F1 links: South Korea gets funding for 2010
1st September 2009, 23:31 by Keith Collantine 23 Comments »
South Korea has moved a step closer to holding its first F1 race next year by securing the necessary funds to complete its construction. More on the track here: 2010 South Korean F1 track shown in new pictures on official website
Here’s the story and a round-up of other articles I’ve been reading today:
South Korea secures circuit funding
"South Korean Grand Prix promoters have announced they have secured the financial funding to build a Formula 1 circuit that will be ready in time for 2010."
David Coulthard: Formula One race fixing allegation – I don’t buy it
"It would also have needed the complicity of a number of people – the only evidence I can envisage would be radio communications, which are openly available to the FIA and the team. Someone would surely have said something by now. As I say, I don't buy it." (vie vee8)
Ferrari to work on fuel economy
"One of the surprising aspects of their duel was that how far Fisichella was able to stretch his first fuel load; the Force India started the race 7kg lighter than the Ferrari yet the two cars pitted together on lap 14. It appeared to be a case of Fisichella’s Mercedes-powered VJM02 being particularly efficient rather than the Ferrari being uniquely thirsty, since BMW’s Nick Heidfeld and Red Bull’s Mark Webber also pitted on lap 14 despite starting the race with 7-10kg more fuel than the polesitter."
Filling up the calendar (sub. req.)
"If teams are required to, as per recent FIA stipulation, operate at 1990s budget levels, why does same not apply to entrance tickets, promoter fees and television rights? After all, with the FIA having dictated budget terms to the teams, the EU stipulation that the governing body refrain from involving itself in the sport's commercial affairs either falls away or has arguably been violated, and, if fans are to see cars running to '90s finances, why should they be expected to shell out 21st Century money?"
Ferrari not expecting Massa return in ’09
"Giancarlo Fisichella has emerged as favourite to join the team, but Italian media on Tuesday suggested that Robert Kubica was also a serious possibility."
These are links I’ve bookmarked using Delicious. You can see my Delicious profile here.
mfDB said on 2nd September 2009, 0:06
Wouldn’t the difference in fuel consumption have more to do with the fact that the Force India had really low down force and therefore much less drag? The Ferrari had higher down force and more drag, correct?
Why wouldn’t the fact that the Ferrari is ‘thirsty’ come up before against other cars?
sato113 said on 2nd September 2009, 1:35
i think they’d have both been set up with about the same downforce levels in spa, it’s just that the force india had a more efficient aero.
J said on 2nd September 2009, 1:06
anyone seen the comment after the DC article on Renault’s current situation?
just a wacko? or someone with insider knowledge?
hmm, this is getting interesting…
sato113 said on 2nd September 2009, 1:37
where is this article/comment?
Charlie said on 2nd September 2009, 11:20
Surely he’s talking about the very open and already widely discussed team(s) orders that took place in that race, where Williams’s Villenueve and McLaren’s Coulthard allowed McLaren’s Hakinnen past for his first win. Not sure what the problem is really. BMW did it in 07 with Kubica and Schuey & Ferrari have done it enough.
sato113 said on 2nd September 2009, 1:50
‘South Korea gets funding to take up a better Grand Prix’s place on the calendar’
ajokay said on 2nd September 2009, 8:58
Still no sign of it on the calendar though. They’re leaving it even later than Donington, and at least there’s already a track at Donington.
Anyone else think South Korea may not make it onto next year’s calendar?
Hezla said on 2nd September 2009, 7:03
The weights of the cars includes the drivers, so when we calculate the amount of fuel we must the weight of the drivers.
Keith, do you have this information when you calculate the first pitstops. If Kimi is f.ex. 5 kg heavier than Fisi then the amount of fuel was more equal.
Then there is the question about KERS maybe the Ferrari is not 100% down to the minimum weight because of the KERS system. We just assume all cars are at the minimum weight.
PJA said on 2nd September 2009, 10:28
I like the point that while the FIA want the teams to run 1990s budgets, everyone else has to pay 21st Century prices. In all his efforts to cut costs I didn’t hear Mosley say much about reducing prices circuits have to pay to host a race and so in turn reducing ticket prices for the fans.
steph90 said on 2nd September 2009, 12:22
I don’t think S Korea will ajokay even if it has been put on the provisional calendar. I’m not really too fussed about it either. I’m sick to death of Tilke tracks.
sato113 said on 2nd September 2009, 12:27
what the organisers said in this article- http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/04/06/2010-south-korean-f1-track-shown-in-new-pictures-on-official-website/
what kind of a claim is this? who gives a flying f**k?! and what is this recent love between Tilke and building a ‘marina’ by the circuit? you can’t just copy monaco. I give up…
Prisoner Monkeys said on 2nd September 2009, 15:55
Do you know how oceans can affect local climate? They’re generally cooler than inland locations, and experience much greater variations in weather. Winds change, barometric presure drops and storm cells move across the region. It might not happen over the course of a race, but it will happen over the course of a weekend.
Yes, Melbourne, Monaco, Valencia and Singapore are already close to the sea. But their position relative to the water means they’re protected somewhat. Weather in Melbourne is affected by the fact that everything has to travel over Victoria first. But Jeonnam is on Korea’s south-west coastline, and so is exposed to the Yellow Sea, a hotbed of atmospheric changes. Almost every major weather variation that affects the Korean coastline is born there.
sato113 said on 2nd September 2009, 16:22
what are you trying to tell me?
that we might get a rainy race? (which is cool of course)
I just don’t like the fact the organiser’s make it out like a big selling point. saying it’s the ‘first’ track with an ocean etc. sounds like they’re desperate.
HounslowBusGarage said on 6th September 2009, 11:07
Think of fog, Sato113. Thick, wet, clammy fog on race day.
John H said on 2nd September 2009, 13:28
Tilke eh?… *sigh*
John H said on 2nd September 2009, 13:32
Those new pics on the hideous Korean F1 website actually make it look worse than I was expecting. How is that possible!
mfDB said on 2nd September 2009, 14:34
On the Ferrari and Force India fuel consumption topic – They had different weights, the FI being lighter, at the start and they pitted at the same time, so obviously they say the FI has better fuel consumption.
But, why did both cars then go in for both of the pit stops at the same time? This means the 2nd and 3rd stint they had similar fuel consumption. If not, then FI screwed up big time because they could have run GF lighter and longer….
steph90 said on 2nd September 2009, 14:58
Oh great something to look at. Doubt there will be much action on track if Tilke’s previous tracks are anything to go by. It looks completely uninspired why did Hermann choose this as a job?
Prisoner Monkeys said on 2nd September 2009, 15:49
Have you not read Keith’sarticleon why we shouldn’t be blaming Tilke, but the rules?
For what he has to work with, Tilke does a damned good job.
sato113 said on 2nd September 2009, 16:25
true the track rules are limited, but surely why can’t he stand up and say- ‘I’ve had enough of making boring tracks because of safety’ he needs to argue a bit with the FIA to allow him more freedom.
beneboy said on 2nd September 2009, 20:06
I’d guess that the multi-million dollar deal he gets for each track is somewhat of an obstacle to him speaking out.
If you knew someone was going to get paid millions of dollars to design the track, even under these conditions, wouldn’t you rather it was your company instead of someone else’s getting paid ?
I’ve got no problem with him, the blame lies squarely with the FIA in my opinion.
Prisoner Monkeys said on 6th September 2009, 15:09
And also the fact that it can’t be that difficult to find an architect who would be willing to follow the FIA’s rules.
Besides, if Tilke deicded enough was enough and designed a circuit that was not suited for racing (according to the FIA’s definition of suitable), how do you think the circuit owners and invetors would feel about it?
steph90 said on 2nd September 2009, 16:52
The rules do need to be revised but there are plenty of great tracks that the FIA feel comply with them and are kept on the calendar and none of them are Tilke’s. I’m not saying it’s all his fault, it’s just I think they could be better, there are more designers than just him; a full calendar should not be dominated by one designer though the rules are very constricting.