http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/overtaking/

I lol'd!

Quote from rc10racer :

It's all down to the FIA, if the wing passes the load test then it fine by them but hats off to RB for getting past the system like Mclaren did with the F-duct.

Yeah, then it's all back to the factory p.d.q. to make a new front wing.

It would be interesting to see if the Red Bull front wing could pass a flexion test.

Movement is clearly visible from both the on-board and track side cameras during practice.

The end plates bend down during acceleration and then pop up again under hard braking.

Clip from Silverstone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;feature=player_embedded

Presumably some flexibility is permitted, but is this too much?

Last edited by dungbeetle, Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:20.

Quote from pacesetter :

May I also add, this isn't just a sport, it's a business.

So, from my POV, Massa did what any (good) employee (that's all he is) that was given instructions, to carry out, would do...

Fair comment, but ultimately the money that the business gets comes from the TV deals, the sponsors, etc., who in turn get their money from the fans, who might actually prefer to see a proper race.

Quote from hvs5b :

just got this e-mail from a mate :d

........

I lol'd



"Ferrari could be banned from Formula 1 after Felipe Massa appeared to follow team orders in allowing team-mate Fernando Alonso to pass him and claim victory in Sunday's German Grand Prix."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/8854398.stm

Yeah, and pigs might fly!

Last edited by dungbeetle, Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:21.

Quote from HVS5b :

Well I've always spread the love amongst the teams, never really having one overwhelming favourite. McLaren were always the team I disliked most but that was only due to Ron Dennis. After his departure they instantly became a more attractive team

Never did quite understand what all the Ferrari-haters were on about, sour grapes I thought....until now

Much like never voting Tory after their poll tax expoilts up here, Ferrari are a team that I will never have any warmth for in the future.

Dirty cheating scumbag bastards
...and thats me being "magnanimous" about it....

Ok, £100,000 might be the maximum punishment available to the stewards, but I hope the FIA/WMSC hump them to within an inch of their bottemless pit of funds.

1. Ok, £100,000 fine.
2. They should most definitely be stripped of all drivers and team points from the race.
3. 6 race ban suspended for 12 months in case of further indiscretions.
4. A right guid slap round the lug to Dominicalli and Alonso.

... yeah, and the removal of one testis from each of the drivers and the team principal.

There, that should take care of it!

Quote from DevilDare :

Cheer up Englishmen.

Watch this amazing video and just imagine that Liverpool is England and Milan is Germany.

A fine example.

See how different Gerrard behaves when he's playing for his club side?

Although he's under pressure at 3-0 down, he's in familiar surroundings with familiar faces. He drives on to get a goal and then lets the rest of the team feed off of his frenzied celebration. He's positive. He's aggressive. He want's to fight on and the feeling spreads quickly throughout the team.

When England go down against stiff opposition, the players all stand around with their hands on their hips, gazing at each other in disbelief. My god, how did that happen? No one wants the ball for fear of making a mistake.

England have the talent, but mentally they're lost and alone at the moment.

Quote from no_one :

Yes you are right over the whole world cup england should have performed much better given the strength of their players so why didn't they?

Because they choke when they're not playing with their Premiership team pals.

They can't deal with being outside their comfort zone.

Last edited by dungbeetle, Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:38.

Quote from no_one :

I Don't know, but I'm sure Capello is in for a fine payment if they fire him, maybe Redknapp is eyeing the same...

Yeah, I heard Capello was on around £5m a year to wave a stick at our players, so I guess Harry could live with the disappointment for that sort of money!

Last edited by dungbeetle, Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:36.

Quote from Intrepid :

I look forward to see who replaces Cappello coz the England job is the impossible job.

Lineker was clearly fishing when he asked Harry Redknapp if he thought it was time for an English manager again.

Redknapp's a fine manager, but I don't think he'd touch the England job with a barge pole!

By their own admission:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/8694284.stm

"FIA to reassess rule that penalised Michael Schumacher"

"... But the FIA has now admitted that it was possible to interpret it (the safety car rule) in a different way.

F1's sporting working group has now been charged with coming up with a clearer wording, which will be submitted to the FIA World Council, which rubber-stamps rules, at its next meeting on 23 June."

"Adjustments to the regulations are necessary to clarify the procedure that cars must meet when the last lap is controlled by the safety car whilst also ensuring that the signalling for teams and drivers is made more clear."


No mention of reconsidering Schumacher's penalty though.

Last edited by dungbeetle, Thu, 20 May 2010 15:21.

Given that the flags on track seemed to be at variance with the rules, I'm surprised that Mercedes have withdrawn their appeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/8690323.stm

Sure, put Schumacher back to 7th place, but in view of the circumstances the 20 second penalty still seems harsh to me.

Quote from BigDave2967 :

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/5/10799.html

Shumacher Penalised.

Shame really, I thought it was really really cheeky and genius

A 20 second penalty puts him back to 12th and out of the points.

Ouch!

I know rules is rules an' all that, but that does seem a bit harsh.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Won't be possible unless you've got a neck long enough so your head can reach the air box ....

My apologies, sir.

I was only messin'.

Picturing an F1 driver straining his neck at 180mph with his mouth open struck a chord with my rather silly sense of humour.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Hmmm, that's an interpretation I guess. I see it thus:

1. Starter motor holes - ......

Yep, fair comment.

Quote from Bean0 :

No different to the driver tilting his head to affect airflow into the intake I reckon.
Didn't MS have a helmet designed specifically for this ?

Interesting point, that.

On a similar note, bikers also sit up to use 'body breaking' when approaching corners.

I suspect that F1 drivers might be allowed to stick their heads up a bit to increase breaking effect, assuming their neck muscles can stand it. Presumably though they'd have to keep their mouths shut so the guy with the biggest mouth doesn't have an unfair advantage!

Quote from tristancliffe :

The diffuser hole was meant to allow access for the starter motor, and wasn't meant to be used, via an elaborately shaped starter motor, to increase performance.

Indeed, but technically speaking there has been no breach of the rules here. There are no shape or size restrictions stated in the rules, so one assumes that it has been deemed illegal because it contravenes the 'spirit' of the rules.

"The size of their starter motor holes was believed to be excessively wide, which, although not in breach of the regulations, was reckoned to be going against the spirit of the rules."

Hence I'm mystified about how the decision was made in favour of McLaren's F-Duct:

Quote from tristancliffe :

Why are you mystified? The f-duct is legal as no parts of the car move.

"The air tunnel is believed, however, to have a hole in it that the drivers are able to block on the straights - using either their knees or elbows. When this hole is covered, the air pressure inside the vent is changed - and this helps stall the rear wing."

In this case, there are no moving parts on the car (the driver provides that part), thus making it technically legal, but presumably the 'spirit' of the rule is to prevent any alteration to the air flow either over or through the car during the race, in order to enhance performance.

Admittedly it's an incredibly innovative solution, but the spirit of the rules seem to have been forgotten in this case.

More diffuser shenanigans!

Apparently this is not within the spirit of the rules:


FIA closes rear diffuser loophole

...but this is OK:


Whitmarsh: Rivals will copy vent system

Yet again I'm mystified!

The McLaren vent system; 'Avoidence' or 'Evasion'?

Last edited by dungbeetle, Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:05.

Yay!

Eddie Jordan:

"They (Williams) can win races, FOR SURE!"

Eddie getting the season off to a good start there, bless 'im.

Just waiting for the first driver now. Exciting stuff.



EDIT:

Yeees!

Massa came good during the post qualifying press talk.

Last edited by dungbeetle, Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:22.

OK, watching now.

So who's gonna serve up the first 'For Sure' of the season?

I'm goin' for for Massa.

Quote from 5haz :

We need to see designers going about trying to achieve the same goal through different paths, rather than simply copying and interpreting the latest developments off other teams because the cars are so similar anyway.

Agreed. The current 'formula' seems to restrict innovation way too much in an attempt to supposedly keep things even and make the racing closer. But this just makes it boring because it's artificial. The rear diffuser last season was a good example.

Why not just leave teams to their own devices and see who comes up with the best solution? Isn't that part of the sport? If someone makes a breakthrough, it won't be too long before the other teams catch on or come up with a solution of their own to match it.

For example, nature has come up with two very different solutions to the problem of achieving greater speed. The cheetah uses its flexible spine, while the gazelle runs up on it's toes. Both provide a greater turn of speed. The cheetah can achieve a slightly higher top speed, but only in short bursts, while the gazelle can run at its top speed for longer. Sometimes the cheetah gets a meal and sometimes the gazelle gets away, but it's always pretty damn close.

The problem though has always been, how far do you let design evolution and innovation go? How much do you allow the technology to assist the driver before people start saying "Well, he's not driving the car, the technology is."?

It's relatively easy to keep most other sports pure. Football, golf, tennis etc. Yes, there may be occasional advances or changes in ball, club and racket design, but these advances tend to be relatively small and, perhaps more importantly, are available to everyone. It's not so easy to keep F1 'pure' in that respect.

Last edited by dungbeetle, Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:48.

Quote from tristancliffe :

A fuel restriction in terms of energy per race (i.e. a certain maximum amount of Joules in the tank at the start of the race) would limit power and allow freedom of powerplants and fuel choices.

Great idea - I can see it now: "Formula 1, Powered by Cow-Fartz"

Quote from tristancliffe :

Allow ground effect - this is less influenced by following other others, although it does require the driver to 'trust' the car rather than 'feel' the grip as on a purely wings/diffuser car. Mandated skid blocks could be used to ensure that ride height never equals zero, so bottoming out doesn't suddenly reduce the downforce (which is what is suggested as a possible cause in Senna's accident).

... thus helping with overtaking. Nice.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Not sure where I stand on Energy Recovery Systems - perhaps if it wasn't a gimmick, and everyone had to have it, then maybe it would work. But if it was used as in 2009 then I don't see the attraction. I also don't like the idea of artificial push-to-pass systems (or, in the case of Spa, push-to-avoid-being overtaken by a quicker Force India) when surely people want to see the drivers doing the overtaking, not because of more power or stopping in the pits?

Good examples of 'contrivances' that tried to make the racing more interesting and failed miserably. Scrap 'em?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Circuit design needs to change. Tilke has proven that nine times out of ten his circuits are worse for overtaking and spectacle than 'classic' circuits. This needs to be understood. Sure, the tracks should be challenging for the drivers - A Tilke strong point - but not so challenging that cars can't get side by side more. The slow corner - long straight - slow corner approach isn't the way forwards in my opinion. You want the preceeding corner to not be difficult, so that even with a mistake (or a passing attempt) into it the following driver can still be close. With the really slow corners the concertina effect means that 200m on to the straight the leading car has several car lengths advantage. A medium speed corner (fast enough for the concertina effect to be small, but slow enough so that the following-aero problems are not huge) that does not punish going off line (perhaps variable camber - more to the outside) would allow the following car to stay close to the leading car. There are many ways to skin a cat, but Tilke choose the wrong methods in my opinion.

Wot, no shortcuts? (j/k)

Quote from 5haz :

A combination of active suspension and proper ground effect would be interesting to see.

Ooh, dunno about that.

Would your 'active suspension' involve some kind of electronical wizardry by any chance?

Kinda going for the 'unplugged' approach here, if you know what I mean.

Although I suppose if you dressed it up as a safety feature we might be able to sneak it in.

@ bbman

Point taken.

Quote from tristancliffe :

No, it isn't possible.

You can't unlearn aerodynamics, so all cars will be heavily aero-influenced. Even if you somehow banned all windtunnel and CFD work.
You can't unlearn engine technology
The cars are reliable not through luck or because of 'easy' regulations, but because people are more able to make things reliable, so we won't easily return to the unreliability of the 70s and 80s that made the results less predictable.
Drivers are fitter, more dedicated (generally) and make less mistakes.

Yep, makes sense.

Quote from tristancliffe :

To make the cars harder to drive they should ban power steering, paddle and sequential gearchanges, and mandate a foot operated clutch.
The cars should have a much higher power : grip ratio than they do now, ideally in a much peakier fashion - but not quite as stupidly peaky as the F1 Turbos.
We have to embrace aero and make it work, not just reject it. More ground effect and less reliance on wings would be a start.

OK. All good back to basics ('btb' from now on 'cos I'm lazy) stuff which is easily enforceable, although ground effect can fail in such a spectacular fashion (you mention Senna's crash below) that maybe we could live without that?

Quote from tristancliffe :

But none of these will happen. Don't want too much power as it's dangerous. Don't want too little grip as it's the pinnacle of motorsport. Don't want less technology as it's again the pinnacle. Don't want ground effect as there is a slim chance it had something to do with Senna's crash.

So, they want to be innovative but totally safe at the same time - tricky. Oh, and presumably they'd like to keep the designers/manufacturers interested in the sport too - understandable.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Until the do-gooders that want to make everything safe feck off, we'll be stuck with F1 as we know it. Add some risk, add some challenge, and I'm sure F1 would become a whole lot better. Those of a nervous disposition shouldn't watch it though.

You've been out drinking with Stirling Moss, haven't you?


So, taking into account all of the above points, why can't they go btb at least in principle?

Here's my suggested formula that I'll be emailing to Bernie as soon as we're done here:

1. Any engine you like made by anyone you like but limited in bhp. Don't know how much yet; haven't decided. (Pfff, details - I'm an ideas man! ).

2. OK, we'll need overall width, height and leingth restrictions, but that's it.

3. Tyres - OK this one's difficult. Used to be more than one manufaturer, didn't there? Well let's stick to one manufacurer for the time being with say 3 compounds, but let the teams use which ones they want when they want.

4. Aerodynamics - do what you like as long as it all fits within the overall dimensions (erm, with the possible exception of ground effect 'cos I am a bit squeamish).

5. 'Fly by wire', power assisted visors and other airy-fairy stuff - nah, it's time to sort the men from the boys.

Overall it's about doing the best you can with the available horsepower leaving plenty of room for technical innovation, racing savvy and driver skill. Power restriction should keep them closer together while free reign over car design will give the better designers the edge they deserve.

So, unless anyone has any other comments, I'll bang this off to Bernie a.s.a.p.

Last edited by dungbeetle, Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:27.