Forum Replies Created
29th January 2014, 9:18 at 9:18 am #248373
Very interesting analysis. However, the theory that they can run at maximum power continuously overlooks the overall fuel limit of 100kg, if they run at a fuel flow limit of 100kg/h at all times then the fuel would only last 1 hour. For a race which lasts 1h40mins then the average fuel flow needs to be 60kg/h. There will be some saving since in reality the cars would never be at full power all of the time because of braking and turning zones in which no power is needed but I don’t know what proportion of that 1h40mins would not be consuming fuel.
To achieve this the two extreme approaches would be to run at full power for as long as possible and then coast for the rest of the race, or to run at 60kg/h continuously. In reality the optimal solution will be somewhere in between and much of the development could be in developing a strategy and engine setup which give the best compromise over a race distance (also bearing in mind that for qualifying the fuel load isn’t such a limiting factor so there’s another compromise for optimising qualifying).
Otherwise I would have thought that there is still a lot of scope for development on the other parts of the powertrain outside of the internal combustion engine and how that fits into the power delivery strategy.18th November 2013, 11:49 at 11:49 am #245434
I actually would support giving more choice to the teams in selecting from the range of available compounds but I think that there are some flaws to this.
(1) One of the purposes of the rules limiting number of tyres was to reduce the cost and wastage of shipping huge numbers of tyres to every Grand Prix. The number of tyres transported around would be doubled since the tyre supplies would have to include enough tyres of all four compounds if there is uncertainty as to which 3 would be picked. In reality I would expect at most tracks there will be an obvious choice of which tyre to drop and so teams would end up on similar strategies anyway.
(2) I don’t like forcing teams to make a pit stop and I think forcing them to pit twice is worse, it means that every driver knows that if they are stuck behind another driver early on they have at least two chances to pass ‘in the pits’ and therefore reduces the need to worry about trying to pass on-track.
A variant would be that teams are allowed to pick which two tyre compounds are brought for them to a particular race, so if a team can build a car which is better able to look after a softer/faster compound then they gain that advantage.
The other problem with your solution and my variant (as well as the current situation) is that unless there is sufficient testing and stable tyre construction/compounds throughout the season then there will still be an element of luck as to who is able to get the most from the tyres at any particular event. Without more testing I think we need to have stability of tyre constructions for several years to give engineers a chance to understand and develop the cars to use them properly.
One solution to both of the problems I have highlighted is to go back to 2005 style single tyre set rules. I didn’t like that rule at the time, but then the teams were still pitting for refuelling at the time so it seemed a bit silly. Now that refuelling has gone again a single set of tyres makes more sense. 22 drivers line up on the grid knowing that when the lights go out they have a race all the way to the flag and the only way to make up places is to overtake the guy in front (and the cost/number of tyres is significantly reduced). For me, personally, I enjoy the tactics involved in the strategy side of F1 so I would be sad to see this change.16th August 2013, 14:50 at 2:50 pm #240268
Facinating list, lots I’ve heard of (or remember) and a few I haven’t. I don’t know why I can’t remember the FW15C, I guess at that time we had much less TV coverage and no internet to feed us the info about things like that, but surprised I haven’t come across references since then. Watching the video and listening to the engine noise got me wondering if EBD would have been prevalent a lot earlier with that gearbox since the biggest issue with early EBD seemed to be the loss of downforce when revs dropped (until resolved by hot blowing).21st March 2013, 19:48 at 7:48 pm #229068
As @craig-o said, who would have picked he last three (although Hamilton and Vettel were certainly on the radar by then)? So on that basis I’m going to pick one experienced outsider rather than all top rookies to take a Brawn style title following rule changes (and also with it being such a long shot and no-one else predicting the same, if it is right then I win major bragging rights).
Bianchi4th March 2013, 16:11 at 4:11 pm #227971
This isn’t the only (or first) report of a potential Mclaren Honda tie-up
It certainly sounds like there is some discussion about this. Could Honda start work on an engine for 2014 and then try to benchmark it against the other manufacturers for a later decision for 2015 in time for Mclaren to make a decision on the extension option?
Given Mclaren’s move into road cars which is in direct competition to Mercedes a switch to another manufacturer who is in a different segment of the market seems sensible too and with Ferrari and Renault unlikely customer options this would tick all of the boxes.10th December 2012, 14:27 at 2:27 pm #218695
@mnmracer Great analysis. I haven’t had time to read it all in detail, but what I did seemed about as fair and objective as possible in the circumstances and the conclusions are interesting.
I think it confirms what we already knew independently – that Alonso didn’t have the best car but he and Ferrari made up for that with their own reliability and making the most of others’ failures – but adds some ‘fact’ to back that up. Whilst Alonso would clearly have fared worse overall had his rivals not suffered with ‘bad luck’ what is impressive is that he would still have finished well ahead of both Button and Webber in superior cars.15th October 2012, 12:13 at 12:13 pm #212751
@tony031r I disagree with your assessment that Räikkönen doesn’t fit the Red Bull profile. A driver who also races snowmobiles and powerboats and likes snowboarding sounds exactly like a Red Bull profile to me when you look at all of the things Red Bull typically sponsors.
I think that if Vettel is already signed up to leave then as @girts says RBR might be best to move towards this soon before that option is closed, unless they are confident that Ricciardo is going to be the new Seb.2nd October 2012, 9:15 at 9:15 am #211544
I think you are well entitled to gloat John H, what makes your comment even better is the reply:
Yeah and hell is gonna freeze over the same day Lewis signs with Mercedes.28th September 2012, 22:32 at 10:32 pm #211243
When you consider that the team Schumacher joined had won only two races in the previous three seasons that backs up the quality of what he achieved in that period despite not winning a drivers championship.
I wonder what reaction Schumacher’s move to Ferrari would have got if we had F1Fanatic back then – it was actually quite similar to what Hamilton is doing now (moving from a proven race winning team to an outfit with plenty of history but no recent success). I can’t remember it being quite such a shock but then the coverage and detailed reporting wasn’t around back then.15th January 2012, 14:45 at 2:45 pm #188729
I love doing individual sports , swimming, runnning, cycling, mountain biking, triathlon, kayaking etc and when I’m not injured I’m pretty decent at a couple of them.
I enjoy other forms of motorsport but wouldn’t say I’m a fanatic. I watch a bit of MotoGP/Rally/GP2/Touring Cars/Indy Cars on TV if it’s on but tend to only read the major news online when it catches my eye whilst reading something F1 related.
I’m also interested in economics (it’s connected to the work I do) and as a natural link to that I’m interested in, but not involved in, politics. I tend to read a lot on the internet but rarely get into online discussions (F1 excepted).7th November 2011, 14:36 at 2:36 pm #184309
This is almost unbelievable and an absolute disgrace. A one race ban seems far too light, I’m amazed that in this situation the licence to race isn’t completely revoked. Raymondu999 mentions Jerez ’97 but I think this is in a completely different category; there was no attempt at passing or defending a position involved but purely a deliberate attempt to put the other car in the wall, under yellow flags and at high speed.