F1 - Austrailian Grand Prix

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: gofast182
My only possible gripe with F1 (other than the sound) is just make sure the drivers have enough fuel to run the race as hard as they can, the technology will inherently save fuel without having to slow anyone down. One way to do it would be to let them use as much fuel over 100Kg as they want but have some deduction from constructor points for each extra liter used. They'll want their drivers to win (because they won't get as many constructor points otherwise) but at the same time it will give them incentive to stay at 100Kg because they'll want the constructor money at the end of the year. This way you won't have drivers giving up positions when they may not have to.


I think that's a good idea, but doesn't allow for races where there are safety car periods (which did happen in Australia). Let the teams have as much fuel as they need to run the race, then give bonus points for each liter of fuel left at the end.

Thanks. Although I don't think the safety car periods should matter, it takes no skill or strategy to save fuel during those periods so why reward for it?


The rules could be written to discount safety car periods, but the FIA has designed this formula to reward fuel efficiency. Not only do they have a limit on the amount of fuel to go race distance, they also have a limit on maximum fuel flow. Earlier in this thread, Garak was challenging the need for a fuel flow limit, and it got me thinking. Then I realized that many races have caution periods, or are run in the rain. Both of these conditions save fuel, and would give the opportunity for the teams to turn up the fuel flow late in the race to go faster.

 

[gofast182]

Ahh well, another way of looking at it is, if they have set volume/mass of fuel, say, 100Kg as they do now, the amount of potential energy is exactly the same for every team to start the race. Now assuming a similar level of efficiency from the power units I don't see what it matters if one team wanted to increase the fuel flow rate, be a rabbit, and open up a 20 second lead. The team who runs the whole GP at a nominal flow rate is going to be clawing back 2 seconds a lap over the last 10 laps as the rabbit has to slow his flow rate in order to finish. To me that would make for some fantastic racing and all you need to do is control one parameter, not over-complicate it by controlling every little thing.

 

[Shannow]

Like I said, just issue them 100KG a the start, and be done with it.

either that, or issue them a flow control valve that restricts max flow, and let them tow a tanker of fuel behind them.

No need to have max usage, max flow (and who knows what else)...

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I would much rather watch a B car than a new WRC but each to his own.
After watching this F1 race and the aftermath they can shove it, I wont waste my time watching it again.


Yes the "Killer Bees" were fun to watch with the pilots barely in control of those beasts, and the co-drivers barely able to get the pace notes called out fast enough.

I agree with you on the current F1, but I will tune in to the eastern Asian rounds hoping to see some hot Asain dolls/'Umbrella Girls'!

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: Trav

Nothing wrong with technology but IMO using it in the way they are currently using it is losing the meaning of F1.
The object of F1 in its most basic form is to get that car around the track as quickly as possible with an arse in the chair.

In theory, this is great. In reality, it's too dangerous. If you let the teams run anything, the cars would be doing 250+ down the straights, and eventually people, either drivers or spectators, would die. Cost(They did a poor job with the power unit) and performance have to be contained.

 

[Trav]

F1 is dangerous! No one is saying throw the rule book out but they need to be realistic.
Forget all this fuel business, let them make as many pit stops for fuel and use as much as they want. They will need to figure out how much time they want to loose vs a slower heavier car that stays out.

Give the choice of tires and engines to the teams.
Put a max limit on the race engine HP and a minimum weight on the cars and be done with it, let the teams decide how many cylinders, forced induction, or whatever.
Nothing wrong with different body configurations and different engines.

Stop this only so many engines per season thing and limiting the RPM's it is senseless.
Personally i would love to see launch control, KERS, DRS all disappear. I want to see drivers drive and do it by the seat of their pants in cars that sound like they just got turned loose from Hades.
These are racing cars not some test bed for manufactures to play with their new green drive trains, what next 4cyl diesel hybrids?

Judging from this GP KERS isn't making the cars any safer for anyone.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/28/red-bull-c...e-cars-4280671/

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/03/2...-lack-of-noise/

 

[edhackett]

An interesting contrast in sound from last year to this.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/formula-one-noise-2014-2013-australia-gp-2014-03-19

Ed

 

[Trav]

The 2014 doesn't sound like a F1 car it sounds like some sort of an illness.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Give the choice of tires and engines to the teams.
Put a max limit on the race engine HP and a minimum weight on the cars and be done with it, let the teams decide how many cylinders, forced induction, or whatever.
Nothing wrong with different body configurations and different engines.

This also sounds great in theory. In reality, you'd have 1 or 2 teams running laps 10 seconds faster than the rest of the field. The rest of the field would consist of 3 more teams. How many weeks would you tune in to watch 1 team dominate week after week while lapping the other 3 teams? How many people complained about RedBull last year?

If cost and performance aren't controlled, how many teams could afford to race? McLaren, Ferrari, RedBull and maybe Mercedes. BMW, Toyota, and Honda left because the ROI wasn't enough. Is the solution to increase cost and make it harder to be competitive?

I agree about letting the teams decide what tires they want to use. If they feel three stops for softs is the best, let them do it. At first, I was against banning refueling. Now, I think it makes the race more interesting. More passing has to be done on track instead of on pit lane.

Can you give an example of how the engine and transmission limits have negatively impacted the race? At first, it sounded like a bad idea, but as always, the teams adapted. Fewer engines, equal lower cost.

I'm all for removing the electronic aids. I'd go a step further and remove a lot of the aero bits too. Put the task of driving back to the driver. The problem there is people are already complaining the cars are too slow for F1. An undriveable car with 900hp isn't very quick. If technology was removed from the cars, would it still be the pinnacle?

 

[Trav]

[quote-whip]If cost and performance aren't controlled, how many teams could afford to race? [/quote]
These are the most expensive drive trains in F1 history so wheres the cost control?
F1 is about speed not a technology circus, the technology advancements to make the car go faster like aerodynamics and engine development improve to that end.

As far as one or two teams dominating thats the way its supposed to be, it always was.
This is now almost out of the box racing not F1, there are enough classes of that already.
Quote:
can you give an example of how the engine and transmission limits have negatively impacted the race? At first, it sounded like a bad idea, but as always, the teams adapted. Fewer engines, equal lower cost.

The 2014 season. these are the most expensive engines ever so where is the lower cost?

Putting all this junk in the car does not make them faster, this is the folks at F1 giving the green light to the manufacturers to use the sport as a test bed for their new "green" ideas, it is the wrong venue.

When other classes of car put in faster lap times than the F1 cars it will no longer be the pinnacle of motor racing. F1 is about speed and the danger that goes with it nothing more and nothing less.
I have been watching F1 religiously since 1984 and watched them with my dad all the way back to 1964 but not anymore for the time being.

Now they are panicking, They are going to have to allow other engines back in, you cant make a sewing machine engines sound like a F1 car.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/ecclestone-vows-to-make-f1-cars-roar/5329838

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/03/21/much-slower-2014-cars-australia/

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
can you give an example of how the engine and transmission limits have negatively impacted the race? At first, it sounded like a bad idea, but as always, the teams adapted. Fewer engines, equal lower cost.

The 2014 season. these are the most expensive engines ever so where is the lower cost?

It still doesn't affect the race. I agree that the power units aren't saving money, but they still doesn't impact the race.

Originally Posted By: Trav
F1 is about speed not a technology circus, the technology advancements to make the car go faster like aerodynamics and engine development improve to that end.

Kers, Turbos, and other technology make the cars faster. You might not agree, but alternative energy is the future, so it makes sense that F1 would embrace this technology.

Originally Posted By: Trav
Now they are panicking, They are going to have to allow other engines back in, you cant make a sewing machine engines sound like a F1 car.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/ecclestone-vows-to-make-f1-cars-roar/5329838

After spending the last 20 years bleeding the last penny out of the F1 circus, Bernie is now the one that cares about the quality of the sport? That's rich. If he's so concerned, why did he sell out the classic tracks so he can get 20 million dollars from the next track with no history or character? Remember, Bernie is not the FIA.

If they allow multiple engines to race, what happens if one of the teams hitches their cart to the wrong engine, and it fails. If they fail so bad they quit, is that good for the sport? Should F1 chase manufactures away, or encourage them to participate?

Quote:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/03/21/much-slower-2014-cars-australia/

The FIA has been slowing the cars down for years. They have to. Why is this considered breaking news?

 

[Trav]

Hey you are entitled to your opinion as am i. I wont get into a argument over it, as far as I'm concerned its done.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Hey you are entitled to your opinion as am i. I wont get into a argument over it, as far as I'm concerned its done.


That's interesting.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Personally i would love to see launch control, KERS, DRS all disappear. I want to see drivers drive and do it by the seat of their pants in cars that sound like they just got turned loose from Hades.

There is no easy answer, unfortunately. I bet the teams like DRS, since it does improve straight line speed without sacrificing downforce for the rest of the race. There is no launch control. As for the rest, much is hit and miss. They want to limit spending without using a hard limit. They want innovation, but they don't want to bankrupt the smaller teams.

With respect to safety, Newey has some points. Generally speaking, though, F1 has been much safer over the last number of years. A racing incident is one thing, as is a crash. I don't need to see fatalities on live TV.

As for manufacturers playing with their new green drive trains, regardless of what rules come and go, the teams that have the biggest bucks (such as manufacturers) have an advantage, and not just in cash resources. If Mercedes could use a 4 cylinder diesel hybrid within the rules that would give them competitive times and advantages over other teams, they certainly would.

 

[Shannow]

Doco on the Ferrarri engine at the moment, and some discussion on the special fuel that is being "built" for the engine...that's gotta cost lots.