Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 15 Jul 2018, 12:20 (Ref:3836774)   #2986
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,249
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I'm baffled why some fans cannot accept 18" wheels... It's commonsense to align with LMP, GT3 and all other series which use 18" tyres, while they at it, mandate a inboard coilspring and oil filled damper at each corner, instead of the overly elaborate F1 specific suspensions.


=


:up:
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote
Old 15 Jul 2018, 12:23 (Ref:3836775)   #2987
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,249
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Harte View Post

For Renault, it had to be relatively small capacity ICE for them to stay, and for Merc, it was a prerequisite of the main board that the PU had to demonstrate a considerable fuel saving (something like 25%, I seem to remember) to show that the technology was "green" or they wouldn't fund any further involvement in F1 beyond the end of that period - which was eventually extended by a year because Renault weren't ready.
It's a pity Mercedes and Renault dictacted that..... an F1 with simplified engine regulations based on independent engine makers plus Ferrari would have been a treat. Shame...
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote
Old 15 Jul 2018, 12:33 (Ref:3836778)   #2988
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,249
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Ground effect?

Sadly, difficult to see F1 teams giving up their self interest
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote
Old 16 Jul 2018, 00:34 (Ref:3836875)   #2989
NaBUru38
Veteran
 
NaBUru38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Uruguay
Las Canteras, Uruguay
Posts: 7,684
NaBUru38 should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridNaBUru38 should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridNaBUru38 should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
I'm ok if the 12th driver gets a point, but not ok if the 17th driver gets a point.

Also the top 3 finishers should still get 25-18-15 points.
NaBUru38 is offline  
__________________
"Show me a driver who didn’t make a handful of errors this year, and I’ll show you someone who wasn’t trying hard enough." - David Malsher
Quote
Old 16 Jul 2018, 08:35 (Ref:3836904)   #2990
V8 Fireworks
Veteran
 
V8 Fireworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,249
V8 Fireworks should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaBUru38 View Post
I'm ok if the 12th driver gets a point, but not ok if the 17th driver gets a point.
What does it matter? They are all racing as hard as possible regardless.
V8 Fireworks is offline  
Quote
Old 16 Jul 2018, 20:30 (Ref:3837001)   #2991
S griffin
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,056
S griffin has a real shot at the podium!S griffin has a real shot at the podium!S griffin has a real shot at the podium!S griffin has a real shot at the podium!S griffin has a real shot at the podium!
I agree, why just award points for turning up, when they all fight for position?
S griffin is online now  
__________________
He who dares wins!
He who hesitates is lost!
Quote
Old 17 Jul 2018, 05:57 (Ref:3837060)   #2992
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,740
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles View Post
I like this idea, but ultimately this will just lead to it becoming a spec series. After the first season every team will pick the best engine and the others will have to quit.
It is already a spec series in comparison to what it was it is just that no one will admit it. Every attempt to introduce a new idea to make a car go faster is outlawed and the rule book just gets thicker. Some would say the suspension has some freedom but even that in reality has no freedom because of constraints so all the designs finish up going down the same tunnel or near enough. To ensure a budget cap is not exceeded the promoters should design the car and let the teams supply the motor. It annoys me that a clever engineer is not allowed to think and develop an advantage in what should be the epitome of race car design motor racing. No wonder Newey left and got involved in the America's Cup, it saved him from the boredom of F1.

The promotors have got the problem arse about, what they should do is restrict the ability of the teams to manage the car at the race circuit and kill stone dead any data feed back to the factory thus ensuring that they have to selectively decide what tricky stuff they are going to run on the cars because too much will be unmanageable. Doing that will mean they have to make trade offs and educated guesses. If the wall of engineers looking at screens was not there they have a huge problem with what can be done to the car. Loosen the rules, let the engineers come up with some tricky ideas but at the track they have very limited support to manage what innovation they put in the car. All of a sudden you will have teams going down different design tracks and racing will be less predictable.

No data feed from the track to base
No live telemetry from the car to pit
No radio at all except for messages concerning accidents etc from the tower
A maximum number of channels to be logged, what those log is up to the team

Let them design all the high tech stuff they want but they have to be able to manage it at the track. We were logging 30 channels on a Superkart, they are logging hundreds, stop that and you put the teams in a box as to what they can do. I love high tech and good design from innovative think and that is what F1 is all about or should be but letting the designers loose with unfettered resources is madness, been there and done that. Letting an engineer loose with an open cheque book is an interesting thing to watch.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 20 Jul 2018, 18:07 (Ref:3837709)   #2993
chillibowl
Veteran
 
chillibowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
winnipeg, canada
Posts: 5,826
chillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famechillibowl will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
brought this quote over from the race thread. thought it would be better to not clutter up the race thread with this topic but as it is relevant for the race, then feel free to move it back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Guy View Post
Ricciardo to start from the back of the grid.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news with the first post of the thread, but they just have to, and must find a better way. Penalise the team instead of the driver. It's just plain stupid.
surely the team has also been penalized by virtue of having to buy a new engine/PU component which depending on how many parts have to be replaced can add to up to a considerable amount.

granted some teams can afford the financial costs of replacements so short of putting their car at the back of the grid im not sure what sort of team penalty would work.

a greater financial fine/penalty for a switch or a loss of constructor points...both strike me as a fine that the rich can afford while disproportionately affecting the smaller teams.

even a loss of constructor points and the financial implications of that may not deter the fatter teams from using more than their agreed upon allotment.

heck, even putting a Merc, Ferrari, or RB at the back isnt much of a penalty these days as they will still easily make the top 10 and/or its not unusual to still see them able to make it to the podium.

simpler/cheaper/more affordable engines with no limits on number used would be my ideal but good luck with that one really!

a random out of the box idea...allow for a free swap provided that car did not finish the previous race in the points/podium. 10 places if you had scored points and 20 places if you had scored a podium type of thing. still not ideal though.
chillibowl is online now  
__________________
What shall we use to fill the empty spaces, where waves of hunger roar?
Shall we set out across the sea of faces in search of more and more applause?
Shall we buy a new guitar? Shall we drive a more powerful car?
Quote
Old 20 Jul 2018, 20:47 (Ref:3837740)   #2994
Richard Casto
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Richard Casto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
United States
Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 2,631
Richard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
It's been talked to death, but I don't think punishing the teams (WCC points) and letting the drivers (WDC points) alone will work. Because that system would still be gamed by teams to promote and manipulate WDC results.

I think the simple solution is to not be so draconian with respect to longevity requirements. If you want to blame anyone... blame the manufactures as they keep those requirements in place. Right now it seems to be a generic "someone" is at fault. So those who are at fault don't feel the heat.

Richard
Richard Casto is offline  
__________________
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.
Quote
Old 22 Jul 2018, 10:54 (Ref:3837946)   #2995
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,740
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Here is a novel idea, if the motor in a customer's car does not last a contracted number of races then it has to be replaced FOC. The system as it stands is the customer teams have nothing to do with the motors, that side of the equation is handled entirely by the supplier so if the supplier is not running & managing the motor properly they should fix it. No grid penalties applied or needed. The whole idea of a team car...let's say Force India copping it in the neck for a failing they had nothing to do with seems less than a good idea to me.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 22 Jul 2018, 14:10 (Ref:3838008)   #2996
Richard Casto
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Richard Casto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
United States
Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 2,631
Richard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Here is a novel idea, if the motor in a customer's car does not last a contracted number of races then it has to be replaced FOC. The system as it stands is the customer teams have nothing to do with the motors, that side of the equation is handled entirely by the supplier so if the supplier is not running & managing the motor properly they should fix it. No grid penalties applied or needed. The whole idea of a team car...let's say Force India copping it in the neck for a failing they had nothing to do with seems less than a good idea to me.
I think you are focusing on the cost to the teams (pay for replacement engines), but fixing that AND not giving out point and/or grid penalties creates a loophole to exploit.

So in this scenario with Honda as a supplier to both RBR and STR (and not a team owner itself and I think your special exception is for “customers“ only), they are free to create powerful engines at the risk of longevity with the teams or drivers not experiencing any points or grid penalties when a “failure” occurs? I quote failure as what make something a failure could be gamed by the teams. For example, I think some of the STR Honda engine swaps have been proactive or to pull engines early for analysis. Some of those pulled could be reused if needed (probably used in FP1 to reduce mileage on race engines?). Anyhow, my point is imagine a string of failures happening in 2019 on a regular basis in FP1 so that RBR and STR can run races with fresh engines on a regular basis and with no consequences other than Honda having to foot the replacement bill (which they may gladly do!)

It’s my understanding that most limited use special performance modes of the current engines is governed by a balance of abuse vs longevity. Meaning they can extract extra performance at the risk of reducing the expected longevity. So if you don’t expect to run to the desired total mileage, then turn the knob to eleven more often. So with a loophole like this teams would run the engines into the ground and replace them when convenient. Ultimately making a mockery of the rules. Mercedes and Ferrari as team owners (who I assume could not take advantage of this as they are not customers and would experience grid penalties) would oppose this allowance.

Richard
Richard Casto is offline  
__________________
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.
Quote
Old 23 Jul 2018, 03:39 (Ref:3838184)   #2997
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,740
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I don't envisage the car team (not the engine team) to suffer any penalty, in fact when the two are looked at separately as they should be why should the car team suffer when it has nothing (in most cases) to do with them. The only issue I can see here is that the car team designed in a system installation issue which might throw a curve ball into the whole scenario. The car and engine team are in fact two separate entities which may not have occurred to a lot of people.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 23 Jul 2018, 05:53 (Ref:3838190)   #2998
E.B
Veteran
 
E.B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Australia
About 7kms East of Albert Park Melbourne
Posts: 1,659
E.B should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridE.B should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridE.B should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
I don't envisage the car team (not the engine team) to suffer any penalty, in fact when the two are looked at separately as they should be why should the car team suffer when it has nothing (in most cases) to do with them. The only issue I can see here is that the car team designed in a system installation issue which might throw a curve ball into the whole scenario. The car and engine team are in fact two separate entities which may not have occurred to a lot of people.
I feel that is a simplistic few, with all respects. (I do note you say in most cases). There are several installation and cooling issues that are more the chassis builder / designer than engine manufacturer. Red Bull for instance are well known for their 'size zero' installations, which in turn have shown to compromise or marginalise cooling over the wish to divert more air to aero efficiency. McLaren are also known to be guilty of this. With McLaren last year it is now known that many of their Honda issues were of an installation matter, blame for which was handballed to Honda.

Other factors are that many customer teams (Red Bull being one) choose to use their own transmission rather than taking the complete power drain from the supplier.

Furthermore Red Bull choose to use a non Renault approved lubricant and fuel supplier, a point often overlooked, but mentioned by Renault of late. The engines are built to use specific lubricants and fuel.... Red Bull choose for commercial reasons to use an alternative fuel/oil supplier which I understand minimises their use of Renault dynos/ data for obvious reasons. There was a recent case of Red Bull being compromised with a fuel update other Renault customers enjoyed. (Red Bull are the only customer of any team that chooses to not use the engine manufacturer approved fuel / lubes.)

I guess my point is one of difficulty in apportioning blame for failures solely on the engine supplier when there are so many peripheral influences beyond their control.
E.B is online now  
__________________
"The unfortunate thing about the changes coming in next year is that they are all restrictions" : Adrian Newey.
Quote
Old 23 Jul 2018, 07:20 (Ref:3838204)   #2999
Casper
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,740
Casper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridCasper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Ok, let's look at a component failure, for instance a dropped valve due to manufacturing defects, who should cop it in the neck, the car team or the engine team, why should that failure cause the car to be relegated to the rear of the grid. I simply don't think it is fair for the car to suffer a penalty when it had nothing to do with them or the installation.
Casper is offline  
Quote
Old 23 Jul 2018, 07:42 (Ref:3838207)   #3000
Peter Mallett
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
 
Peter Mallett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
England
Here and there
Posts: 31,384
Peter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FamePeter Mallett will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
If we accept that the penalties are there to try to ensure reliability then I'm afraid we have to accept that the team will suffer as a whole.

However that's the beautocratic approach. The sporting approach is to ignore these failures and accept that the team has suffered in terms of results and costs.

Sadly it's all about someone's warped view of fairness. Or to use a legal term, Complete ********.
Peter Mallett is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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 08:19
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] AMT Formula One 74 12 Nov 2002 15:09
Future Tourer Future Crash Test Australasian Touring Cars. 13 17 Jul 2002 23:01


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:53.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.