Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,518
I said some of the best, not all of the best. It is inevitable there will be some lesser talented folk in the team fabric!
Poll: Official 2023 United States Grand Prix Thread - Circuit of the Americas, Austin - Round 19
- Thread starter chrismscotland
- Start date
- Status
I said some of the best, not all of the best. It is inevitable there will be some lesser talented folk in the team fabric!
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,518
Yeah, fair enough when you put it that way. But who sets the budget cap?
Seems to me it could be achieved if there was the will. But I guess as you point out the overall negative impact on the running of the calendar may end up being prohibitive. I do think there could be room for extended inspections when there is a significant series of findings in the random sampling exercise though, and this would be ad-hoc and less intrusive.
Or just scrap the Sprint format!
I thought the issue with track limits was that the tracks where it's an issue are also used for superbikes.
Redesigning your whole track for a single race might suit an Arab state, but other circuits have to work as a viable business all year round.
Last edited:
Yeah. The track we did the other day I remember it being discussed where they were actually saying it was motorcycle compatible, and that you actually lost time even in F1 cars when you went wide. I think it was Qatar. They were saying that could be adopted for Austria but then the Sky pundits (I think Brundle) were saying it has to be one or the other and the current white line has been chosen because they can consistently apply it every race as the track limit.
Seems a bit defeatist for F1 to me. I'd rather have the tracks that can utilize physical limits do that, if it means some weeks it is white line and others not. I'm sure the drivers can cope with being told which it is. They're not going to forget.
Last edited:
During one of the the F1 sessions... possibly qualifying, the F1TV presenters were discussing track limits and how it's applied in Indycar.
James Hinchcliffe was saying that in Indycar they have an automated detection for it, and the driver gets a beep in their ears to let them know immediately that they've crossed track limits. I don't think it applies to every corner though.
James Hinchcliffe was saying that in Indycar they have an automated detection for it, and the driver gets a beep in their ears to let them know immediately that they've crossed track limits. I don't think it applies to every corner though.
I think that’s coming. There was a technical write up thing about it.
Yeah, fair enough when you put it that way. But who sets the budget cap?
Seems to me it could be achieved if there was the will. But I guess as you point out the overall negative impact on the running of the calendar may end up being prohibitive. I do think there could be room for extended inspections when there is a significant series of findings in the random sampling exercise though, and this would be ad-hoc and less intrusive.
Or just scrap the Sprint format!
Even then you're basically asking the teams to stand down for 2-3hrs after the race, I imagine by the time the findings were announced last night all other cars were already taken apart and packed away.
Do the full check of each car prior to race (if it doesn't happen already) and random checks after the race is fine with me. It's a team sport, it sucks for a driver to loose out because someone else made a mistake but on other hand we have drivers making mistakes in every single race and undoing all the work rest of the team put in.
A lot of the checks have to be post race because any rule breaches might occur during the live race. i.e. A wing that starts a certain shape but by the end has flexed out of spec. Plank wear. Fuel sample.
I voted an 8 on the race. Thought it felt more like an actual race this time with Lando and Lewis challenging and different strategy offsets. Ultimately though, Max started 6th and still won so his package is still top. Redbull have shifted focus to 2024 now and have supposedly stood still since the summer. If cars can't challenge for wins by the end of the season (that are still developing) it's not a good outlook for anyone other than Max/Redbull fans.
I voted an 8 on the race. Thought it felt more like an actual race this time with Lando and Lewis challenging and different strategy offsets. Ultimately though, Max started 6th and still won so his package is still top. Redbull have shifted focus to 2024 now and have supposedly stood still since the summer. If cars can't challenge for wins by the end of the season (that are still developing) it's not a good outlook for anyone other than Max/Redbull fans.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2015
- Posts
- 598
i suspect the cars have to go into another secure parc ferme holding area for scrutineering before they're allowed to do anything to then prior to packing up for the next race
Max and Lando's cars were also checked. They passed the inspection.
I'm going to ask a stupid question sorry guys...
Why does the plank have to be a certain thickness AS WELL AS specifying a minimum ride height?
So I thought the minimum ride height was 15mm as part of TD-39 brought in in March 2023 to stop the porpoising problems? EDIT: Nope, see below
And I think the plank has to be 10mm and not lose more than 1mm off of that during the race?
<please correct the above if that's wrong>
So let's say the plank has completely gone at the end of the race, as in nothing left, the total effective ride height becomes 15 + 10 = 25mm?
So surely the more plank wear there has caused ride height to increase, causing less ground effect, and less advantage?
If they ONLY set a plank wear limit, would the minimum ride height not police itself? I think this gets complex because they design the cars to squat at speed again lowering the ride height rather than the measured static height?
Actually an interesting topic technically.
Why does the plank have to be a certain thickness AS WELL AS specifying a minimum ride height?
So I thought the minimum ride height was 15mm as part of TD-39 brought in in March 2023 to stop the porpoising problems? EDIT: Nope, see below
And I think the plank has to be 10mm and not lose more than 1mm off of that during the race?
<please correct the above if that's wrong>
So let's say the plank has completely gone at the end of the race, as in nothing left, the total effective ride height becomes 15 + 10 = 25mm?
So surely the more plank wear there has caused ride height to increase, causing less ground effect, and less advantage?
If they ONLY set a plank wear limit, would the minimum ride height not police itself? I think this gets complex because they design the cars to squat at speed again lowering the ride height rather than the measured static height?
Actually an interesting topic technically.
Last edited:
I guess one can be measured while the car is static, the other measures the car under load / over bumps.
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,213
- Location
- In a house
This thread is about a 2023 race - Not previous championships..
What rubbish. People are questioning why Sainz and Russell weren't scrutinised. You know, since their teammates were in breach.
Yeah Max's was checked. This is why I asked earlier how they randomly select cars. If they don't randomly select, and it is who they want to chose, I'd like more info on what they are allowed to do. i.e. Can they just pick Car 01 because they feel like it? Do they have to have data backed evidence as to why a car might be in breach of something and therefore is allowed to be called for check? Or is truly meant to be random? How do they randomise it? Does someone literally pull names from a hat? 
Computerised? This will all be black box internal FIA stuff where we have to place trust I guess. And we all know we can trust the FIA.
Going back to fuel samples, in the past FIA have indeed selectively picked cars they thought may be in breach for sampling. This happened to Vettel when the team told him to stop straight after the race. I think this was why they brought in the rule that the car had to get back to the pits under its own power. Basically in the end I don't think they could provide a sample of the 1 litre requirement. So in that circumstance, FIA deliberately selected the car.
Computerised? This will all be black box internal FIA stuff where we have to place trust I guess. And we all know we can trust the FIA.Going back to fuel samples, in the past FIA have indeed selectively picked cars they thought may be in breach for sampling. This happened to Vettel when the team told him to stop straight after the race. I think this was why they brought in the rule that the car had to get back to the pits under its own power. Basically in the end I don't think they could provide a sample of the 1 litre requirement. So in that circumstance, FIA deliberately selected the car.
- Status