Formula 1 2014: General Discussion Thread

RayM

Am I the only person who'd love to see Flavio Briatore back in F1?

Daniel S

RayM wrote: »

Am I the only person who'd love to see Flavio Briatore back in F1?

Yes.

cadaliac

RayM wrote: »

Am I the only person who'd love to see Flavio Briatore back in F1?

He might get results but who would trust him? Any victory would be a hollow one considering his past and trustworthiness.
The sport does need some characters though. Just not him.
Listening to Christian Horner is just painful.

Zcott

Anyone find it slightly odd that Ferrari have chosen to fire Domenicali on the same day as the Red Bull hearing? A less painful move would have been to put out a press release on Friday, let it simmer over the weekend and then bury with the Red Bull hearing today.

As it stands we're not hearing a lot about RBR at all, which for them must be a godsend.

RayM

cadaliac wrote: »

He might get results but who would trust him? Any victory would be a hollow one considering his past and trustworthiness.
The sport does need some characters though. Just not him.
Listening to Christian Horner is just painful.

Formula One has a long and proud history of dodgy behaviour and outright cheating. Ferrari wouldn't touch him with a bargepole, but he'd be interesting to have around.

Killinator

Coincidence?

https://twitter.com/F1/status/455709082335207424

Mercedes technical director Bob Bell leaves.

Zcott

Killinator wrote: »

Coincidence?

https://twitter.com/F1/status/455709082335207424

Mercedes technical director Bob Bell leaves.

Funny how they're also saying the role won't be filled, so they've just decided they don't need him.

Action packed day of F1 news!

smellslikeshoes

RayM wrote: »

Am I the only person who'd love to see Flavio Briatore back in F1?

He definitely added a bit of colour when he was there. Anyone who thinks that the rest of the grid wouldn't cheat if they could get away with it is naive.

Tippex

Merc playing serious hardball

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113453?

ScumLord

the Mercedes lawyer said the five-judge panel might in fact increase the penalty against Red Bull in its decision on Monday.

As long as the penalty is against the Red Bull team and Ricardo doesn't get buggered again for something outside of his control.

Zcott

Tippex wrote: »

Merc playing serious hardball

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113453?

Nothing at all to do with Ferrari and Red Bull protesting the Merc tyre test last year, I'm sure...

Frank Bullitt

Zcott wrote: »

Anyone find it slightly odd that Ferrari have chosen to fire Domenicali on the same day as the Red Bull hearing? A less painful move would have been to put out a press release on Friday, let it simmer over the weekend and then bury with the Red Bull hearing today.

As it stands we're not hearing a lot about RBR at all, which for them must be a godsend.

Well they didn't fire him, he resigned.

It was bound to happen but I thought he would have had until Spain really, DiMontizemolo wanted him to stay but he insisted on his resignation. I liked Stefano but ultimately Ferrari need someone with more killer instinct, I think Brawn would fit well and also work well with the tech team there.

Wouldn't say no to Bob Bell arriving either.

Frank Bullitt

Ferrari have already contacted Ross Brawn. Flavio Briatore supposedly declined the role, making it clear he doesn't want to return to #F1.

Seems no Flavio.

smellslikeshoes

Hasn't it already been given to Marco Mattiacci? Not sure why you are speculating on who is going to take a job that's already been filled.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113454

Frank Bullitt

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Hasn't it already been given to Marco Mattiacci? Not sure why you are speculating on who is going to take a job that's already been filled.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113454

He is a temporary replacement.

smellslikeshoes

Gintonious wrote: »

He is a temporary replacement.

Can you link me this? I haven't seen anything about it being temporary.

Frank Bullitt

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Can you link me this? I haven't seen anything about it being temporary.

https://twitter.com/pitlanetalk

Very reliable source I follow on twitter, they get a lot of stuff right.

Frank Bullitt

And here is Ted Kravitz explaining why its only temp as well. Ferrari need a principle with proven leadership skills. Ignore the sensationalist headline.

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12474/9265711/frustration-of-fernando-alonso-and-kimi-raikkonen-was-approaching-danger-levels

Zcott

It couldn't really go any other way, and I'm sure Red Bull knew that.

v3ttel

They really couldn't rule any other way, even though I can see Red Bulls point, I'm sure they knew they were not going to win this case.

When you have Mercedes buying 50 or 60+ fuel sensors and using the ones that give them the most beneficial reading, there is definitely something inherently unreliable about the technology. I would definitely trust a teams fuel rail over a device that has failed numerous times over the first three weekends.

It'll be interesting to see the exact reasons though. If it says on the technical directives that they aren't of regulatory value, that should be changed.

ZiabR

Zcott wrote: »

It couldn't really go any other way, and I'm sure Red Bull knew that.

Exactly, if they went back on the decision then it would only open the doors for other teams to push their luck and the FIA would have their heads wrecked after every race.

ZiabR

Gintonious wrote: »

Seems no Flavio.

Good, he has no place in the sport.

stevenmu

Statement from RB

Infiniti Red Bull Racing accepts the ruling of the International Court of Appeal today.

We are of course disappointed by the outcome and would not have appealed if we didn't think we had a very strong case. We always believed we adhered to the technical regulations throughout the 2014 Australian Grand Prix. We are sorry for Daniel that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved. We will continue to work very hard to amass as many points as possible for the team, Daniel and Sebastian throughout the season.
We will now move on from this and concentrate on this weekend's Chinese Grand Prix.

Daniel S

v3ttel wrote: »

They really couldn't rule any other way, even though I can see Red Bulls point, I'm sure they knew they were not going to win this case.

When you have Mercedes buying 50 or 60+ fuel sensors and using the ones that give them the most beneficial reading, there is definitely something inherently unreliable about the technology. I would definitely trust a teams fuel rail over a device that has failed numerous times over the first three weekends.

It'll be interesting to see the exact reasons though. If it says on the technical directives that they aren't of regulatory value, that should be changed.

Any source for that?

(not taking a dig at you or anything, just want to be sure!)

mickdw

Daniel S wrote: »

Any source for that?

(not taking a dig at you or anything, just want to be sure!)

That was certainly mentioned multiple times on sky F1. Not sure on the numbers but they have certainly bought alot of them for this purpose and at 9k a pop, it's not cheap but of course, it could easily make the difference between winning a gp or not.

v3ttel

Daniel S wrote: »

Any source for that?

It was reported by Ted during the Bahrain coverage. They've bought that quantity at a cost of 9K per sensor, plus I think it was 6K calibration costs per sensor.

That's a hell of an investment for no reason, unless Merc themselves believe there is significant variance.

Daniel S wrote: »

(not taking a dig at you or anything, just want to be sure!)

No worries!

ScumLord

OSI wrote: »

Oh boy. I'd love to see what modern active suspension could achieve, but I really can't see it becoming a reality.

McLaren might have a head start there too, all their latest road cars have active suspension.

Jordan 199

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AME4v3qZkc

smellslikeshoes

Active suspension would be pretty cool to have back but I really don't see how it will bring costs down. Any money they save on not having to do it all mechanically will either be thrown at the active suspension system or be spent somewhere else. The real issue is the way the money from F1 is divided up.

Myrddin

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Active suspension would be pretty cool to have back but I really don't see how it will bring costs down. Any money they save on not having to do it all mechanically will either be thrown at the active suspension system or be spent somewhere else. The real issue is the way the money from F1 is divided up.

Unless (and this is me guessing) it's easier to get benefits from active suspension over say aero r&d? Would active suspension losing the focus on aero development etc?

Ghost Train

Hard to see how active suspension would decrease costs. Is it going to be like traction control. Will be interesting for short time but then be seen as something which takes from the racing and takes the challenge out of setting up a car. Or will it be seen as an important technology that should be part of high tech sport

Very much against active suspension coming back in. The cars are finally hard to drive again and should stay that way.

PopePalpatine

I'm not sure what to think about active suspension. On one hand, it does take the emphasis off aerodynamics...but it's probably going to be very costly.

ZiabR

Myrddin wrote: »

Unless (and this is me guessing) it's easier to get benefits from active suspension over say aero r&d? Would active suspension losing the focus on aero development etc?

Good point there. We would really need to hear the input from some of the technical directors at what benefits if any active suspension would bring to modern F1.

Donnelly117

logik wrote: »

Good point there. We would really need to hear the input from some of the technical directors at what benefits if any active suspension would bring to modern F1.

To be honest I think the quest for speed in F1 would mean the same amount of money will be pumped into aero R&D and and another lump of cash will go into the design and optimization of active suspension... As long at there are teams like red bull and Merc with bottomless budgets there will be monstrous spending, active suspension will just be another avenue for this spending...

Myrddin

Donnelly117 wrote: »

To be honest I think the quest for speed in F1 would mean the same amount of money will be pumped into aero R&D and and another lump of cash will go into the design and optimization of active suspension... As long at there are teams like red bull and Merc with bottomless budgets there will be monstrous spending, active suspension will just be another avenue for this spending...

But if say Marussia etc focused on active suspension, would it help close the gap even as far as mid table? Would it then be a case of diminshing returns ie Merc & Red Bull pumping big sums of money into aero for relatively smaller gains?

Going Strong

Donnelly117 wrote: »

.... active suspension will just be another avenue for this spending...

And yet another thing for Montezemolo to whine about when Ferrari's version is found to be utterly useless. :P

Zcott

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole idea behind active suspension that the car knew exactly what corner was coming up and how to set up the suspension for that corner? In which case I can't see that having any possible use for road car technology.

Myrddin

Zcott wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole idea behind active suspension that the car knew exactly what corner was coming up and how to set up the suspension for that corner? In which case I can't see that having any possible use for road car technology.

I think in road cars, the car is constantly measuring and adapting to things like steering angle, speed, slip etc, and is able to adjust suspension settings on the fly

thirteen.

I don't see any benefit to it's re introduction, the cars will end up looking like they are on rails.

_rebelkid

Round 4: Chinese GP

mickdw

Zcott wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole idea behind active suspension that the car knew exactly what corner was coming up and how to set up the suspension for that corner? In which case I can't see that having any possible use for road car technology.

Perhaps it incorporated that but I think for the most part, it was its ability to continually adjust the suspension based on the forces acting against it to cancel out body roll and also keep the car level front to back on breaking and acceleration. Massive aerodynamic benefits with that also.
There are all sorts of active suspension being used on road cars from the far out stuff being used on mclaren supercars to the road sensing systems on the latest S class mercedes.

stevenmu

If active suspension goes ahead, I'm hoping it'll be controlled via the common ECU that all teams use. That would limit what teams could achieve with it, and mean that it won't be an area that the richer teams can pile lots of R&D into that the poorer teams can't compete with. All the teams will really be able to do is tweak settings to suit their own cars.

Donnelly117

stevenmu wrote: »

If active suspension goes ahead, I'm hoping it'll be controlled via the common ECU that all teams use. That would limit what teams could achieve with it, and mean that it won't be an area that the richer teams can pile lots of R&D into that the poorer teams can't compete with. All the teams will really be able to do is tweak settings to suit their own cars.

I assumed the proposed move to active suspension was to decrease the higher cost of aero R&D. If all teams use a generic acctive suspension module then the focus will go back to aero

stevenmu

Donnelly117 wrote: »

I assumed the proposed move to active suspension was to decrease the higher cost of aero R&D. If all teams use a generic acctive suspension module then the focus will go back to aero

My understanding is that it won't take any focus away from the design of aero, but it makes the setup a lot easier which is where the cost savings come in (presumably there'll be corresponding reductions in testing which is a big expense on the teams).


edit: just to put a source to the above, from the Autosport article:

The belief is that the electronic technology would actually be more cost effective for teams in terms of achieving the optimum car set-up than the current complicated mechanical-only systems.

Going Strong

stevenmu wrote: »

My understanding is that it won't take any focus away from the design of aero, but it makes the setup a lot easier which is where the cost savings come in (presumably there'll be corresponding reductions in testing which is a big expense on the teams).

I think it's to reduce *both* aero expenditure and suspension expenditure. Active suspension would remove a lot of the more esoteric tweaks by creating a much more 'neutral' stance for an F1 car allowing the smaller teams to catch up to the likes of Red Bull's downforce. Plus, it reduces the need for other teams to try and match the current Mercedes team's trick suspension by spending millions on R&D. There's talk that the active suspension unit will be an FIA-sourced 'spec' affair as well.

Donnelly117

There will always be a new innovation that the big teams will come up with , be it aero, suspension, engine etc... I dont think the lower teams will ever catch the bigger teams. Theres always 3 classes in F1, the big teams Ferrari Merc etc, the mid field and the backmarkers

Going Strong

Donnelly117 wrote: »

There will always be a new innovation that the big teams will come up with , be it aero, suspension, engine etc... I dont think the lower teams will ever catch the bigger teams. Theres always 3 classes in F1, the big teams Ferrari Merc etc, the mid field and the backmarkers

Oh, I agree completely. Not to mention the FIA implementing some new rules in the name of cost-cutting only for spending to shift somehwre else. Not to mention some unintended consequences of whichever new rule gets introduced. Given the team's refusal to agree on any sort of cost-savings, the FIA will introduce such 'stealth' measures wherever and whenever it can.

ScumLord

Zcott wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole idea behind active suspension that the car knew exactly what corner was coming up and how to set up the suspension for that corner? In which case I can't see that having any possible use for road car technology.

It might surprise you to find out you're wrong. There are cars now that use gps and maps to plot out gear changes. Active suspension could be linked but the problem would be the map would have to be very accurate but I think I've heard of systems that can remember well travelled bits of road. I think over all active suspension is more reactive than predictive. The F1 teams would be able to create a package that can change for each corner but the problem in a competitive race might be that once you're out of the ideal line your suspension could be working against you.

Active suspension could be as simple as changing the geometry for a particular race and locking it in. It would mean no need for mechanical changes.

MS.ing

Donnelly117 wrote: »

There will always be a new innovation that the big teams will come up with , be it aero, suspension, engine etc... I dont think the lower teams will ever catch the bigger teams. Theres always 3 classes in F1, the big teams Ferrari Merc etc, the mid field and the backmarkers

exactly, they should forget the cost cutting level the playing field rubbish, its just marketing rubbish and let people throw whatever money they want at the 'sport' to 'win'