2005 British Grand Prix

Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
6thElement said:

Yup. :D

Apparently Honda have said that their engine for 2006 has more in common with a MotoGP engine than an F1 engine...Rumours are abound of the possibility of 800-850bhp and 22-25000rpm engines at the beginning of next season. :eek:


Also.. ;)

A diesel car ran at Le Mans in 2004
http://www.perkins.com/perkins/cda/articleDisplay/1,4094,7___32_____7_10022049,00.html

There has also been a couple of diesel rally cars.
http://www.greenergy.com/motorsport/citydiesel.html

Peugeot are planning to enter Le Mans in 2007 *iirc* with a diesel car as well.

So diesel is becoming a viable motorsport fuel.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
24,560
Location
Amsterdam,The Netherlands
Flibster said:
So diesel is becoming a viable motorsport fuel.
There is a big difference between Le mans and a F1 track though, F1 tracks are designed with more corners and acceleration, Le Mans is much more long straights and endurance so is better suited for a diesel engine.

I doubt we will see a diesel F1 engine soon though :p
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
True...

But on the twistier tracks I can see a big advantage in diesel....more torque to pull you out of the corners faster...

Shame it's stipulated that the engines must run on unleaded petrol.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
Oh...whats this...

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33485 said:
FIA COULD CANCEL INDY VERDICT
Last Updated: Wednesday, 13, July, 2005, 17:03

Formula 1’s warring factions could be heading for reconciliation as reports suggest that the FIA is on the verge of overturning its guilty verdict in the case of the Michelin teams' actions at Indianapolis.

McLaren’s Ron Dennis and Red Bull’s Christian Horner are due to meet with FIA president Max Mosley in Monaco tomorrow.

Autosport reports that the team bosses will provide new evidence about the US Grand Prix situation that will lead the FIA to scrap its original verdict.

All seven Michelin teams were found guilty of bringing the sport into disrepute by not bringing suitable tyres to the US Grand Prix and then refusing to start the race.

Their punishment was due to be announced in September.

The teams had already decided to appeal against the verdict.

An emergency FIA senate hearing has now been called to consider the new evidence tomorrow.

This latest development comes as tensions thaw between the opposing parties in F1 politics.

Relations between Mosley and the manufacturer/Michelin teams had been tense all season and the situation worsened after the Indianapolis debacle.

There was even speculation that the teams would attempt to oust Mosley from his presidential role.

But earlier this week Renault’s Flavio Briatore praised Mosley’s work and hoped that the FIA, the Michelin teams, Ferrari and Bernie Ecclestone could co-operate on securing a strong and unified future for F1.

Mosley has also made concessions to the teams, asking for their advice on how to deal with the thorny issue of reducing costs while maintaining F1’s status on the cutting edge of automotive technology.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
...and the offical recommendation of the FIA Senate is....


FIA SENATE MEETING
14.07.2005

Following receipt of a dossier of new evidence relating to events at the 2005 United States Grand Prix submitted to the FIA by BAR, McLaren, Renault, Sauber, Toyota and Williams, the FIA Senate met in Monaco on 14 July. Ron Dennis attended the meeting, having been appointed representative of six Michelin teams. He was accompanied by Christian Horner from Red Bull Racing.

Having examined the new evidence and discussed it with Mr Dennis and Mr Horner, the Senate was satisfied that the teams were contractually bound to follow the instructions of their tyre supplier and that their tyre supplier had expressly prohibited them from racing at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway in its licensed configuration. Recognising that for both sporting and legal reasons it was impossible for the FIA to authorise a change to the circuit configuration and that both the FIA and the teams could have faced serious legal difficulties in the United States had they not observed to the letter their respective rules and contractual obligations (particularly had there been any kind of accident), the Senate was of the view that having regard to this new evidence, disciplinary proceedings against the teams had ceased to be appropriate and were no longer in the interest of the sport.

The Senate will therefore recommend to the World Motor Sport Council that the guilty verdict of 29 June against the teams be cancelled. It is anticipated that this recommendation will be put to the World Motor Sport Council by means of a fax vote in the next few days.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
Also - BMW's V8 engine ran in a car for the first time yesterday...

So...Mercededes, BMW, Toyota, Honda have run theirs in cars...

Renault and Cosworth have theirs on the test bench...

Ferrari haven't fired theirs up at all yet...
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2003
Posts
10,706
Location
Greenock, Scotland
New qualifying format mooted

In light of the FIA survey the teams have come up with 2 new formats for qualifying with a survey running on the official F1 site for fans to show their preference.

Both proposals consist of a 60-minute session, the first split in two halves of 25 minutes with a 10-minute break in between. Drivers would be allowed to run as many laps as they wish, but must set a time in each half. Each driver's best lap from each session would be then added up to produce a final time to determine the grid.

The second system also consists of an hour-long session, but after 15 minutes the five slowest cars must retire and will qualify 16th to 20th on the grid. After another 15 minutes, the five slowest cars during that period will also retire from the session and they will qualify 11th to 15th.

During the final 30 minutes, the remaining cars will compete for the top 10 positions, based on the best times set in that period.

The vote is between the two above, the current farce and "no preference" - note there is no option for the old 12 lap 1 hour banzai format.

The first option is OK, the major issue with old qually was that nothing would happen for half an hour which annoyed the TV folk so fair enough split it into 2 mini sessions, but don't add the times together.... As soon as you do that it becomes hard for the audience to follow. They understand fastest gets to start from pole, anything else is unnecessary complication.

The second suggestion is, if you ask me, worse than what we have now. How do you explain that 5 cars will drop out then another 5 then it's possible that the fastest person in the first 30 mins could end up in tenth but the man on pole still lapped slower than the fastest lap of the hour? The Minardis and Midlands (as they'll be) will just treat it as a 15 minute free practice session, they know they won't last past the first 15 mins unless someone drops it and fails to set a time so what's the point in stressing the car?

All it does is emphasise the divide in F1 that Max is trying to encourage between the haves and the have nots. It's teams like Jordan and Minardi that need to be encouraged and retained, they're the ones willing to take the risk and bring new drivers through. It's worth recalling who has come through that way

Jordan - Michael Schumacher, Ralf Schumacher, Barichello, Irvine
Minardi - Webber, Alonso, Trulli, Fisichella

If the independant teams disappear who's going to take a risk on young, unproven talent?
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Posts
1,795
Location
Leicestershire
Dutch Guy said:
So Michelin is to take the full blame for the Indy fiasco.

It was always ultimately Michelin's fault for not supplying the team's with a 'safe' backup tyre, i.e. in the event that the main 'race' tyre fails, there is a 'safe' backup for any given scenario.

Due to there being no contract between FIA & Michelin, it forced the FIA to punish the teams for not requesting the backup tyre, which is then of course filtered down to the tyre-supplier, Michelin.

As with everything in the F1 world, safety is priority, Michelin's contract with the teams state that if they felt the tyre unsafe they can pull the cars, just as they did.

As much as we can argue that on that day F1 lost it's 'sport', the rules have to be in place to have an even playing field.
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
Each team did have 2 sets of tyres - a softer and a harder compound - however both sets were unsuitible for the Indy circuit.

Michelin flew in a completely new set of tyres that were harder than any of the hard tyres at Indy - but they were unsuitible as well.

FIA lost a lot of support by trying to punish the teams *they still may...the fax from the Senate was only a recommendation :rolleyes:*


As for qualifying - I like the 60 min session - every car must do at least 1 hot lap every 15 mins...otherwise get a time penalty...

Fastest lap ges pole.

Increases activity on track.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
More FIA backtracking...

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1612757321__13_07_2005_F1_Tech_Regs_08.pdf said:
THE FIA PROPOSALS FOR 2008 FORMULA ONE TECHNICAL REGULATIONS FOLLOW-UP NOTE ON TECHNOLOGY IN FORMULA ONE

The FIA proposals for 2008 which were sent to you on 4 July include significant restrictions on technology with a view to reducing costs. However, the recent FIA/AMD survey has demonstrated that the public regard technology as an important element of Formula One, although they do not like its use for driver aids. The responses to our proposals from major manufacturers involved in Formula One also favour retaining sophisticated technology.

During the consultation period which is now underway, we should like all stakeholders to consider carefully the technology/cost issue and let us have their views. Which technologies to allow and even encourage is a decision of fundamental importance, as is the question of cost.

The FIA’s preliminary view is that technology which helps the driver to control the car (eg traction control, ESP-type systems, launch control, etc, etc) have no place in Formula One, which should remain a supreme test of driver skill. This view is supported by the public in the FIA/AMD survey. On the other hand, technologies which improve car performance by, for example, saving energy or reducing mechanical losses should be encouraged. These do not devalue a racing driver’s skills and their development can benefit the ordinary motorist.

The example of an energy recovery, storage and release, or “hybrid”, system is a good one. Using known technology it would be possible to recover and store about 300 kilojoules of energy when braking for a corner and release it to give about 60 bhp for 5 seconds on the next straight, all from a system weighing no more than 50 kg. If we were to regulate (limit) such systems by weight, the research would aim for the maximum energy (power) for the minimum weight. We would soon see more power for longer from lighter systems. Such systems will eventually be on all road cars - it is just a question of how many kilojoules per kilo of weight plus system cost compared to fuel cost. Deployment in Formula One would greatly accelerate the rate of development of such devices as well as promoting public acceptance and consumer demand.

In the Research and Development departments of the major manufacturers there are certainly many other new and interesting technologies under development which could usefully be deployed in Formula One. It is also possible that major manufacturers not currently in Formula One might wish to come into the World Championship with their new technologies without necessarily becoming engine suppliers. This would benefit the independent teams.

We believe there is a strong case for putting the emphasis on useful technology as a means of gaining performance in Formula One. At present, much of the technology is sterile. For example seeking the best lift/drag ratio within the confines of very restrictive bodywork regulations whose only purpose is to limit cornering speeds is arguably not the best use of talented aerodynamicists working in very expensive and sophisticated facilities.

On the subject of aerodynamics, we believe there may be a case for placing a limit on the amount of downforce a car can generate (ie a maximum of x newtons) rather than constantly regulating to restrict the aerodynamics in the hope of containing performance. Research would then be directed to reducing drag, possibly useful to the car industry. Techniques for generating massive amounts of downforce from the bodywork of a single-seater racing car have limited practical application.

Also, if we have a fixed but relatively low maximum permitted downforce, why would we need to continue to ban moveable aerodynamic devices? Could we not allow them at least under braking? Or perhaps forward of the front wheel centre line to help aerodynamic balance when following another car closely? We would have to have an accurate and reliable means of measurement, but I am told this will be much easier with a single tyre supplier. Moveable devices might also be useful for safety.

If there is some support for such ideas, we should like to discuss possible action for 2008 as a matter of urgency. In the longer term we would propose setting up a small committee from the major manufacturers and perhaps some academics to advise the FIA on possible car and aerospace technologies for use in Formula One. We could then start to think about regulations five or even ten years ahead of their introduction.

Finally, we must never lose sight of the need to keep at least 20, preferably 24, cars on the grid. This means that permitted technologies must either be relatively inexpensive to develop or of a kind which bring paying technology partners into Formula One.

We should be glad to discuss these and related questions with any of the teams and other stakeholders, either individually or collectively.

Paris, July 13, 2005
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
9,962
Location
Jupiter
KimiFlag.jpg


Shame it wasn't Jenson driving past when i took the shot :(
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
Oh well - I kinda knew this was going to happen...

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33516 said:
RED BULL COMMITS TO F1 FUTURE
Last Updated: Monday, 18, July, 2005, 15:06

Red Bull Racing have joined Ferrari in making a long-term commitment to Formula 1.

The existing Concorde Agreement – F1’s constitution – expires at the end of 2007, and what happens after that date is currently uncertain.

The majority of the teams and manufacturers want the world championship’s organisation to change significantly when the new agreement was introduced, and there remains a possibility of a breakaway series being introduced if a compromise is not reached.

Ferrari pledged their support to the existing F1 world championship several months ago, while the other nine teams preferred to hedge their bets a little longer.

But now Red Bull has decided to commit to the series for the longer-term.

“Red Bull Racing confirms that it has reached an understanding with FOA to prolong the current Concorde Agreement from 2008 until 2012,” said a team statement.

The team will use Ferrari engines next season, but have always tried to remain independent in F1’s political debates.

Arse....

So at the least - F1 in 2008 is going to be Ferrari and Red Bull...

Simon/~Flibster
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
40,007
Oh and this is a bit funny....(end of the 4th Paragraph)

www.redbullracing.com said:
RED BULL RACING FIRST TO CROSS THE BOSPHORUS BRIDGE

On Sunday 17 July, Red Bull Racing became the first Formula 1 team to run a car over the Bosphorus Bridge in Turkey, prior to the country’s inaugural grand prix, which takes place on 21 August.

David Coulthard was at the wheel of an RB1 and the historic drive took him from Europe to Asia in the space of a few minutes, as he drove the car from the magnificent Dolmabahce Palace in the European part of Istanbul over the vast Bosphorus Bridge, which leads into the Asian side of the city.

Prior to the run, Turkey’s Minister of Tourism unveiled the car with the special livery it will carry for this race, featuring the Turkey tourism logo on its sides, as part of a joint promotion to publicise tourism in the country.

David set off from the Palace, travelling through the town before crossing the bridge. He then stunned the crowd with a series of smoky rubber-burning doughnuts, before heading back to the Palace where he was met by a crowd of civic dignitaries and journalists. They got more than they bargained for as Coulthard drove the car on stage, when it overheated because of the slow speed at which it had to travel and promptly caught fire!

When the smoke died away, the event ended as David tackled a press conference for the local and international media. On Saturday, the Red Bull Racing driver visited the new race track and was impressed with what he saw, after driving round it in a road car: “this is going to be one of the most difficult race tracks on the calendar,” reckoned the Scotsman. “It will be very challenging, partly because of all the changes of gradient.”
 
Back
Top Bottom