Ponderbox
- Pacific Edge
- Posts: 243
- Joined: 20 Jul 2018, 12:33
Re: Ponderbox
Is the restriction on amount of engines per year actually proving to be a DIScouragement to potential manufacturers wanting to enter F1? I say this because if a potential manufacturer saw that they were only allowed to 3 engines per season before penalties are applied, then surely it would hamper the company's ability to develop an engine through the course of the season?
- dinizintheoven
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: 09 Dec 2010, 01:24
Re: Ponderbox
This would be the only place that looked even half-appropriate to shove a piece of filler from motorsport.com that's desperately trying to fill some F1 headlines when the lake has dried up for the summer:
Stroll: 2018 struggles part of F1 "love-hate relationship"
12th or 13th place in a Caterham is a good result. If there was any one sentence that summed up how the mighty have fallen...
Stroll: 2018 struggles part of F1 "love-hate relationship"
motorsport.com wrote:Stroll has adapted his targets during the tough season and said those who know how F1 works will be aware that “12th or 13th place in a Williams is a good race”.
12th or 13th place in a Caterham is a good result. If there was any one sentence that summed up how the mighty have fallen...
James Allen, on his favourite F1 engine of all time:
"...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
"...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
- DemocalypseNow
- Posts: 13185
- Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
- Location: Lost, send help
- Contact:
Re: Ponderbox
Pacific 777 wrote:Is the restriction on amount of engines per year actually proving to be a DIScouragement to potential manufacturers wanting to enter F1? I say this because if a potential manufacturer saw that they were only allowed to 3 engines per season before penalties are applied, then surely it would hamper the company's ability to develop an engine through the course of the season?
Probably not. Unlimited engine development would lead to R&D costs spiralling out of control in an arms race. Privateer teams like Force India would be unable to afford an engine supply given the cost per unit against the number of units needed. Manufacturers would lose their one source of external income for their engine programme - it's a pittance compared to development costs anyway but it's still something.
They'll all be in support of an engine cap, though not so much the penalty system in place to keep it in check.
- You-Gee-Eee-Day
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 10 Jun 2018, 23:38
- Location: Definitely not Japan
Re: Ponderbox
Was having a high-brow and intelligent discussion with Rob Dylan, as we often do, and a thought occured. When the FIA change regulations and cars suddenly become unable to run under the rules, and a new car has to be built, I came up with a much better use for the old cars:
At the end of that season we have a special "send-off" race for the old cars, wherein each team would invite a pair of touring car drivers of their choice to come drive the car for as long as it lasts. It would be an endurance race where quite simply the last car still moving forward is the winner. Obviously we can forego the aesthetics and a little bit of the speed of an f1 car in favour of the massive amount of safety gear and structural support that would need to be added to the cars, but overall I think this would be a much more fitting send off for old cars, would satisfy the supposed desire for "MORE RACES MORE RACES", and no doubt would sell like hot cakes, and any track can offer themselves up for the site of the inevitable carnage which would ensue, and it might be a chance to see f1 cars on tracks not currently in the circuit. I can foresee absolutely no potential problems with this idea whatsoever.
To quote Rob Dylan: "The winner's prize being the second seat at Williams?"
At the end of that season we have a special "send-off" race for the old cars, wherein each team would invite a pair of touring car drivers of their choice to come drive the car for as long as it lasts. It would be an endurance race where quite simply the last car still moving forward is the winner. Obviously we can forego the aesthetics and a little bit of the speed of an f1 car in favour of the massive amount of safety gear and structural support that would need to be added to the cars, but overall I think this would be a much more fitting send off for old cars, would satisfy the supposed desire for "MORE RACES MORE RACES", and no doubt would sell like hot cakes, and any track can offer themselves up for the site of the inevitable carnage which would ensue, and it might be a chance to see f1 cars on tracks not currently in the circuit. I can foresee absolutely no potential problems with this idea whatsoever.
To quote Rob Dylan: "The winner's prize being the second seat at Williams?"
F1 2019 in a nutshell:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
"Ferrari is faster"
Mercedes 1-2
- Pacific Edge
- Posts: 243
- Joined: 20 Jul 2018, 12:33
Re: Ponderbox
If it were "last one standing wins", then they would all just park in the pits and not do anything
- UncreativeUsername37
- Posts: 3420
- Joined: 25 May 2012, 14:36
- Location: Earth
Re: Ponderbox
Pacific 777 wrote:If it were "last one standing wins", then they would all just park in the pits and not do anything
I imagine it's really "whoever makes it the furthest wins"... don't get me wrong, everything would still be pathetically slow....
Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
- You-Gee-Eee-Day
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 10 Jun 2018, 23:38
- Location: Definitely not Japan
Re: Ponderbox
Well the thought was that there would be an incentive to go faster in order to avoid the other touring drivers casually trying to knock every other car off the track. After all why hire touring car drivers unless they get to drive like touring car drivers?
F1 2019 in a nutshell:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
"Ferrari is faster"
Mercedes 1-2
Re: Ponderbox
It would end up about as exciting as the on-track action of the 2005 US GP...
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
Re: Ponderbox
I thought the incentive was the next season's Williams seat?
Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.
- You-Gee-Eee-Day
- Posts: 179
- Joined: 10 Jun 2018, 23:38
- Location: Definitely not Japan
Re: Ponderbox
Rob Dylan wrote:I thought the incentive was the next season's Williams seat?
Oh well that goes without saying.
F1 2019 in a nutshell:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
"Ferrari is faster"
Mercedes 1-2
Re: Ponderbox
Rob Dylan wrote:I thought the incentive was the next season's Williams seat?
Is that meant to be an incentive?
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
- UncreativeUsername37
- Posts: 3420
- Joined: 25 May 2012, 14:36
- Location: Earth
Re: Ponderbox
Here's a list of times the DNA of Formula One has been violated. By "DNA", I mean "general aesthetic feel of the cars or racing", and by "violated", I mean "changed in a reasonably large and non-gradual way". These are both entirely subjective, but I believe you'll largely agree with my choices.
1952: For this year and the next, the World Championship just didn't feel like F1 anymore. This is, to date, the only time F1 has actually collapsed under its own cost.
1954: Mercedes spit on the DNA of Formula One with the W196 Monza, which was literally a closed-wheel Formula One car. And it won three races. I know it was the 1950s, but I feel like this crime isn't brought up often enough.
1957: The Cooper T43 appears. It isn't front engined, even though this has been a defining characteristic of a Formula One car. In 1958, it rudely wins a race. During the year, Fangio retires, stating "surrounded by rear-engined cars painted green, I realised it was the end of an era". When the greatest driver of all time retires, you know things are going in the wrong direction. In 1959, Cooper and Jack Brabham would go on to be the first to win a championship using a ridiculous-looking "F1" car in their campaign since 1954.
1961: Engine capacities change from 2.5 to 1.5 L. The British constructors are so outraged at this being "Formula One" that they don't do any car development until it's too late. Due to having a multi-year-long head start, Ferrari (with a non-front-engined car, Enzo's will to win eventually overpowering his will to uphold the DNA of Formula One) have an advantage so great that it lets Phil freaking Hill win the championship.
1966: The engines are changed again, but to be faster, so it's okay. (Further engine changes will not be listed, as changing engine restrictions have now become part of the DNA of Formula One.)
1968: Wings completely change what it means to drive an F1 car. From here on out, high-speed corners are a lot easier, and dirty air will fundamentally change the dynamics of overtaking.
1970: The Lotus 72 has the radiators in a different place, making a shape very complex and ugly compared to the previous cigars on wheels.
1972: Monza puts in a couple of chicanes because the drivers were having too much fun. These are not F1's first anti-fun chicanes, but may be the most offensive.
1973: The safety car is introduced, ensuring that any races that already have stupid results have even stupider results.
1977: F1 leaves the Nürburgring, and thus very long tracks in general. All racetracks are now racetracks, without even the occasional one that even feels kind of like an open road.
1981: Ground effect is banned, because politics.
1982: Ground effect is reallowed, which in combination with ridiculously hard suspensions creates a literally painful car to drive.
1983: Ground effect is banned, because F1 apparently isn't about cars that can corner quickly.
1984: The drivers hate the new requirement to fuel-save so much that a lot of them don't do it.
1986: F1 becomes all about fuel and tyre management. These have both happened before, but not at the same time. Also, two-way radios mean that drivers can be coached more than ever before.
1988: There was another fuel limit reduction, but F1 was already about fuel-saving so it doesn't count as a change.
1989: Turbos are completely banned, but there have been so many regulation overhauls recently that no one can remember if they were part of the DNA of Formula One to begin with.
1990: Traction control is introduced, removing what's supposed to be a skill basic to race driving from Formula One.
1998: Even the dry tyres have grooves, making for a fundamental change in the feel of F1, both in and out of the car.
2004: Cars are restricted to one engine per weekend, ensuring the drivers can't push in the fastest cars of all time, blatantly against the spirit of motor racing.
2005: Cars are restricted to one set of tyres per race, ensuring the drivers can't push in the fastest cars of all time, blatantly against the spirit of motor racing. Engines are required to last two races, making each race weekend no longer its own event even in principle, fundamentally changing what an F1 season is.
2009: KERS is introduced, making F1 unpleasantly video game-like in a way that has never been seen before.
2011: DRS is introduced, making F1 unpleasantly video game-like in a way that has never been seen before.
2018: The halo is introduced, even though F1 cars have always been open-cockpit, including the year when the halo was introduced.
1952: For this year and the next, the World Championship just didn't feel like F1 anymore. This is, to date, the only time F1 has actually collapsed under its own cost.
1954: Mercedes spit on the DNA of Formula One with the W196 Monza, which was literally a closed-wheel Formula One car. And it won three races. I know it was the 1950s, but I feel like this crime isn't brought up often enough.
1957: The Cooper T43 appears. It isn't front engined, even though this has been a defining characteristic of a Formula One car. In 1958, it rudely wins a race. During the year, Fangio retires, stating "surrounded by rear-engined cars painted green, I realised it was the end of an era". When the greatest driver of all time retires, you know things are going in the wrong direction. In 1959, Cooper and Jack Brabham would go on to be the first to win a championship using a ridiculous-looking "F1" car in their campaign since 1954.
1961: Engine capacities change from 2.5 to 1.5 L. The British constructors are so outraged at this being "Formula One" that they don't do any car development until it's too late. Due to having a multi-year-long head start, Ferrari (with a non-front-engined car, Enzo's will to win eventually overpowering his will to uphold the DNA of Formula One) have an advantage so great that it lets Phil freaking Hill win the championship.
1966: The engines are changed again, but to be faster, so it's okay. (Further engine changes will not be listed, as changing engine restrictions have now become part of the DNA of Formula One.)
1968: Wings completely change what it means to drive an F1 car. From here on out, high-speed corners are a lot easier, and dirty air will fundamentally change the dynamics of overtaking.
1970: The Lotus 72 has the radiators in a different place, making a shape very complex and ugly compared to the previous cigars on wheels.
1972: Monza puts in a couple of chicanes because the drivers were having too much fun. These are not F1's first anti-fun chicanes, but may be the most offensive.
1973: The safety car is introduced, ensuring that any races that already have stupid results have even stupider results.
1977: F1 leaves the Nürburgring, and thus very long tracks in general. All racetracks are now racetracks, without even the occasional one that even feels kind of like an open road.
1981: Ground effect is banned, because politics.
1982: Ground effect is reallowed, which in combination with ridiculously hard suspensions creates a literally painful car to drive.
1983: Ground effect is banned, because F1 apparently isn't about cars that can corner quickly.
1984: The drivers hate the new requirement to fuel-save so much that a lot of them don't do it.
1986: F1 becomes all about fuel and tyre management. These have both happened before, but not at the same time. Also, two-way radios mean that drivers can be coached more than ever before.
1988: There was another fuel limit reduction, but F1 was already about fuel-saving so it doesn't count as a change.
1989: Turbos are completely banned, but there have been so many regulation overhauls recently that no one can remember if they were part of the DNA of Formula One to begin with.
1990: Traction control is introduced, removing what's supposed to be a skill basic to race driving from Formula One.
1998: Even the dry tyres have grooves, making for a fundamental change in the feel of F1, both in and out of the car.
2004: Cars are restricted to one engine per weekend, ensuring the drivers can't push in the fastest cars of all time, blatantly against the spirit of motor racing.
2005: Cars are restricted to one set of tyres per race, ensuring the drivers can't push in the fastest cars of all time, blatantly against the spirit of motor racing. Engines are required to last two races, making each race weekend no longer its own event even in principle, fundamentally changing what an F1 season is.
2009: KERS is introduced, making F1 unpleasantly video game-like in a way that has never been seen before.
2011: DRS is introduced, making F1 unpleasantly video game-like in a way that has never been seen before.
2018: The halo is introduced, even though F1 cars have always been open-cockpit, including the year when the halo was introduced.
Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
- Pacific Edge
- Posts: 243
- Joined: 20 Jul 2018, 12:33
Re: Ponderbox
Been pondering this for years, and was planning to post it at some point, but UgncreativeUsergname's post inspired me to actually do so, it ties in a bit with what he posted. This is one for the aero buffs here to maybe answer. The time overtaking starting becoming difficult seems to coincide with a seemingly insignificant rule change implemented by a certain B.C. Ecclestone, where he mandated that the size of the rear wing endplate be increased to give sponsors increased advertising space. I bring this up because obviously this rule change had NOTHING to do with any performance gain/loss, and I suspect it was given no thought in that area, so my question is, COULD the size of the endplate (and obviously the rear wing's change of position) play even a small role in the overtaking problems we are seeing today?
Re: Ponderbox
Pacific 777 wrote:Been pondering this for years, and was planning to post it at some point, but UgncreativeUsergname's post inspired me to actually do so, it ties in a bit with what he posted. This is one for the aero buffs here to maybe answer. The time overtaking starting becoming difficult seems to coincide with a seemingly insignificant rule change implemented by a certain B.C. Ecclestone, where he mandated that the size of the rear wing endplate be increased to give sponsors increased advertising space. I bring this up because obviously this rule change had NOTHING to do with any performance gain/loss, and I suspect it was given no thought in that area, so my question is, COULD the size of the endplate (and obviously the rear wing's change of position) play even a small role in the overtaking problems we are seeing today?
The rear wing is the last piece of aerodynamic bodywork the air flows over, and as such it plays a large role in what the air vortices behind the cars look like. End-plates reduce what's called induced drag by preventing those vortices from forming at the edges of the wing, but increasing their size provides diminishing returns, I believe.
Now, in terms of the effect on a car's wake, this is a super-complex subject that depends on the rest of the car and how the end-plates were designed. On top of this, predicting how turbulent flow will behave is notoriously difficult (those Navier-Stokes equations don't exactly solve themselves), and it's very hard to make turbulent air do what you want it to do. That's why cars have less downforce when traveling behind another.
As for the lower rear wing (assuming you're talking about the recent change), that's essentially the point of ground effect. If you bring an aerofoil close enough to the ground, the pressure under it gets lower than it would in free air, and you get more downforce. Conversely, that means that the turbulence in the wing's wake will be a lot more significant as a result which, again, is hella not-good for the car behind's downforce levels.
Essentially, even such a seemingly small change as the size of the end-plates and the position of the rear wing can have pretty big knock-on effects on a car's wake depending on how it plays into the aero of a car as a whole.
kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese
Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
- Pacific Edge
- Posts: 243
- Joined: 20 Jul 2018, 12:33
Re: Ponderbox
tommykl wrote:The rear wing is the last piece of aerodynamic bodywork the air flows over, and as such it plays a large role in what the air vortices behind the cars look like. End-plates reduce what's called induced drag by preventing those vortices from forming at the edges of the wing, but increasing their size provides diminishing returns, I believe.
Thanks Tommy, so if I have it right, although the endplates are larger, at a point in the size, they are actually don't help as much as they should.
tommykl wrote:Now, in terms of the effect on a car's wake, this is a super-complex subject that depends on the rest of the car and how the end-plates were designed. On top of this, predicting how turbulent flow will behave is notoriously difficult
That's more or less what I thought, that the idea was only given cosmetic consideration implemented WITHOUT actually taking a PROPER look at what difference it would make on the track.
tommykl wrote:As for the lower rear wing (assuming you're talking about the recent change), that's essentially the point of ground effect. If you bring an aerofoil close enough to the ground, the pressure under it gets lower than it would in free air, and you get more downforce. Conversely, that means that the turbulence in the wing's wake will be a lot more significant as a result which, again, is hella not-good for the car behind's downforce levels.
Essentially, even such a seemingly small change as the size of the end-plates and the position of the rear wing can have pretty big knock-on effects on a car's wake depending on how it plays into the aero of a car as a whole.
The part I'm referring to is what you could call the "upper" rear wing, the aero part(s) that are in the upper section between the end plates. As the last major part that that the air hits before it leaves the car, messing with it can make a big difference. As we have seen in the past few years, the FIA tried raising and narrowing the rear wing, before dropping and widening it again, but the width of the flat end of the endplate (where the sponsors decals are) was relatively unchanged, only the height of the endplate was tinkered with.
The point to my question is should the sides of the endplates (the most visible part to us at home) be shrunk slightly again to create the chance of better overtaking? I mean what's the point of giving the sponsors greater coverage, if it makes the product they are advertising on worse? Do the FIA/FOM commercial guys maybe need to take a small hit to improve racing?
- Ataxia
- Not Important
- Posts: 6862
- Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 12:47
- Location: Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's)
- Contact:
Re: Ponderbox
Honestly, whatever size you have it, a standard-shaped endplate makes little difference, regardless of size. Turbulent wake is just a constant that you'll never eliminate - it's created by the car's contact with the air, the rotating tyre mass and the expulsion of air from the diffuser. Unless you're getting a massive amount of boundary layer separation, which is unlikely as teams are going to prioritise flow attachment in that area to maximise the rear wing effectiveness, endplate size won't matter too much.
Mitch Hedberg wrote:I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Man, you really like Tide...
- WeirdKerr
- Posts: 1864
- Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
- Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....
Re: Ponderbox
Was watching the 1998 first lap crash and it dawned on my if this were to happen now 13 cars would be out on the spot and we would have a race with nearly the same amount of cars as USA '05.... (unless they stopped the race and managed to repair some of the cars.... )
Re: Ponderbox
WeirdKerr wrote:Was watching the 1998 first lap crash and it dawned on my if this were to happen now 13 cars would be out on the spot and we would have a race with nearly the same amount of cars as USA '05.... (unless they stopped the race and managed to repair some of the cars.... )
The last part is probably what would happen in that case. They'd milk the 4 hours they got for all its worth. Which makes me really not looking forward for such an event to happen again, because then we'd lose around two hours to a red flag situation.
Re: Ponderbox
1. As Racing Point is a brand new team as from Belgium, how many brand new power units are the team allowed to use for the rest of the season? It ought to be three, right? Hard to calculate pro rata, how do you allow 1 1/2 engines? One would be too harsh, particularly with Monza and Singapore coming up, two would be unfair to other teams, but regulations allow for three per car/entry, not per driver. These are essentially two new entries.
2. Am I right in thinking that the safety car was never used in F1 between the 1973 Canadian GP and 1994 San Marino GP?
2. Am I right in thinking that the safety car was never used in F1 between the 1973 Canadian GP and 1994 San Marino GP?
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
Re: Ponderbox
dr-baker wrote:2. Am I right in thinking that the safety car was never used in F1 between the 1973 Canadian GP and 1994 San Marino GP?
Safety car became permanently part of F1 in 1993 and used in Brazilian (Suzuki/Katayama accident on the front straight) and British (Badoer stopped his car at Woodcote) GPs.
Re: Ponderbox
dr-baker wrote:1. As Racing Point is a brand new team as from Belgium, how many brand new power units are the team allowed to use for the rest of the season? It ought to be three, right? Hard to calculate pro rata, how do you allow 1 1/2 engines? One would be too harsh, particularly with Monza and Singapore coming up, two would be unfair to other teams, but regulations allow for three per car/entry, not per driver. These are essentially two new entries.
From what I've read, they don't get any new power units at all. They lose all championship points, because they count as a new team, but engine-wise they have to continue where Force India left off. Kinda weird ruling, to be honest.
Source is in german, but I'll link to it anyway: https://www.formel1.de/news/news/2018-0 ... ngent-2018
Re: Ponderbox
Turbogirl wrote:dr-baker wrote:1. As Racing Point is a brand new team as from Belgium, how many brand new power units are the team allowed to use for the rest of the season? It ought to be three, right? Hard to calculate pro rata, how do you allow 1 1/2 engines? One would be too harsh, particularly with Monza and Singapore coming up, two would be unfair to other teams, but regulations allow for three per car/entry, not per driver. These are essentially two new entries.
From what I've read, they don't get any new power units at all. They lose all championship points, because they count as a new team, but engine-wise they have to continue where Force India left off. Kinda weird ruling, to be honest.
Source is in german, but I'll link to it anyway: https://www.formel1.de/news/news/2018-0 ... ngent-2018
Thank you. I studied German for three years at school and took a GCSE exam in it at age 16. Back in 1999. But I can understand enough to know it correlates! To be honest, it's probably the fairest solution. Strange ruling, considering Force India are excluded officially and Racing Point officially a new team, but fair, considering you can't allow 1.5 engines to be used for the remainder of the season, or whatever it would work out at.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
- Pacific Edge
- Posts: 243
- Joined: 20 Jul 2018, 12:33
Re: Ponderbox
IF the rumours are true and McLaren are considering a "fresh paper" deisgn for next year's car, should they maybe wait a year until James Key is on board? It makes little sense to design a car around one design, only to have someone else come in with a different set of ideas. Obviously they can't wait until Key joins and THEN start design, as that will only leave them with a couple months until the season starts, so would it be an idea for them to take a hit next season, and then start early next year for 2020?
-
- Posts: 1159
- Joined: 25 Mar 2011, 06:23
- Location: England
Re: Ponderbox
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-reveals-drs-changes-for-remainder-of-f1-2018/3166260/
What the hell is this? INCREASE the DRS zones? Do they want to make the whole two-tier class racing even worse? This is pathetic!
What the hell is this? INCREASE the DRS zones? Do they want to make the whole two-tier class racing even worse? This is pathetic!
"Hispania are a waste of talent and petrol!" Martin Brundle, Australia Qualifying 2011
Live streams and podcasts from yours truly at http://www.youtube.com/user/sswishbone
Live streams and podcasts from yours truly at http://www.youtube.com/user/sswishbone
Re: Ponderbox
sswishbone wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-reveals-drs-changes-for-remainder-of-f1-2018/3166260/
What the hell is this? INCREASE the DRS zones? Do they want to make the whole two-tier class racing even worse? This is pathetic!
Relax, it's only for the remainder of 2018. They'll realize how dumb this idea is and dump it as soon as they can. Has worked like this many times before...
But I gotta admit I like Whiting's comment on Spa:
Charlie Whiting wrote:Spa is different, isn't it? You saw in a lot of cases there, Sebastian [Vettel] got past Lewis [Hamilton] without DRS and that's simply because you get a better run through Eau Rouge. We always see it here don't we? It'll be different on other circuits.
If that's the case, then scrap those "other" circuits. I'll gladly take an 8-rounds-calendar over that godawful marathon we currently have!
Re: Ponderbox
Wasnt sure where was best to post this but whilst I'm a fan of the current numbering system, I was wondering which teams would have what numbers if it was to change back to the pre 1996 season, so I had a thought about it:
Mercedes: 3&4 (used to be Tyrrell)
Williams: 5&6 (due to the association with the 'red 5')
Red Bull: 7&8 (the original team, Stewart, was formed after 1995 so I've just assigned them the lowest numbers available)
Haas: 9&10 (ditto)
McLaren: 11&12 (could have gone with 7&8 but I associate them with 11&12 more)
Racing Point: 14&15 (Jordan used those numbers in the 1990s)
Renault: 19&20 (The numbers used by those colourful Benettons in the late 80s)
Toro Rosso: 23&24 (from Minardi)
Ferrari: 27&28 (duh!)
Sauber: 29&30 (as per the 90s)
This leaves 1&2 free, in this case used by Mercedes, the result is that 3&4 end up being unused but personally I'd rather that than teams swapping numbers with each other if and when the drivers champion moved around.
Mercedes: 3&4 (used to be Tyrrell)
Williams: 5&6 (due to the association with the 'red 5')
Red Bull: 7&8 (the original team, Stewart, was formed after 1995 so I've just assigned them the lowest numbers available)
Haas: 9&10 (ditto)
McLaren: 11&12 (could have gone with 7&8 but I associate them with 11&12 more)
Racing Point: 14&15 (Jordan used those numbers in the 1990s)
Renault: 19&20 (The numbers used by those colourful Benettons in the late 80s)
Toro Rosso: 23&24 (from Minardi)
Ferrari: 27&28 (duh!)
Sauber: 29&30 (as per the 90s)
This leaves 1&2 free, in this case used by Mercedes, the result is that 3&4 end up being unused but personally I'd rather that than teams swapping numbers with each other if and when the drivers champion moved around.
Re: Ponderbox
Francis23 wrote:Wasnt sure where was best to post this but whilst I'm a fan of the current numbering system, I was wondering which teams would have what numbers if it was to change back to the pre 1996 season, so I had a thought about it:
Working with what we have championship-wise, we'd end up looking at the following in 2018:
Mercedes GP - 1/2
Red Bull - 3/4 (started as Stewart, probably taking 21/22, got 3/4 once Vettel was no longer champion in 2014)
Williams - 5/6 (moved to 7/8 after McLaren received 1/2 for Häkkinen's title, would probably request re-installation after Arrows, who had 5/6 after 1997, went into bankruptcy)
Haas - 7/8 (numbers were unused in 2015, as Caterham took them after Toyota withdrew, who took them after Williams moved back to 5/6)
Renault - 9/10 (got 27/28 after MSC left for Ferrari, were moved to 19/20 in 1996, got 1/2 when Alonso won in 2005 and recieved McLaren's 9/10 after Alonso left for McLaren)
Sauber - 11/12 (was moved there in 1996, never moved anymore)
Force India - 14/15 (obvious)
Toro Rosso - 16/17 (Minardi was moved to 18/19 and then bumped up two numbers when Ligier/Prost, who were moved to 16/17 went into bankruptcy, never moved anymore)
Ferrari - 19/20 (got 9/10 when Hill moved to Arrows, got 19/20 when Alonso won in 2005 and straight-swapped numbers with McLaren in 2007 and 2008)
McLaren - 21/22 (started out 7/8, got 9/10 when MSC won in 2000, got 1/2 when Alonso moved to McLaren, got 19/20 when Kimi won in 2007, got 1/2 when Lewis won in 2008 and Jenson won in 2009, got 21/22 when Vettel won in 2010)
- Bobby Doorknobs
- Posts: 4060
- Joined: 30 Jul 2014, 17:52
- Location: no
Re: Ponderbox
Klon wrote:Francis23 wrote:Wasnt sure where was best to post this but whilst I'm a fan of the current numbering system, I was wondering which teams would have what numbers if it was to change back to the pre 1996 season, so I had a thought about it:
Working with what we have championship-wise, we'd end up looking at the following in 2018:
Mercedes GP - 1/2
Red Bull - 3/4 (started as Stewart, probably taking 21/22, got 3/4 once Vettel was no longer champion in 2014)
Williams - 5/6 (moved to 7/8 after McLaren received 1/2 for Häkkinen's title, would probably request re-installation after Arrows, who had 5/6 after 1997, went into bankruptcy)
Haas - 7/8 (numbers were unused in 2015, as Caterham took them after Toyota withdrew, who took them after Williams moved back to 5/6)
Renault - 9/10 (got 27/28 after MSC left for Ferrari, were moved to 19/20 in 1996, got 1/2 when Alonso won in 2005 and recieved McLaren's 9/10 after Alonso left for McLaren)
Sauber - 11/12 (was moved there in 1996, never moved anymore)
Force India - 14/15 (obvious)
Toro Rosso - 16/17 (Minardi was moved to 18/19 and then bumped up two numbers when Ligier/Prost, who were moved to 16/17 went into bankruptcy, never moved anymore)
Ferrari - 19/20 (got 9/10 when Hill moved to Arrows, got 19/20 when Alonso won in 2005 and straight-swapped numbers with McLaren in 2007 and 2008)
McLaren - 21/22 (started out 7/8, got 9/10 when MSC won in 2000, got 1/2 when Alonso moved to McLaren, got 19/20 when Kimi won in 2007, got 1/2 when Lewis won in 2008 and Jenson won in 2009, got 21/22 when Vettel won in 2010)
I think this is closer to how it would actually look seeing as the only times there were significant gaps in the numbering were cases where teams had to withdraw at a late stage for whatever reason (RAM in 1986, Brabham in 1988, etc.)
#FreeGonzo
- RonDenisDeletraz
- Posts: 7380
- Joined: 27 Oct 2011, 08:21
- Location: Flight 643
- Contact:
Re: Ponderbox
Personally I never really considered BAR as a continuation of Tyrrell, but interesting none the less
aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either
tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
Re: Ponderbox
RonDenisDeletraz wrote:Personally I never really considered BAR as a continuation of Tyrrell, but interesting none the less
Same entry, so I doubt the FIA would put in any effort in placing them elsewhere, number-wise.
- Peteroli34
- Posts: 1957
- Joined: 25 May 2013, 10:01
- Location: Thurrock, Which isn't London
Re: Ponderbox
With rumours that Kyvat is in contention for a Toro Rosso drive next year despite being dropped from a drive about 4 times and them hiring Hartley who was dropped from the Young Driver Programme a number of season ago. And with none of their young drivers in a position to graduate to the team. Is their any point of Red Bull still having Toro Rosso
- Pacific Edge
- Posts: 243
- Joined: 20 Jul 2018, 12:33
Re: Ponderbox
Depends how far ahead they are looking, if they feel that the talent they DO have just needs time to mature, then it's worth maybe carrying STR for a year or two so when the time comes, they have seats available.
Re: Ponderbox
Pacific 777 wrote:Depends how far ahead they are looking, if they feel that the talent they DO have just needs time to mature, then it's worth maybe carrying STR for a year or two so when the time comes, they have seats available.
Right now, the main use for Toro Rosso is effectively to act as Red Bull's development house for Honda ahead of 2019, and then to farm them for additional development data in the future - especially given that Red Bull are now planning to turn Toro Rosso into their own version of Haas (which probably explains why Key has decided to leave the team). For the longer term, it is true that their junior programme does now have more drivers in it and should start feeding drivers into the parent team.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
Re: Ponderbox
Considering Verstappen won each race after Kvyat was fired/demoted, maybe they just want to sack and rehire him every 2nd race, to ensure Verstappen wins 50% of the races in 2019?
- Spectoremg
- Posts: 519
- Joined: 27 Dec 2014, 21:39
- Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK
Re: Ponderbox
Marco wrote:Considering Verstappen won each race after Kvyat was fired/demoted, maybe they just want to sack and rehire him every 2nd race, to ensure Verstappen wins 50% of the races in 2019?
Re: Ponderbox
Ever noticed how the two drivers are "battling" for 2nd place, whilst another two are "squabbling over" for 12th place? Even if the front-runners take each other off whilst the mid-fielder makes a wonderful clean overtake? Hmm.
Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.
- dinizintheoven
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: 09 Dec 2010, 01:24
Re: Ponderbox
Wondering out loud here, what with all the great fuss surrounding Esteban Ocon's future, Toto not being able to promise him a seat anywhere for next season, and what of George Russell...
Seeing as Stoffel Vandoorne and Pierre Gasly have both had a season there, could Mercedes launch a new Super Formula team for the two drivers who should, eventually, be driving their F1 cars once Lewis decides he has nothing left to prove? I'd assume it'd have to be in partnership with Toyota, because they're not involved in F1 and Honda wouldn't want to help their engine rivals - and it's not as if manufacturers don't work together to make road cars and vans (see: Mercedes Citan and Sprinter, a.k.a. Renault Kangoo and VW Crafter). Call it the Petronas team, maybe even run it under the Malaysian flag. In fact, all I can see blocking this is if there's a rule that says every team must run at least one Japanese driver (though Kondo Racing ran James Rossiter and William Buller in 2016 so I doubt there is).
I'd further assume Toto would demand a championship victory, mind...
Seeing as Stoffel Vandoorne and Pierre Gasly have both had a season there, could Mercedes launch a new Super Formula team for the two drivers who should, eventually, be driving their F1 cars once Lewis decides he has nothing left to prove? I'd assume it'd have to be in partnership with Toyota, because they're not involved in F1 and Honda wouldn't want to help their engine rivals - and it's not as if manufacturers don't work together to make road cars and vans (see: Mercedes Citan and Sprinter, a.k.a. Renault Kangoo and VW Crafter). Call it the Petronas team, maybe even run it under the Malaysian flag. In fact, all I can see blocking this is if there's a rule that says every team must run at least one Japanese driver (though Kondo Racing ran James Rossiter and William Buller in 2016 so I doubt there is).
I'd further assume Toto would demand a championship victory, mind...
James Allen, on his favourite F1 engine of all time:
"...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
"...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
Re: Ponderbox
I would like to bring the subject of stewarding to the topic here, after today's shitshow with Pérez penalty and the consistency of penalties this year. It has been ludacris at how bad stewarding has gotten in the sport in general (this is not a F1 problem, but its a motosport problem in general).
We're seeing much less consistency over incidents this year (for example, Hartley's crap penalty for faiilng to overtake a car on the formation lap in Bahrain worth 30 seconds and license points versus Vettel or Bottas getting away with literal murder over the year, or Pérez only taking a DTP for attempted murder on Sergey), and I wonder why is this happening. It's not just an F1 problem. IndyCar is also letting drivers away with more crap than before, and I won't talk about touring car races even - the BTCC especially this year has been atrocious regarding driver stewarding and general race decisions by TOCA.
Of course, there's two questions to ask here: why has stewarding got so lenient over time and do biased/unconsistent over the last 2-3 years?
I also would like to ask the opinion on the forum regarding, instead of license points penalty, to have drivers/teams looses championship points if the stewards deem a driver at fault on a racing incident. I think it would be a fairly interesting take on stewarding (and it would be much more penalizing for teams and drivers overall than a 5 second penalty for meming Bottas on lap 1 at France), and it would definetelly put emphasys on drivers making less errors on the whole. I think V8Supercars uses a similar system, which althogh flawed - and we've seen some bathplug decisisions in V8Supercars some years ago - isn't a particular bad idea to start with.
Opinions?
We're seeing much less consistency over incidents this year (for example, Hartley's crap penalty for faiilng to overtake a car on the formation lap in Bahrain worth 30 seconds and license points versus Vettel or Bottas getting away with literal murder over the year, or Pérez only taking a DTP for attempted murder on Sergey), and I wonder why is this happening. It's not just an F1 problem. IndyCar is also letting drivers away with more crap than before, and I won't talk about touring car races even - the BTCC especially this year has been atrocious regarding driver stewarding and general race decisions by TOCA.
Of course, there's two questions to ask here: why has stewarding got so lenient over time and do biased/unconsistent over the last 2-3 years?
I also would like to ask the opinion on the forum regarding, instead of license points penalty, to have drivers/teams looses championship points if the stewards deem a driver at fault on a racing incident. I think it would be a fairly interesting take on stewarding (and it would be much more penalizing for teams and drivers overall than a 5 second penalty for meming Bottas on lap 1 at France), and it would definetelly put emphasys on drivers making less errors on the whole. I think V8Supercars uses a similar system, which althogh flawed - and we've seen some bathplug decisisions in V8Supercars some years ago - isn't a particular bad idea to start with.
Opinions?
Mario on Gutierrez after the Italian Grand Prix wrote:He's no longer just a bit of a tool, he's the entire tool set.
18-07-2015: Forever in our hearts Jules.
25-08-2015: Forever in our hearts Justin.
- UncreativeUsername37
- Posts: 3420
- Joined: 25 May 2012, 14:36
- Location: Earth
Re: Ponderbox
I've always wanted the penalty to be equal to what was caused. Chop someone's wing off and they have to pit, that should be a stop/go, taking someone out should be disqualification... this of course when you don't damage yourself at the same time. It might "discourage racing", but there's no way to know without trying it, and other sports have disqualifications for crashing someone and remain exciting. The main problem is that it's too consequentialist, so the same mistake could be anything from 5 seconds to disqualification depending on whether the victim makes an epic save, and if they don't, how much (largely unpredictable) damage they get. But in China when Verstappen got a higher position than Vettel despite causing a crash between them, that was just terrible....
Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
-
- Site Donor
- Posts: 644
- Joined: 19 May 2014, 11:16
Re: Ponderbox
dinizintheoven wrote:Wondering out loud here, what with all the great fuss surrounding Esteban Ocon's future, Toto not being able to promise him a seat anywhere for next season, and what of George Russell...
Seeing as Stoffel Vandoorne and Pierre Gasly have both had a season there, could Mercedes launch a new Super Formula team for the two drivers who should, eventually, be driving their F1 cars once Lewis decides he has nothing left to prove?.
I like this idea.There should be room on the grid , and Japan is a fairly big market. Not sure if other Super Formula teams would be happy ....do they have a franchise/veto system?
I started supporting Emmo in 1976 (3 points )....missed 75, 74, 73, 72...