USF1

92scotland · 4 Feb 2009, 14:08 (Ref:2388185)

Just seen the news and interested to see if it is for real. Been approved by the other teams and planned for 2010 so just have to wait and see

See it here

Lotusonpole · 4 Feb 2009, 15:12 (Ref:2388219)

If it becomes reality, the more the merrier.

It's always nice to see new teams coming in.
Makes a nice change to seeing them going out.

Would it help in establishing a North American GP again?

Many thanks for the heads-up.

Cheers
Peter

ss_collins · 4 Feb 2009, 15:21 (Ref:2388223)

We first mentioned that a while ago in connection to Honda - Anderson had tried to acquire Super Aguri. However it didn't come off. If they get the funding they will do it. If they don't they won't.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...ak-future.html

I think that running a team from NC during a testing ban would be possible, but testing in the winter would be tough - there are no F1 standard circuits in that part of the USA. So they would have to decamp to Europe. On the upside there are plenty of engineers and facilities in Concorde and Mooresville

Yannick · 4 Feb 2009, 16:21 (Ref:2388256)

It's for 2010. I wish them all the luck they can get.

But we don't know yet if they will be able to compete with the former BAR then, or how many other teams there still will be left when they enter in 2010.

duke_toaster · 4 Feb 2009, 16:28 (Ref:2388258)

Re. testing could they get on the phone to Mr B. France and reconstruct the road course at Charlotte?

Running a team in the hub of NASCARland could work. However, do they have access to a wind tunnel and all the composites stuff?

Matt · 4 Feb 2009, 16:46 (Ref:2388275)

I can only see this ending horribly.

Flyin Ryan · 4 Feb 2009, 17:00 (Ref:2388285)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ss_collins

We first mentioned that a while ago in connection to Honda - Anderson had tried to acquire Super Aguri. However it didn't come off. If they get the funding they will do it. If they don't they won't.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...ak-future.html

I think that running a team from NC during a testing ban would be possible, but testing in the winter would be tough - there are no F1 standard circuits in that part of the USA. So they would have to decamp to Europe. On the upside there are plenty of engineers and facilities in Concorde and Mooresville

F1 standard circuits? There's a hundred or so road courses at least just on that side of the Mississippi. What's it matter if F1 approves the track or not, they can just go to one of them and test.

Flyin Ryan · 4 Feb 2009, 17:01 (Ref:2388286)

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Re. testing could they get on the phone to Mr B. France and reconstruct the road course at Charlotte?

Running a team in the hub of NASCARland could work. However, do they have access to a wind tunnel and all the composites stuff?

Composites: Yes. Max Crawford.

Wind Tunnel: Yes. I forget the team but there's one in the Charlotte area.

This is much better than the previous attempt Mr. Anderson had an "American F1 team", where it was going to be based in Britain, which would make it "not American" obviously.

**Bononi** · 4 Feb 2009, 17:05 (Ref:2388290)

Times are different now...

ss_collins · 4 Feb 2009, 18:17 (Ref:2388333)

Quote:

F1 standard circuits? There's a hundred or so road courses at least just on that side of the Mississippi. What's it matter if F1 approves the track or not, they can just go to one of them and test.

I think for full testing the GPDA says the track has to have a certain level of safety stuff

Quote:

However, do they have access to a wind tunnel and all the composites stuff?

Wind tunnel err - yeah - Windshear (biggest and fastest in the world) is in sight of the proposed team HQ. Also Penske has an F1 spec tunnel (built by ARC) in Mooresville. Most of the Cup teams use the scale tunnel at ARC in Indy - then theres a frankly bonkers Laurel Hill Tunnel (up in PA)

Composites - yeah theres loads around there - don't forget the sheer amount of racing teams in the area. Seriously its the biggest hub in the motorsport industry. As for a race - how about a street race in downtown charlotte?

duke_toaster · 4 Feb 2009, 18:33 (Ref:2388346)

The FIA require that the circuit has a Grade 1T licence. That's F1 tracks, plus selected others (Paul Ricard, Jerez, Estoril?, Ricardo Tormo, Mugello, Fiorano).

Compositeswise, I wasn't sure as NASCAR basically doesn't use them (I think).

I was thinking that more sensible venues for the US GP would be a return to Indy (Grade 1 circuit already there), or possibly something temporary - Las Vegas or New York/New Jersey (what about a temporary facility at The Meadowlands in the NFL off-season?).

the sniper · 4 Feb 2009, 22:04 (Ref:2388516)

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

The FIA require that the circuit has a Grade 1T licence. That's F1 tracks, plus selected others (Paul Ricard, Jerez, Estoril?, Ricardo Tormo, Mugello, Fiorano).

Off topic sorry, but is Imola 1T certified now? I think that's what I heard around the time of reopening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Well that's really stupid. That's nothing more than corruption lining FIA pockets. VIR or Kershaw or Road Atlanta or Roebling or Barber is not safe to test a car but the Giants Stadium parking lot is safe enough to run a race?

Well I don't agree "That's nothing more than corruption lining FIA pockets", safety of circuits is important, especially when testing. Plus it's not impossible to get a license, in fact I would say a circuit like the Miller Motorsports Park could get a license quite easily...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

(You don't want a race in New York or New Jersey. The locals would hate it because they hate all racing per TV ratings and your construction crew would be the mafia most likely.)

Don't worry about that, Formula One and the Mafia are a perfect match.

duke_toaster · 4 Feb 2009, 22:11 (Ref:2388521)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Well that's really stupid. That's nothing more than corruption lining FIA pockets. VIR or Kershaw or Road Atlanta or Roebling or Barber is not safe to test a car

VIR isn't suitable for IndyCar racing, neither is RA. Roebling is a clubbie track and Thruxton would have a better chance of getting a 1T licence. Barber is reputedly a tight fit for IndyCar testing, it's a bike track.

Those circuits do not comply with the FIA safety rules, which are available on the FIA website (Appendix O of the International Sporting Code). Simple as that. Indianapolis Road had a Grade 1 licence before the changes and would be able to get one, Miller Park in Utah would probably be able to get a Grade 1T licence. Laguna Seca would be a push.

Quote:

but the Giants Stadium parking lot is safe enough to run a race? (You don't want a race in New York or New Jersey. The locals would hate it because they hate all racing per TV ratings and your construction crew would be the mafia most likely.)

Depends on the track, the Caeser's Palace temporary track in the 1980s looked rather good for a temporary circuit. Temporary circuits don't always have the lack of run-off that permenant tracks do (compare a car park circuit which normally has a fair deal of tarmac runoff to somewhere like Oulton Park with little actual run-off).

Quote:

Originally Posted by the sniper

Off topic sorry, but is Imola 1T certified now? I think that's what I heard around the time of reopening.

Probably.

ss_collins · 4 Feb 2009, 23:14 (Ref:2388562)

Quote:

Well that's really stupid. That's nothing more than corruption lining FIA pockets. VIR or Kershaw or Road Atlanta or Roebling or Barber is not safe to test a car

Go to the Algarve - then go to Road Atlanta - then you realise the difference. The safety of race circuits these days is a science - computer simulations and other advanced techniques calculate every detail. The final turn at Atlanta would never meet FIA grade 1 for example (I'm not even sure its grade 2) - Brands had to do a fair bit of work to be grade 2.

Flyin Ryan · 5 Feb 2009, 13:15 (Ref:2389020)

Quote:

Originally Posted by the sniper

Well I don't agree "That's nothing more than corruption lining FIA pockets", safety of circuits is important, especially when testing.

Are you saying the teams and drivers are dumb idiots to the point that they can't determine what is a safe circuit and what is not?

Quote:

The safety of race circuits these days is a science - computer simulations and other advanced techniques calculate every detail.

Money money money money...

Enforced oligarchies do nothing but increase costs. Plus it's in the interest of the current testing circuits to not allow new ones to be added otherwise they would lose cash flow. So I'm sure the FIA is receiving some side money on the deal from Paul Ricard and the others.

The whole "safety of race circuits" argument is just entirely not true when one considers the street courses that F1 races at. How can a person defend Valencia or Monaco and then thinks Road Atlanta, which had the Audi and Peugeot LMPs going around at full speed, unsafe?

duke_toaster · 5 Feb 2009, 13:45 (Ref:2389044)

Look at the lap times for LMP1 cars around a circuit, and look at the lap times of F1 cars around the same circuit. The gap in performance is large - ten seconds a lap around Silverstone.

LinkF1 · 5 Feb 2009, 14:32 (Ref:2389086)

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Look at the lap times for LMP1 cars around a circuit, and look at the lap times of F1 cars around the same circuit. The gap in performance is large - ten seconds a lap around Silverstone.

Yet that still says nothing about the street circuits being on the calendar. I do have to say I would hate to have the beauty of VIR ruined by making it certifiable even though it would be amazing to see F1 cars fly up the hill toward Oak Tree.

duke_toaster · 5 Feb 2009, 17:34 (Ref:2389201)

Street circuits have to comply with the same rules as permenant circuits.

Alan Raine · 5 Feb 2009, 17:46 (Ref:2389212)

Well Mosley reckons USF1 will happen.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73135

I'm yet to be convinced!

ss_collins · 5 Feb 2009, 17:59 (Ref:2389220)

We are pretty certain it will happen having seen some of the plans in a little more detail. I did actually see parts of the car being developed a few months back when they though they were getting into Honda.

We are even trying to make an educated guess towards driver choice - Kimball and Marco Andretti are where we have got to - but could be well wide of the mark there!

Satorian · 5 Feb 2009, 18:48 (Ref:2389249)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ss_collins

We are pretty certain it will happen having seen some of the plans in a little more detail. I did actually see parts of the car being developed a few months back when they though they were getting into Honda.

A few months ago getting into Honda? Or did you mean Super Aguri?

Quote:

We are even trying to make an educated guess towards driver choice - Kimball and Marco Andretti are where we have got to - but could be well wide of the mark there!

Would be very interesting to see Marco Andretti on an F1 grid.

ss_collins · 5 Feb 2009, 21:26 (Ref:2389354)

both - they tried to get into both

Flyin Ryan · 5 Feb 2009, 21:27 (Ref:2389356)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

Well Mosley reckons USF1 will happen.

If the team is required to fly to Europe to just carry out a test it never will.

Quote:

duke_toaster:Street circuits have to comply with the same rules as permenant circuits.

Which is the exact reason why I think having mandated test tracks is little more than the FIA being paid off by those tracks.

Caesers Palace parking lot: safe
Road Atlanta: not safe

Please.

As far as Marco, he's stated he's content in Indycars. And was actually intelligent enough to realize that people would only be interested in his career if he went to F1 to just want to watch him fail instead of succeed, which he is correct on.

duke_toaster · 5 Feb 2009, 21:57 (Ref:2389382)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

If the team is required to fly to Europe to just carry out a test it never will.

The ball is in the court of the circuits in the US to get a Grade 1T licence then, isn't it?

Quote:

Which is the exact reason why I think having mandated test tracks is little more than the FIA being paid off by those tracks.

No, because temporary circuits can be safer than some permenant circuits. Permenant circuits generally have higher average speeds, which is important for run-off levels.

Quote:

Caesers Palace parking lot: safe
Road Atlanta: not safe

Please.

The Caeser's Palace circuit was used in 1981 and 1982. They would probably not meet FIA Grade 1 or Grade 1T regulations now, but a new circuit there would. Bear in mind that (I think) that car park has been built over.

As far as Road Atlanta is concerned, look at it on Google Earth, then look at Silverstone (Grade 1), or Estoril (Grade 1T). Note the levels of run-off, track width and proximity of barriers. If they think it's suitable for getting a Grade 1T licence they should try, but they'll need serious work to get it.

ss_collins · 5 Feb 2009, 22:08 (Ref:2389391)

For Atlanta to get even close to grade 1 it would need incredible amounts of work - which would likely destroy the feel of what is one of the worlds great tracks.

You can't really look at a track and say - thats safe - thats not. The last corner at Atlanta doesn't seem too bad but wait until you lose in in a prototype there then it dawns on you how hairy it is. Racing a circuit gives you a good idea - but really you need to read the full regs and see the sims in action. Its not an FIA bucks generator at all rather something to keep those in the carbon coffins a bit safer

Of course the new track soon to be built in Alabama would be suitable.