a better solution to me, especially considering Fred's accident in Melbourne. It would have been a bit tricky with the halo on top
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
|
|
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 |