Rules WMSC meeting tomorrow, tyre deal up for grabs + rule changes - Page 2

Fox89 · 23 Jun 2010, 21:07 (Ref:2717079)

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltb

moveable rear wings are laughable, how many cars have lost so much rear grip while following a car that the back end has gone? I thought the drivers complained of a lack of front grip when in the tow! more rear grip will put the centre of pressure further to the rear, away from where it's needed.

they'e so blind to the issues it's unbelievable.

Not an issue in a straight line, which I presume is where it is meant to be used in order to reduce drag whilst following another car, giving an acceleration and top speed advantage. It should at least help cars stuck in the 'turbulent air' get through or at least closer on the straights.

Sodemo · 23 Jun 2010, 21:54 (Ref:2717112)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox89

Not an issue in a straight line, which I presume is where it is meant to be used in order to reduce drag whilst following another car, giving an acceleration and top speed advantage. It should at least help cars stuck in the 'turbulent air' get through or at least closer on the straights.

Exactly its trying to work-around the problem, rather than actually dealing with the issue of turbulant wake and the dominance of aero, which no one in F1 seems to have any desire to tackle with any sense of purpose.

Fox89 · 23 Jun 2010, 22:50 (Ref:2717133)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Exactly its trying to work-around the problem, rather than actually dealing with the issue of turbulant wake and the dominance of aero, which no one in F1 seems to have any desire to tackle with any sense of purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I agree there are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed. But until somebody does something about it, I'll happily accept a work around if it manages to improve the show a bit.

Marbot · 24 Jun 2010, 00:08 (Ref:2717156)

Yes, it would seem that once again the WMSC/FOTA have failed to notice the 'Elephant in the room'.

wnut · 24 Jun 2010, 02:10 (Ref:2717180)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yes, it would seem that once again the WMSC/FOTA have failed to notice the 'Elephant in the room'.

Fiddling while Rome burns!

What the hell does this following piece mean? (Probably more meaningful in the original
Greek!)

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/...picks-pirelli/
With immediate effect, it has been ruled that if a sample of fuel is required after a practice session the car concerned must have first been driven back to the pits under its own power.

wnut · 24 Jun 2010, 02:14 (Ref:2717181)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Saward also reported that an Extraordinary Meeting of the World Motor Sport Council has been called for Sept. last line.

any ideas what thats about?

Beginning of the Ski season?

wnut · 24 Jun 2010, 02:35 (Ref:2717186)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I disagree totally.

If you changed the chassis rules you could have cars that were easily faster than GP2 cars with minimal downforce.

Say if F1 cars had; 2200mm wide wheel track, much wider rear tyres, slightly wider fronts, with "Monza" spec downforce levels, I think the cars would be faster than GP2 at every track.

What really gets me when I watch old footage of F1 cars say from 1990-1993, its how quick the cars are in slow corners, its not the fast stuff, but the slow - medium speed corners where the speed is.

You are absolutely right!
Pingguest's prediction that GP2 etc. would follow is also correct. With the rule changes proposed above actual racing and interest and spectators would return to the sport.

However the present order is determined to ruin GP racing, and only once they have milked it to death will they be forced to acknowledge that interest has indeed dropped and the sponsors have all walked.

Who will the next manufacturer to walk away be?
They only go when their involvement is no longer rewarding!

Pingguest · 24 Jun 2010, 07:23 (Ref:2717241)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Yep, I remember Ross Brawn came out and said (probably a year or more now) that there really is no need for the vast downforce levels in F1.

Ross Brawn once called downforce the 'bane' of Formula 1.

courageous · 24 Jun 2010, 07:41 (Ref:2717250)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Saward also reported that an Extraordinary Meeting of the World Motor Sport Council has been called for Sept. last line.

any ideas what thats about?

Korea

duke_toaster · 24 Jun 2010, 08:06 (Ref:2717265)

Yes, it may well be to do with the Korean GP or potential lack of one.

neiltb · 24 Jun 2010, 11:06 (Ref:2717342)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox89

Not an issue in a straight line, which I presume is where it is meant to be used in order to reduce drag whilst following another car, giving an acceleration and top speed advantage. It should at least help cars stuck in the 'turbulent air' get through or at least closer on the straights.

So drivers get a couple of seconds of benefit after they are out of the tow. Pointless.

Fox89 · 24 Jun 2010, 12:13 (Ref:2717373)

Quote:

Originally Posted by neiltb

So drivers get a couple of seconds of benefit after they are out of the tow. Pointless.

It'll also help them get INTO the tow. Not pointless at all, could well be the difference between a passing opportunity and simply being stuck in the dirty air.

Dutton · 25 Jun 2010, 03:07 (Ref:2717652)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnut

What the hell does this following piece mean? (Probably more meaningful in the original
Greek!)

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/...picks-pirelli/
With immediate effect, it has been ruled that if a sample of fuel is required after a practice session the car concerned must have first been driven back to the pits under its own power.

I am assuming it is a reaction to Lewis' car pushing escapades. Shame, really. I like it when that kind of thing happens, but, well, we can't have something unexpected and quite entertaining happen occasionally,

.

Oldtony · 26 Jun 2010, 03:47 (Ref:2718054)

Re USF1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6157

They're shut down, out of business, no assets to speak of.

What would be the purpose of punishing them?

The purpose is to ensure that FIA gets to block any legal challenge that can be mounted to get the entry money refunded.
Now we wouldn't want that money going towards unpaid employee wages or to unpaid suppliers would we?

duke_toaster · 26 Jun 2010, 12:24 (Ref:2718190)

Why should it even be considered that a team that enters a competition and fails to appear through their own incompetence should get its entry fee refunded?

**bjohnsonsmith** · 27 Jun 2010, 17:07 (Ref:2718734)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

Agreed.

Someone has to kick Windsor and Anderson for that mess...

I don't see how the FIA can punish USF1, they've gone bust.

**Bononi** · 27 Jun 2010, 22:28 (Ref:2718975)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't see how the FIA can punish USF1, they've gone bust.

Yeah, but anyway, they should do like they do in any other business...

**bjohnsonsmith** · 27 Jun 2010, 22:38 (Ref:2718981)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

Yeah, but anyway, they should do like they do in any other business...

I suppose they could go after Anderson and Windsor.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lakeside Race Meeting Tomorrow 6 April!!!!	richie17	Australasian Touring Cars.	17	10 Apr 2008 10:12
New Tyre Rule, who will benefit/lose?	Kirk	Formula One	15	23 Jan 2005 19:53
Moto GP: A control tyre rule?	SALEEN S7R	Bike Racing	7	15 Oct 2004 17:02
It is a time to bring one tyre supplier rule	Blue	Formula One	16	8 Mar 2004 12:47