|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
25 Aug 2009, 17:49 (Ref:2528079) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
The Safety Car should be abolished any way, although that's another discussion. Or no, we were discussing about new rules, weren't we?
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
26 Aug 2009, 11:31 (Ref:2528481) | #27 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 425
|
Quote:
Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I remember the days when drivers were instructed that if they stalled or had a poor getaway on the grid, they should put the car in gear, leave it on the racing line and turn of the engine so as to get a restart - this was before they introduced the marshals "N" button. Roll onto to 2010. You're about to run out of fuel and your team mate is not in the lead. What do you do? You make sure that you stop on the racing line at a spot where the car cant be recovered under yellow flags. |
|||
|
26 Aug 2009, 13:07 (Ref:2528570) | #28 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
It's done in MotoGP and it isn't rocket science.The ECU ensures that the fuel in the bikes tank (21 litres max capacity) will last by measuring the amount in the tank and the distance to the end of the race.The computer cuts back on the fuel (regardless of the demands from the rider) to ensure that the Bike reaches the required distance. Obviously if you put far too little fuel in your vehicle then your performance throughout the race will be poor,but you will ultimately finish the race.Too much (bigger tank capacity) fuel will allow you to use more fuel but could also hinder performance. |
||
|
26 Aug 2009, 13:13 (Ref:2528572) | #29 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Besides, teams and their drivers could always decide to burn the exact amount of fuel they should do on average per lap.
Last edited by Pingguest; 26 Aug 2009 at 13:33. |
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
26 Aug 2009, 13:26 (Ref:2528580) | #30 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
That's how you would want it to work out,but it's not always that simple,as some found to their cost pre-94.No one ever parked their car in an awkward place back then either IIRC.
|
|
|
26 Aug 2009, 13:53 (Ref:2528598) | #31 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Also, lots of other series (GP2, almost all touring cars, F3 etc) have no refuelling but no incidents like that.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
26 Aug 2009, 14:06 (Ref:2528607) | #32 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
I suppose the best place to 'stop' is in the entrance to the pit lane.
Pit wall: "No don't come in n.......oh ****!" |
|
|
27 Aug 2009, 17:44 (Ref:2529398) | #33 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
With a 'fuel formula' teams would need to reduce fuel consumption: without the necessary fuel efficiency their drivers will run out of fuel. But there's an alternative providing a softer and less visible incentive to improve the fuel economy:
Teams could theoretically use engines with a power output of 1,500-2,000 bhp, but they will have to pay a high price for that! The more powerful engines tend to be heavy and thirsty and may ruin the tyres faster. |
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
28 Aug 2009, 14:07 (Ref:2529932) | #34 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Grosjean tells us what we already know.
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...ow-cars-in-f1/ Maybe a shift to GP2 type downforce would make the difference? |
|
|
28 Aug 2009, 14:41 (Ref:2529947) | #35 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
The challenge with a venturi based set of regulations would be to keep things in check. Max's proposed maximum downforce cap (to be enforced by putting a weight on the car at srutineering that had to cause the plank to touch the ground) was unworkable though. I think the best tweak would be to eliminate the double diffusers, really.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
28 Aug 2009, 18:11 (Ref:2530055) | #36 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Eliminating diffusers would be an even better idea.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
28 Aug 2009, 18:27 (Ref:2530064) | #37 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
But how would that affect lap times though? The reason I'm suggesting eliminating the double diffusers is mainly to reduce the wakes as the OWG intended, but the reduction in downforce would be useful. Then I guess things like the dustbin lids and engine cover fins could be looked at. Aside from that things get difficult.
Major engine changes are off the table theoretically until 2013, realistically pushing it for 2011. The main factor must be engine life there. |
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
28 Aug 2009, 18:43 (Ref:2530073) | #38 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,742
|
Taking out diffusers would take off loads of grip, which would be great. I don't see why F1 cars need them, and Gary Anderson was saying that it would've been better to get rid of them completely to help overtaking instead of just making them smaller, which just resulted in the DDDs
|
||
|
29 Aug 2009, 08:40 (Ref:2530288) | #39 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66073 |
||||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
29 Aug 2009, 10:21 (Ref:2530331) | #40 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Maybe a complete re-think on the whole car/aerodynamics concept thing? Maybe if we want to see aerodynamics at work we should perhaps go to an air-show?
|
|
|
29 Aug 2009, 10:42 (Ref:2530346) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
The problem with completely removing aerodynamics is that the cars would then become slower than GP2. Realisically, lap times need to be kept around current levels.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
29 Aug 2009, 13:34 (Ref:2530424) | #42 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
I still think that something should still be done to make the front and rear wings less significant, cars are still too dependent on them. |
|||
__________________
"Double Kidney Guv'nah?" "No thanks George they're still wavin a white flag!" |
1 Sep 2009, 11:26 (Ref:2532417) | #43 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,013
|
I believe a new fuel rule will be introduced whereby a team in need of more fuel just arranges the release of a convicted terrorist in exchange for a petrol deal.
|
||
|
27 Sep 2009, 14:45 (Ref:2549155) | #44 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,471
|
With the refuelling ban next year (hooray!) has the requirement to use two different tyre compounds in the race also been dropped? I hope so.
|
||
|
27 Sep 2009, 14:55 (Ref:2549163) | #45 | ||
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Quote:
But once again we saw why refuelling is being banned. |
||
|
27 Sep 2009, 14:57 (Ref:2549165) | #46 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,357
|
And as well as the safety issues refuelling makes the timing of pitstops predictable and reduces overtaking on the track. I for one will be delighted to see the back of it.
|
|
|
27 Sep 2009, 17:02 (Ref:2549224) | #47 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,408
|
I don't mind refuelling being banned, but there is a safety issue, which was highlighted by today's race.
We all saw what happened when Mark Webber's right front disc disintegrated and several other drivers were having to nurse their cars home for the same reason. That's not racing and it's actually downright dangerous. Next year the cars will be heavier with the extra fuel, so the problem will increase. In the post-race show on the BBC's red button Martin Whitmarsh highlighted this and said that most of the teams within FOTA are in favour of the thickness of the discs being increased from 28mm to 32mm, which sounds like very good sense to me. There is one team objecting, namely Williams, and I don't know why. They are also the odd ones out so far as abandoning KERS goes. If they want to pursue their own path on these things, I don't understand why they have re-joined FOTA. |
||
|
27 Sep 2009, 17:08 (Ref:2549225) | #48 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,100
|
Can't the FIA force it through as a safety measure? Shame that by this rate they will have to wait for a hefty shunt for Williams to do so.
|
||
__________________
Marbot : "Ironically, the main difference between a Red Bull and a Virgin is that Red Bull can make parts of its car smaller and floppier." |
27 Sep 2009, 17:09 (Ref:2549227) | #49 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
I think the problem stems from the fact that the quality of the carbon fibre used for the discs is better these days, but the quality of the callipers used has not quite kept up...
I think that is what is happening? |
||
|
27 Sep 2009, 17:10 (Ref:2549229) | #50 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,357
|
Quote:
1. they expect to gain an advantage relative to the others, which implies brake wear will be less of a problem for them than for others next year, which seems unlikely. or 2. they will in the end concede the point but intend to gain some other concession in exchange. Looks like 2 to me, ie it's posturing to gain other concessions, in fact stating their intention to use KERS is probably the same thing, if they realy planned to use it why tell everyone? |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What do you think of this rule?? | TilkeWannabe | Formula One | 1 | 21 Mar 2009 03:24 |
Rule changes for 2004? | eclectic | Formula One | 57 | 4 Oct 2003 21:30 |
1 engine rule | RWC | Formula One | 4 | 28 Sep 2003 12:46 |
7% rule | expert | Formula One | 33 | 1 Nov 2002 08:54 |