Formula 1 2014: General Discussion Thread

GarIT

Any explanation on how it happened?

greedygoblin

GarIT wrote: »

Any explanation on how it happened?

Front right upright failure which caused the corresponding part on the left to also break.

Jordan 199

Melbourne to retain hosting Australian GP until 2020.

Excellent news.

losthorizon

Jordan 191 wrote: »

Nope. Sebastien Buemi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQYMpZxPe4k

Firewalkwithme

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/bernie-ecclestones-100m-getoutofjail-card-9648030.html

Bernie Ecclestone is expected to be cleared of bribery charges in Germany after paying an out-of-court settlement of a staggering £60m or $100m, which is believed to be the largest in the country’s history.

The £60m will be handed to the state of Bavaria and Ecclestone’s lawyer Sven Thomas revealed to The Independent that he will ask the court on Tuesday to use the money to build a new Formula One track in the region.

Gotta love Bernie, the gaul of the man! :cool:

Cookie_Monster

So to be cleared of bribery charges he is in fact bribing the courts!?!?

Firewalkwithme

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So to be cleared of bribery charges he is in fact bribing the courts!?!?

No of course not. It's just a "settlement" from which Bernie recommends that an F1 circuit be built :rolleyes: It's disgusting how the rich can avoid justice like this but that has always been the way of the world.

And if Bernie does get his way I'm sure he would in no way whatsoever profit from the construction of a brand new world class F1 circuit in Bavaria.....

It really is laughable that his lawyer is according to this report at least, is going to ask the local government to use the money to build an F1 circuit.

vectra

It was on a news channel last night that the Case was going ahead and that the settlement was refused.

Zcott

vectra wrote: »

It was on a news channel last night that the Case was going ahead and that the settlement was refused.

According to Sky News Germany the prosecution agreed to an out of court settlement this morning.

Classic Bernie, managing to pay his way out of a lawsuit. You have to love him...

Oblomov

Mere days after officially leaving Ferrari, Luca Marmorini looks set to take another high-profile job in Formula 1, this time with Renault.

The 53-year-old’s departure was interpreted as the latest rolling head at Ferrari amid the fabled Italian team’s poor start to the new turbo V6 era.

Marmorini, formerly Ferrari’s engine and electronics chief, could now take some of his closest colleagues at Maranello with him to another struggling Formula 1 engine supplier, Renault Sport Formula 1.

That is the claim of the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, reporting that Marmorini’s arrival is part of a restructuring at Renault after also erring with its first turbo V6 prominently supplied to reigning world champions Red Bull.

The newspaper said the news could be announced officially within days.

And although the period of summer ‘shutdown’ is now beginning, there are also prominent developments elsewhere in Formula 1.

Meanwhile Autosprint reports that the well-known Toro Rosso engineer Laurent Mekies is on the move.

Ghost Train

Would think the contracts for engineers would have some period where they can't work for the competition, maybe some are tied down more than others

Would also wonder are Ferrari going to go and change too much of the teams structure and make matters worse for themselves, with engine and systems this year do you want to be letting the engine and electronics chief go when those systems are new and need the most development

Oblomov

It all depends if the new boss thinks people are going in the wrong direction. Is the fault the hardware or software, has the outgoing head been cost effective in his management???

Too many things not known. The usual "gardening leave" and cobtracual clause stopping outgoing staff rushimh off to the competition.. You would have thought attention to details like this would have been in place.

Jordan 199

Look at what they did to the Parabolica at Monza:



Replaced the gravel with tarmac.

Myrddin

Jordan 191 wrote: »

Replaced the gravel with tarmac.

Now all it needs is a nice bright aero-drome type colour & a big sponsor on it & we're all set :rolleyes:

losthorizon

That actually looks dangerous.

losthorizon

losthorizon wrote: »

That actually looks dangerous.

I assume the gap will by filled in with concrete and/or astroturf.


Still though. The ****.

Peanut Butter Jelly

They have to put either grass or astroturf in that gap. No concrete. There has to be a punishment for going off and something that will force drivers to lift.

ScumLord

I've no problem with it. This year we've seen drivers making comebacks after mistakes and it leads to more exciting racing watching someone like Hamilton trying to undo a first lap off.

We've also seen a few drivers go off on the same corner due to a wet track and if they didn't have a run off that would have been the end of those drivers and meant a red flag.

ZiabR

I would tend to agree with Scumlord, punishing drivers for making mistakes is what the sport needs, makes the racing far more interesting.

Myrddin

logik wrote: »

I would tend to agree with Scumlord, punishing drivers for making mistakes is what the sport needs, makes the racing far more interesting.

But a run off area doesn't really punish drivers, certainly not as much as a gravel trap would...so this change, on paper at least, isn't about punishing drivers for making mistakes...it's about not punishing drivers for making mistakes. This can be a good thing, as it encourages drivers to push more, & take more chances, rather than settling for position to keep it out of the gravel. I do get that aspect of it. It's just those huge run off areas are now making all the tracks look the same, bereft of individuality, character, & in the case of classic tracks, taking away the history & identity of the track.

losthorizon

Deleted User wrote: »

I assume the gap will by filled in with concrete and/or astroturf.


Still though. The ****.

I know that. But Monza is an extremely fast circuit as is that corner. It was better as was.

Gillespy

From the photo it looks like there is still a lot of gravel area behind it?

I don't see the big fuss, sure they won't beach their car but there is a time penalty for going off, it's safer and probably aimed more at bikes and other series that run on that track.

Monza could lose its GP according to Bernie, for commercial reasons not safety, would this move mean that wasn't all bluff.

losthorizon

losthorizon wrote: »

I know that. But Monza is an extremely fast circuit as is that corner. It was better as was.

What's dangerous about it then?

ScumLord

Myrddin wrote: »

But a run off area doesn't really punish drivers, certainly not as much as a gravel trap would...so this change, on paper at least, isn't about punishing drivers for making mistakes...

It does punish them, they lose seconds of time which can cost them positions and points. The gravel trap will just end their race and maybe any championship battles with it.

Myrddin

ScumLord wrote: »

It does punish them, they lose seconds of time which can cost them positions and points. The gravel trap will just end their race and maybe any championship battles with it.

I said it doesn't really punish them, certainly not in the way a gravel trap does. But that's a good thing, it encourages drivers to push on, knowing they've a safety net in place & can try again in a lap or two if they fail. I'm not against run off areas for that reason. But it is nice to have a balance. I'm not a fan of the slow transformation of established, historic tracks into the modern 'drome' type ones.

ScumLord

Myrddin wrote: »

I said it doesn't really punish them, certainly not in the way a gravel trap does. But that's a good thing, it encourages drivers to push on, knowing they've a safety net in place & can try again in a lap or two if they fail. I'm not against run off areas for that reason. But it is nice to have a balance. I'm not a fan of the slow transformation of established, historic tracks into the modern 'drome' type ones.

I'd agree with that up to a point. I play a simulator called Assetto Corsa and in it they have a laser scanned version of Monza and also the 66 version of the track (without the oval). When you take a modern car out of the 66 version you're pretty much flat out throughout the lap bar the Lezmos and the parabolica and even then you're not slowing down all that much. The old track layout is just too easy for modern cars and a crash will eliminate half the field instantly because everyones right next to each other at the top speeds of their cars.

Modern tracks need chichains and corners to challenge the modern cars, going flat out at top speed isn't difficult for these machines, they get up to top speed in seconds and just sit on the limiter. Because modern tracks are more challenging drivers will make more mistakes. Because we're now on a time limit of TV schedules those mistakes have to have minimum impact on races or we don't get to see a race.

It's just the nature of technology and racing, many of the old tracks have been beaten by the car manufacturers, to keep the challenge going the track has to change. Some tracks will always be a challenge but I think they tend to be the ones that used to be roads at one time or another.

Get rid of the limiters on the cars and see how it goes. I would absolutely love to see an oval race in F1. I know it'll never happen but I really hate how aero and all just seems to be getting closer and closer throughout all the circuits. Look at the size of the wings for Monza now compared to the 90s even.

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

Get rid of the limiters on the cars and see how it goes. I would absolutely love to see an oval race in F1. I know it'll never happen but I really hate how aero and all just seems to be getting closer and closer throughout all the circuits. Look at the size of the wings for Monza now compared to the 90s even.

I'm sure maybe I'm in a minority, but the thoughts of F1 cars going around an oval would bore me to tears. When I see Nascar on the tv (I wouldn't be a fan of it, I know nothing about it) I know myself the cars are tearing around the oval...but the sense of speed looks completely lost on the tv imo. Plus, it's like watching paint dry

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Get rid of the limiters on the cars and see how it goes.

All the limiter does is stop the engine from tearing itself apart. It's not imposed by the FIA, it's imposed by the guys making the engine.

I would absolutely love to see an oval race in F1.

It would make for a pretty dull F1 race. The Mercs would just disappear based on their engine and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

Myrddin

Myrddin wrote: »

I'm sure maybe I'm in a minority, but the thoughts of F1 cars going around an oval would bore me to tears. When I see Nascar on the tv (I wouldn't be a fan of it, I know nothing about it) I know myself the cars are tearing around the oval...but the sense of speed looks completely lost on the tv imo. Plus, it's like watching paint dry

Most people would probably agree with you tbh, but watch an Indycar race instead. When the tyres go and all it's properly exciting stuff. Sometimes they'll be pack-racing, sometimes there's 10% differences in speed because of different stints. It's awesome. :P

ScumLord wrote: »

All the limiter does is stop the engine from tearing itself apart. It's not imposed by the FIA, it's imposed by the guys making the engine.

Thought the 15k limit was set by the FIA and the limits below that that the teams are running are for fuel reasons? The V8 engines were limited to 18k, before that they were limited to 19k, before that they weren't limited. So despite 10 years of reliability improvements the RPMs were forced down by the FIA, they were capable of much more safely.
I don't just mean rev-limiters though.

It would make for a pretty dull F1 race. The Mercs would just disappear based on their engine and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

Well I'd suggest a bit of notice before lobbing an oval race into the calendar. :P

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Thought the 15k limit was set by the FIA and the limits below that that the teams are running are for fuel reasons?

I would still think that the engineers have made the engine so that it's getting the most out of that 15K limit and going over it would lead to all kinds of reliability issues. In general the limiter is there to protect the engine. the F1 engine depends on it's ability to accelerate really fast. I think they'd need a different kind of engine to be going flat out all the time, rally engines for example don't take kindly to long straights.

There's numer of F1 cars in that sim I mentioned and I've put them all on a track to see what the differences are, there's the lotus 49, the Ferrari 312T, the Lotus 98T, the Lotus Exos T125 (not technically an F1 car, it was on Top Gear) and a mod of the current mercedes W05. The modern F1 car leaves them all for dust by the time you've gotten to the first corner. After the first corner the other cars are a distant memory, even the 1200hp 98T, it's too heavy and it's downforce package too crude to keep up with the modern car.

I think in a year or two these new breed of F1 cars will be the fastest that there ever was.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I would still think that the engineers have made the engine so that it's getting the most out of that 15K limit and going over it would lead to all kinds of reliability issues. In general the limiter is there to protect the engine. the F1 engine depends on it's ability to accelerate really fast. I think they'd need a different kind of engine to be going flat out all the time, rally engines for example don't take kindly to long straights.

Exactly, everything is becoming more and more same-y in F1 and I don't like it. Between the tracks being same-y, the engines being so restricted and the results of all that meaning aero being so similar at so many tracks.
An oval race would be pointless with a fuel limit, a fuel-flow limit, a rev limit etc., I'm not saying otherwise. But a team having to adjust to ultra-low downforce while worrying about reliability, then Monaco, then Spain, then Monza etc. A few years ago Force India had a car that was incredible at low-downforce tracks but they couldn't get the benefit of bolting on more wings elsewhere. Occurrences like that would be much more common if there was a lot more variation in tracks. The tyres would be another avenue that could be opened up massively.

Overall the rev limitations aren't set by the engine engineers (those two words shouldn't be together), they're set by the FIA to keep things homogenised and with the aim of reliability. There were some great engine innovations throughout the years at Indy because there was at least some freedom in engine design. NASCAR engines are pretty damn impressive given their limitations as well.

EDIT: I'm going to tally up engines for 2008/2009 when they limit was reduced, back in a while. :P

Cookie_Monster

ScumLord wrote: »

It does punish them, they lose seconds of time which can cost them positions and points. The gravel trap will just end their race and maybe any championship battles with it.

Exactly. Way more risk for massive reward, exactly what we need

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly, everything is becoming more and more same-y in F1 and I don't like it. Between the tracks being same-y, the engines being so restricted and the results of all that meaning aero being so similar at so many tracks.
An oval race would be pointless with a fuel limit, a fuel-flow limit, a rev limit etc.,

But isn't that the way it is in indycar right now? They all drive the same car with the same engine. The only differences are in how you set up the car. F1 still has the most diversity in car design of any of the top motorsports.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Exactly. Way more risk for massive reward, exactly what we need

It would kill the championship and lead to conservative racing, IMO. With a 2 hour limit on racing the increased yellow and red flags would kill races too.

From wikipedia there were 9 engine retirements in 2008 @ 19k RPM. The FIA decided that to improve reliability that it'd be reduced to 18k RPM for 2009 and there were 2 (I didn't count hydraulics/radiator issues/oil leaks but they seemed about the same for both seasons which would tighten things up if counting them). In 2010 there were 10 and quite a few "hydraulics".

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

But isn't that the way it is in indycar right now? They all drive the same car with the same engine. The only differences are in how you set up the car. F1 still has the most diversity in car design of any of the top motorsports.

I'm by no means saying to copy everything in Indycar :P
Also Endurance racing is really pushing on nicely with their variations, a few tweaks to the balance and they could be in for a few golden years soon.
While I think Newey's basically throwing his toys out of the pram I do think that if someone is impartial then his statements about difficulty in innovating with how limiting the rules are are fairly accurate.

Frankie Lee

ScumLord wrote: »

I think in a year or two these new breed of F1 cars will be the fastest that there ever was.

They are still a good way away from 2004 lap times and at least 2 years before they can match them in some. Monaco for instance where the lower power levels wouldn't be as punishing they were still 2 seconds a lap slower. In China the difference in fastest laps was 8 seconds.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I think in a year or two these new breed of F1 cars will be the fastest that there ever was.

Didn't see this earlier but I think it'll take a change to the extent that they won't be "these" cars before they're that fast. Whether it's some exhaust blowing rubbish or something along the lines of traction control. They can pick some time up through aero but aero isn't the limiting factor like it used to be.

ScumLord

I think there's a lot to come from these engines, they've had pretty astonishing reliability for an engine that's so new and technical, I think there's plenty of scope for them to push the engines a lot harder over the coming years. With Honda coming in next year it should really shake things up, it will be interesting to see if Merc can keep it's advantage, I don't think they will next year.

I'd be interested to see if Pirellis low profiles tyre would do anything to speed things up, they would allow for some massive brakes to be fitted.

Deleted User wrote: »

They can pick some time up through aero but aero isn't the limiting factor like it used to be.

Modern Aero can make a big difference too, the gains probably won't be too great into the future though. Senna's lotus 98T had huge wings but they did all the work and went on and off like a switch. 126kph and you had huge downforce pushing you into the track, 124kph and you had nothing, it also had horrible drag issues. Modern cars have much more progressive aero that increases with speed and don't cost the car as much in wind resistance.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I think there's a lot to come from these engines, they've had pretty astonishing reliability for an engine that's so new and technical, I think there's plenty of scope for them to push the engines a lot harder over the coming years. With Honda coming in next year it should really shake things up, it will be interesting to see if Merc can keep it's advantage, I don't think they will next year.

I'd be interested to see if Pirellis low profiles tyre would do anything to speed things up, they would allow for some massive brakes to be fitted.

The engines are homologated already, including Honda's. They can't push much more with the fuel limits and it wouldn't surprise me the limit is reduced.
I'd be surprised too if they make the brakes much bigger, they're already fairly high on weight.

Modern Aero can make a big difference too, the gains probably won't be too great into the future though. Senna's lotus 98T had huge wings but they did all the work and went on and off like a switch. 126kph and you had huge downforce pushing you into the track, 124kph and you had nothing, it also had horrible drag issues. Modern cars have much more progressive aero that increases with speed and don't cost the car as much in wind resistance.

It's more progressive but it's still not going to do as much where the grip levels are at their lowest, at low speeds. The aero is also fairly mature from the last few years. It's not perfect by any means but it's hard to see any great revolution with the current rules.

smellslikeshoes

Deleted User wrote: »

The engines are homologated already, including Honda's.

Where are you getting this from :pac:? Why would Honda's engine be already be homologated when it's not in an F1 car yet?

Didn't they have to submit final designs and specs a few months ago? Around June I thought.

Jordan 199

How's everyone getting along during F1's summer break? I'm beginning to suffer from withdrawal symptoms so I'm watching old races to keep me sane!

TheChrisD

ScumLord wrote: »

It would make for a pretty dull F1 race. The Mercs would just disappear based on their engine and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

Add restrictor plate for best results :P

christy c

Jordan 191 wrote: »

How's everyone getting along during F1's summer break? I'm beginning to suffer from withdrawal symptoms so I'm watching old races to keep me sane!

It's the second worst time of year, winter being the worst because of the longer break

Myrddin

christy c wrote: »

It's the second worst time of year, winter being the worst because of the longer break

Agreed. Cannot for to hear "Lights out away we go!" again

Zcott

Myrddin wrote: »

Agreed. Cannot for to hear "Lights out away we go!" again

Actually, related to this: does anyone think we should bring back the green lights? The argument in favour of removing them was that they were too slow to change from red to green and there was confusion as to when the green light went on. But with LED technology now becoming commonplace in traffic lights, there's no delay between red and green and they're instant.

Frank Bullitt

Deleted User wrote: »

The engines are homologated already, including Honda's. They can't push much more with the fuel limits and it wouldn't surprise me the limit is reduced.
I'd be surprised too if they make the brakes much bigger, they're already fairly high on weight.

Al though your right, engineers have said that software updates to the engines have more of an impact now, so the engines hardware could change, but the software that regulates the power delivery could really spice things up.

ScumLord

Gintonious wrote: »

Al though your right, engineers have said that software updates to the engines have more of an impact now, so the engines hardware could change, but the software that regulates the power delivery could really spice things up.

I reckon it's like consumer engines in cars now. That HDi engine that's used by citroen, volvo, ford is in a range of different cars and just tuned to suit the particular car it's in, it's nowhere near it's limit.

With the low limit on the amount of engines that could be used in the year the engine manufacturers may have been playing it safe this year to avoid any bad press.

Gintonious

Gintonious wrote: »

Al though your right, engineers have said that software updates to the engines have more of an impact now, so the engines hardware could change, but the software that regulates the power delivery could really spice things up.

They would but how far can they go before it's traction control? I get the argument for fly-by-wire for the brakes, as much as I'd rather not have it, but any interference with throttle response is pushing it a bit for me.

ScumLord wrote: »

I reckon it's like consumer engines in cars now. That HDi engine that's used by citroen, volvo, ford is in a range of different cars and just tuned to suit the particular car it's in, it's nowhere near it's limit.

With the low limit on the amount of engines that could be used in the year the engine manufacturers may have been playing it safe this year to avoid any bad press.

Not so sure about that, fuel consumption seems to be the main thing. Also next year will be 4 instead of 5 engines, they're running well withing their tolerances.