Comments on: World Motor Sport Council clarifies rules after Schumacher and Hamilton incidents

By: Palle

Palle — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:10:00 +0000

Completely agree with Your view on the SC rule clarification. I never understood why Schumi should be punished for Race Controls failure to apply correct signals on track. Had that been taken to a “civil” court, Race Control would have lost the case, surely.

By: ziggy12345

ziggy12345 — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:16:57 +0000

To nip off to Mad D’s for another burger presumably

By: Cynical

Cynical — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:09:11 +0000

Rule 23.5.6 A driver may press a button in certain designated points deploy a giant hand to grab the car in front and attempt to move it out of the way. The car in front may then deploy countermeasures of , but not limited to. Smoke production to reduce visibility, oil slick, or if fighting against a previos world champion may deploy yaks on the road surface.

By: sport rules

sport rules — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:19:55 +0000

It nice to read that now f1 finally has air brake which is must for the safety of the driver.

By: Jean

Jean — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:54:16 +0000

Jean Todt is doing well , the adjustable wing is an excellent idea , but only when operational will we see if it actually works , and if it does it will solve the biggest problem F1 has faced in the last 15 years. So full marks to Jean on allowing that.

By: Florida Mike

Florida Mike — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:48:26 +0000

The Safety Car issue seems easily solved by leaving the safety car on the track all the way through the last lap, along with the SC signs and lights.

What happens to a car’s times if there is no fuel to give a sample of after qualifying, or if they don’t make it back to the pits on their own (accident after a setting fast time)?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:48:41 +0000

In the same vain as Lee’s comment, this seems like one giant band aid. I don’t know about you, but I find band aids peel off eventually.

Why can’t the rules be simple? It’s not difficult to do. The FIA patch up the patch ups, and in doing so open up new holes, so they patch the patches off the patches…

It’s not a good system.

By: wayne

wayne — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:16:10 +0000

Well fia r soooo dumb! Why did they not ban the double diffuser this year seeing that it depleted the whole purpose of reducing the size of the rear wing!if it was banned then the rear wing wud do wat it was supposed to do…and allow cars to get closer!I’m no aerodynamic engineer but that’s easy to understand!instead of simplifying things they complicating them by introducing movable rear wings…

By: DGR-F1

DGR-F1 — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:17:50 +0000

The whole adjustable bodywork/wing idea seems to be getting out of hand and becoming way to complicated.
It sounds like there will have to be another ECU in the car just to monitor/enable/disable the thing, and presumably this will also allow for another freeloading FIA official at every race to monitor the goings on.
Also, at a time when the FIA is supposed to be restricting budgets, this is more technology to be paid for by the teams (or will the FIA pay for it?). What if a small team cannot afford it? Would Bernie step in to ‘Rescue’ them?
And anyway, we all know that as soon as McLaren, Ferrari or Red Bull develop it enough and get a clear advantage, it will be banned the next year.

By: maestrointhesky

maestrointhesky — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:47:28 +0000

I thought one of the driving factors was to get costs down. All this extra electronics sounds expensive to me!