2005 United States Grand Prix
- Thread starter Flibster
- Start date
Current Championship Standings.
2005 Drivers Championship.
2005 Constructors Championship.
2005 Drivers Championship.
Code:
[b]Pos Driver Nationality Team Points[/b]
1 Fernando Alonso Spanish Renault 59
2 Kimi Räikkönen Finnish McLaren-Mercedes 37
3 Jarno Trulli Italian Toyota 27
4 Nick Heidfeld German Williams-BMW 25
5 Michael Schumacher German Ferrari 24
6 Mark Webber Australian Williams-BMW 22
7 Rubens Barrichello Brazilian Ferrari 21
8 Ralf Schumacher German Toyota 20
=10 Giancarlo Fisichella Italian Renault 17
=10 David Coulthard British Red Bull Racing 17
11 Juan Pablo Montoya Colombian McLaren-Mercedes 16
12 Alex Wurz Austrian McLaren-Mercedes 6
13 Jacques Villeneuve Canadian Sauber-Petronas 5
=15 Pedro De la Rosa Spanish McLaren-Mercedes 4
=15 Christian Klien Austrian Red Bull Racing 4
16 Felipe Massa Brazilian Sauber-Petronas 2
17 Vitatonio Liuzzi Italian Red Bull Racing 12005 Constructors Championship.
Code:
[b]Pos Constructor Points[/b]
1 Renault 76
2 McLaren-Mercedes 63
=4 Toyota 47
=4 Williams-BMW 47
5 Ferrari 45
6 Red Bull Racing 22
7 Sauber-Petronas 12First bit of news then...
Well Max Mosley has dwecided on the F1 format in 2008 - Most people on here know my feelings towards him.
They make a very interesting read...They will follow in the next post as it's a sodding huge list.
Just to think - this is the format of F1 in the post-Concorde Agreement time...This is the competition to the GPWC.
Hmmmm....
Well Max Mosley has dwecided on the F1 format in 2008 - Most people on here know my feelings towards him.
They make a very interesting read...They will follow in the next post as it's a sodding huge list.
Just to think - this is the format of F1 in the post-Concorde Agreement time...This is the competition to the GPWC.
Hmmmm....
The FIA has today (Thursday 16 June) issued the following:
Traditionally, Formula One rules have been written by the engineers. Save in very exceptional circumstances, the Concorde Agreement (Clause 7.1) prevents anyone except the team technical directors making technical rules. This may no longer be the best approach. A better method might be to specify what we want the rules to achieve and only then allow the engineers to make proposals. The purpose of this note, therefore, is to suggest objectives together with some new rules to achieve them.
Safety, fairness, keeping the current six major car manufacturers involved, preserving the independent teams and ensuring that the public continue to enjoy Formula One are the five principal challenges for the Formula One World Championship in 2008. Everyone is agreed on the need for the first two; the last three are more controversial.
The need to cut costs
On the face of it, costs need to be cut. We have lost two independent teams and one major manufacturer in the last three years with no replacement in sight. However, some manufacturers are opposed to any economy measure which might curtail technical exploration. Five of the six competing car manufacturers are very large companies. Each assumes it has the money and technical expertise to win the Formula One World Championship alone or in partnership with an independent team. Each is apparently prepared to spend large sums to do so.
The manufacturers’ dilemma
The problem is that however much money the six manufacturers collectively spend, only one can win, while each season one at least is going to finish with cars in 11th and 12th places or worse. Dr Helmut Panke, Chief Executive of BMW, said recently “We are not satisfied with the sixth and seventh places and we are in intensive discussions on how to do better”. But if all six manufacturers and their twelve cars stay in Formula One, one of them will have to be content with sixth or seventh place each year and two or three of the remainder will be even less successful.
The simple truth is that whether the six manufacturers collectively spend €1.5 billion or (at the extreme) €150 million, the result will be the same. The one with the cleverest engineers, the best-managed team and the best drivers will win, the others will fail. At the end of the season and after each race, manufacturers’ cars will be placed all the way down to 11th and 12th and possibly worse if there are one or two good, fully independent teams. But the Championship will look and feel the same whether €1.5 billion or (again, at the extreme) €150 million is being spent. Indeed it might be better with €150 million, because the gap between first and last would probably be less. So, arguably, some €1.35 billion is being completely wasted in Formula One each year by the six manufacturers.
Are costs the FIA’s business?
Some say this is no concern of the governing body; how the manufacturers spend their money is their business. But surely it is the duty of the governing body to do what it can to keep all the manufacturers involved, indeed to try to attract new ones. Manufacturers whose cars finish in 7th, 8th and so on, down to 12th place or below (which means at least half our current six manufacturers) are more likely to stay if their average annual expenditure is, say, €25 million rather than €250 million.
A 90% reduction in manufacturers’ costs without diminishing the spectacle of Formula One would probably be possible, given close and rational collaboration with the manufacturers and teams concerned. But even without such collaboration, the FIA must at least reduce costs to levels which independent teams can afford. If we fail, we will lose the independent teams. Should costs continue at present levels or, worse, escalate in the next ten years at the same rate as the last ten, we risk simultaneously driving out the independent teams and some of the less successful manufacturers. The result would be non-Formula One cars on the grid or, possibly, the collapse of the Championship.
To be clear, in suggesting a reduction from €250 million to €25 million, we are speaking of just the costs to a manufacturer of supplying engines to a single team. The cost of running the team must be added to this to arrive at the total cost of putting the cars on the grid. It is extraordinary, but true, that some manufacturers are spending upwards of €250 million just to supply engines. That this could be reduced by 90% or more is evidenced by the fact that Cosworth will be able to supply a fully competitive 2006 engine for less than €20 million and are even able to supply (to Red Bull) an engine to race and qualify in the top ten under this year’s relatively free-spending rules, for less than one tenth of the expenditure of some major manufacturers. It does not follow that expenditure is necessary merely because it is allowed.
A money-spending competition?
Formula One must not be allowed to become a money-spending competition. We need more emphasis on rules which allow a clever but under-funded team to defeat a less competent but richer rival. It must not be possible simply to buy success. This is essential for the survival of fully independent teams which rely on sponsorship and income from the commercial rights holder. An independent team will never have the same resources as a team backed by a major car manufacturer, but they are nevertheless an essential element of Formula One. In addition to being part of the tradition, they provide an entry point for young drivers and team personnel and bring colour and interest to the paddock.
It is probable that rules aimed at keeping all six manufacturers in the Championship will also make it possible for the independent teams to survive. Conversely, failure to introduce these rules risks the simultaneous loss of the independent teams and some of the manufacturers. The case for getting costs under control appears strong.
Resistance to cost-cutting
There has been a tendency for well-funded teams to resist cost-cutting, because the higher the costs, the smaller the number of teams which are their potential competitors. But rules which allow too steep a slope on the curve of performance versus expenditure must eventually result in the richest team dominating and the remainder unable to compete. This has happened in the distant past. If it were allowed to happen today, Formula One would quickly lose its international television audience. Collapse would soon follow. Even the best funded teams should support drastic cost-cutting in order to preserve Formula One in the medium and longer term.
Formula One has become divorced from reality. If you ask a man in the street how many people devote their entire working lives to putting two Formula One cars on the grid 17 times a year, he will probably reply 20 or 30, plus maybe some part-timers. The reality is about 300 for a small team and up to 1000 for a top team, all full-time employees. Most of these highly skilled and expensive people add nothing to the spectacle or to the sporting contest. They are working on things which the public never see and even enthusiasts are unaware of. Hundreds of talented people, all duplicating each other’s efforts in the different teams, all to no purpose. It is difficult to justify this on any rational basis.
Dumbing down?
It is sometimes suggested that reducing the scope for expenditure in Formula One reduces its technical interest or “dumbs it down”. The immediate question is: reduces its technical interest to whom? It may fascinate the relevant engineers that by spending millions of Euros they can build a new gearbox with ratios that are 0.25mm thinner, but no-one else knows or cares. There is no additional value for the watching public who, ultimately, pay for the whole thing. If we eliminate pointless (but very expensive) engineering exercises, there will still remain huge areas of technical interest, some of which can be directly relevant to automobile engineering. For example, a breakthrough in chassis dynamics (more probable with very low downforce) or the reduction of engine internal losses would give a big advantage to the team which made it. It would also be more generally relevant than generating huge levels of downforce or making an ultra-small gearbox.
Keeping the public interested
If we manage to control costs and retain a reasonable number of competing cars, we must also think about the public appeal of Formula One. Everyone considers themselves an expert on this, but until very recently there has been no serious attempt to find out what the public think. This is extraordinary when one remembers that the commercial success of Formula One would disappear overnight if the public were to lose interest. We hope that the survey which the FIA is conducting in conjunction with AMD will provide an insight. In the meantime we have taken a conventional approach and aimed at (i) closer racing through a drastic reduction in downforce combined with significantly increased “mechanical” grip; (ii) a more competitive field by reducing costs and hence the competitive disadvantage of the smaller teams; (iii) eliminating electronic driver aids to give greater importance to classic driver skills. If these objectives are achieved, Formula One should at least be able to maintain its current level of popularity.
Keeping speeds under control
In addition to containing costs, we hope to contain speeds. Excessive speeds in Formula One not only endanger the drivers, they also cause problems for the race organisers. This is because increased speeds necessitate upgrading circuit safety measures. Safety work increases the organisers’ costs without producing any additional income. Indeed moving the public further away from the action on track, which is increasingly necessary for safety reasons, makes spectating less attractive and risks further reducing the organisers’ income. This is an additional reason for rules which restrict the rate of increase in performance.
A tight schedule
Once matters of principle have been decided, it becomes easier to write rules. However, not all the manufacturers and teams have joined the discussions during the first four months of the year. The FIA cannot continue to wait for proposals, because it is obliged to publish the 2008 Formula One Technical Regulations before the end of 2005. In practice this means the new rules must be finalised by the fourth week of September for submission to the World Motor Sport Council and the FIA General Assembly at the end of October. This, in turn, means we can allow the whole of July for comments from stakeholders, but final preparation of the rules must begin internally on 1 August.
Traditionally, Formula One rules have been written by the engineers. Save in very exceptional circumstances, the Concorde Agreement (Clause 7.1) prevents anyone except the team technical directors making technical rules. This may no longer be the best approach. A better method might be to specify what we want the rules to achieve and only then allow the engineers to make proposals. The purpose of this note, therefore, is to suggest objectives together with some new rules to achieve them.
Safety, fairness, keeping the current six major car manufacturers involved, preserving the independent teams and ensuring that the public continue to enjoy Formula One are the five principal challenges for the Formula One World Championship in 2008. Everyone is agreed on the need for the first two; the last three are more controversial.
The need to cut costs
On the face of it, costs need to be cut. We have lost two independent teams and one major manufacturer in the last three years with no replacement in sight. However, some manufacturers are opposed to any economy measure which might curtail technical exploration. Five of the six competing car manufacturers are very large companies. Each assumes it has the money and technical expertise to win the Formula One World Championship alone or in partnership with an independent team. Each is apparently prepared to spend large sums to do so.
The manufacturers’ dilemma
The problem is that however much money the six manufacturers collectively spend, only one can win, while each season one at least is going to finish with cars in 11th and 12th places or worse. Dr Helmut Panke, Chief Executive of BMW, said recently “We are not satisfied with the sixth and seventh places and we are in intensive discussions on how to do better”. But if all six manufacturers and their twelve cars stay in Formula One, one of them will have to be content with sixth or seventh place each year and two or three of the remainder will be even less successful.
The simple truth is that whether the six manufacturers collectively spend €1.5 billion or (at the extreme) €150 million, the result will be the same. The one with the cleverest engineers, the best-managed team and the best drivers will win, the others will fail. At the end of the season and after each race, manufacturers’ cars will be placed all the way down to 11th and 12th and possibly worse if there are one or two good, fully independent teams. But the Championship will look and feel the same whether €1.5 billion or (again, at the extreme) €150 million is being spent. Indeed it might be better with €150 million, because the gap between first and last would probably be less. So, arguably, some €1.35 billion is being completely wasted in Formula One each year by the six manufacturers.
Are costs the FIA’s business?
Some say this is no concern of the governing body; how the manufacturers spend their money is their business. But surely it is the duty of the governing body to do what it can to keep all the manufacturers involved, indeed to try to attract new ones. Manufacturers whose cars finish in 7th, 8th and so on, down to 12th place or below (which means at least half our current six manufacturers) are more likely to stay if their average annual expenditure is, say, €25 million rather than €250 million.
A 90% reduction in manufacturers’ costs without diminishing the spectacle of Formula One would probably be possible, given close and rational collaboration with the manufacturers and teams concerned. But even without such collaboration, the FIA must at least reduce costs to levels which independent teams can afford. If we fail, we will lose the independent teams. Should costs continue at present levels or, worse, escalate in the next ten years at the same rate as the last ten, we risk simultaneously driving out the independent teams and some of the less successful manufacturers. The result would be non-Formula One cars on the grid or, possibly, the collapse of the Championship.
To be clear, in suggesting a reduction from €250 million to €25 million, we are speaking of just the costs to a manufacturer of supplying engines to a single team. The cost of running the team must be added to this to arrive at the total cost of putting the cars on the grid. It is extraordinary, but true, that some manufacturers are spending upwards of €250 million just to supply engines. That this could be reduced by 90% or more is evidenced by the fact that Cosworth will be able to supply a fully competitive 2006 engine for less than €20 million and are even able to supply (to Red Bull) an engine to race and qualify in the top ten under this year’s relatively free-spending rules, for less than one tenth of the expenditure of some major manufacturers. It does not follow that expenditure is necessary merely because it is allowed.
A money-spending competition?
Formula One must not be allowed to become a money-spending competition. We need more emphasis on rules which allow a clever but under-funded team to defeat a less competent but richer rival. It must not be possible simply to buy success. This is essential for the survival of fully independent teams which rely on sponsorship and income from the commercial rights holder. An independent team will never have the same resources as a team backed by a major car manufacturer, but they are nevertheless an essential element of Formula One. In addition to being part of the tradition, they provide an entry point for young drivers and team personnel and bring colour and interest to the paddock.
It is probable that rules aimed at keeping all six manufacturers in the Championship will also make it possible for the independent teams to survive. Conversely, failure to introduce these rules risks the simultaneous loss of the independent teams and some of the manufacturers. The case for getting costs under control appears strong.
Resistance to cost-cutting
There has been a tendency for well-funded teams to resist cost-cutting, because the higher the costs, the smaller the number of teams which are their potential competitors. But rules which allow too steep a slope on the curve of performance versus expenditure must eventually result in the richest team dominating and the remainder unable to compete. This has happened in the distant past. If it were allowed to happen today, Formula One would quickly lose its international television audience. Collapse would soon follow. Even the best funded teams should support drastic cost-cutting in order to preserve Formula One in the medium and longer term.
Formula One has become divorced from reality. If you ask a man in the street how many people devote their entire working lives to putting two Formula One cars on the grid 17 times a year, he will probably reply 20 or 30, plus maybe some part-timers. The reality is about 300 for a small team and up to 1000 for a top team, all full-time employees. Most of these highly skilled and expensive people add nothing to the spectacle or to the sporting contest. They are working on things which the public never see and even enthusiasts are unaware of. Hundreds of talented people, all duplicating each other’s efforts in the different teams, all to no purpose. It is difficult to justify this on any rational basis.
Dumbing down?
It is sometimes suggested that reducing the scope for expenditure in Formula One reduces its technical interest or “dumbs it down”. The immediate question is: reduces its technical interest to whom? It may fascinate the relevant engineers that by spending millions of Euros they can build a new gearbox with ratios that are 0.25mm thinner, but no-one else knows or cares. There is no additional value for the watching public who, ultimately, pay for the whole thing. If we eliminate pointless (but very expensive) engineering exercises, there will still remain huge areas of technical interest, some of which can be directly relevant to automobile engineering. For example, a breakthrough in chassis dynamics (more probable with very low downforce) or the reduction of engine internal losses would give a big advantage to the team which made it. It would also be more generally relevant than generating huge levels of downforce or making an ultra-small gearbox.
Keeping the public interested
If we manage to control costs and retain a reasonable number of competing cars, we must also think about the public appeal of Formula One. Everyone considers themselves an expert on this, but until very recently there has been no serious attempt to find out what the public think. This is extraordinary when one remembers that the commercial success of Formula One would disappear overnight if the public were to lose interest. We hope that the survey which the FIA is conducting in conjunction with AMD will provide an insight. In the meantime we have taken a conventional approach and aimed at (i) closer racing through a drastic reduction in downforce combined with significantly increased “mechanical” grip; (ii) a more competitive field by reducing costs and hence the competitive disadvantage of the smaller teams; (iii) eliminating electronic driver aids to give greater importance to classic driver skills. If these objectives are achieved, Formula One should at least be able to maintain its current level of popularity.
Keeping speeds under control
In addition to containing costs, we hope to contain speeds. Excessive speeds in Formula One not only endanger the drivers, they also cause problems for the race organisers. This is because increased speeds necessitate upgrading circuit safety measures. Safety work increases the organisers’ costs without producing any additional income. Indeed moving the public further away from the action on track, which is increasingly necessary for safety reasons, makes spectating less attractive and risks further reducing the organisers’ income. This is an additional reason for rules which restrict the rate of increase in performance.
A tight schedule
Once matters of principle have been decided, it becomes easier to write rules. However, not all the manufacturers and teams have joined the discussions during the first four months of the year. The FIA cannot continue to wait for proposals, because it is obliged to publish the 2008 Formula One Technical Regulations before the end of 2005. In practice this means the new rules must be finalised by the fourth week of September for submission to the World Motor Sport Council and the FIA General Assembly at the end of October. This, in turn, means we can allow the whole of July for comments from stakeholders, but final preparation of the rules must begin internally on 1 August.
Last edited:
Some suggested objectives
We have prepared a first draft of the 2008 rules with the following objectives:
Changes for 2009 will still require two years’ notice (ie publication before 31.12.2006). Thereafter notice of changes which affect the design of the car (sporting or technical) will be announced no later than 30 June to come into force for the next-but-one season (ie a change for 2010 will be announced before 30.6.2008).
We have prepared a first draft of the 2008 rules with the following objectives:
- The rate of increase in performance of the cars should not exceed the rate of improvement in measures to protect the public, marshals and competitors;
- The rules and the means of enforcing them should be clear so that everyone competes on the same basis;
- The rules and methods of enforcement must be sufficiently flexible to deal with unforeseen technical innovation;
- Costs should be contained in order to (i) decrease the likelihood of a manufacturer leaving after poor results (ii) enable a private team to be competitive without the support of a major manufacturer and (iii) reduce the performance deficit of the less well-funded teams;
- Expensive technology which is invisible to the public and known only to a tiny band of specialist engineers should be eliminated where possible;
- Expensive materials or designs should not be used as a substitute for good engineering;
- Driver aids should be eliminated as far as possible. In particular the use of electronic devices should not be allowed to replace driver skills;
- Downforce should be drastically reduced and “mechanical” grip increased substantially for closer racing.
Changes for 2009 will still require two years’ notice (ie publication before 31.12.2006). Thereafter notice of changes which affect the design of the car (sporting or technical) will be announced no later than 30 June to come into force for the next-but-one season (ie a change for 2010 will be announced before 30.6.2008).
Last edited:
Summary of the main changes proposed for 2008
Engines
Gearboxes
Bodywork
Wheels and Tyres
Engines
- All components of the engine will be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification
- The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators as specified by the FIA
- All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA
- The control system wiring loom connectivity will be specified by the FIA
- A 3 litre V10 engine will remain an option for teams unable to obtain a 2.4 litre V8, but subject to similar strict performance limitations as in 2006 and 2007
- To eliminate the use of driver aids such as traction control
- As teams will not be able to develop their own ECUs, expenditure on electronics will be considerably reduced
- To allow the FIA to check testing mileage and other elements
- To keep engine costs low for the smaller independent teams
Gearboxes
- All cars will be fitted with gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification
- Gear changing will only be permitted by the use of a manually operated mechanical linkage to the gearbox
- Clutches will only be operated via a foot pedal connected mechanically to a release mechanism
- To restore control over the clutch and gear changing to the driver
- The use of standard gearbox internals will result in a very significant reduction in expenditure
Bodywork
- Downforce will be reduced to approximately 10% of current levels
- Drag will be maintained at current levels
- Overall car width will be increased
- By stipulating maximum and minimum dimensions cars will be “cleaned up” with devices such as barge boards, flip ups, winglets and other small add on parts removed
- Total advertising area on the car to remain unchanged
- To reduce the reliance upon downforce as a means of improving performance
- By increasing mechanical grip the likelihood of one car being able to follow another closely in corners, and hence be in an attacking position at the end of the following straight, will be increased
- Eliminating winglets, bargeboards, etc, will reduce costs as well as the danger of debris on the circuits
- Drag should remain unchanged in order to ensure straight line speeds do not increase significantly
Wheels and Tyres
- Tyres will be supplied by one manufacturer appointed by the FIA after an invitation to tender. Such an appointment will be conditional upon:
- A suitable supplier being available
- A suitable system to ensure tyre testing is carried out in an equitable manner
- No team being disadvantaged by the appointment of a single supplier (detailed regulations will be written to ensure this would not be the case)
- There being no legal impediments during the process of appointing a supplier
- Slick tyres will be introduced for use in dry weather
- Lower profile tyres will be introduced
- Significantly larger wheels with minimum and maximum sizes stipulated for front and rear will be permitted
- Tyre blankets and other heating devices will be prohibited
- All tyre regulations will reside in the Technical Regulations
- A single supplier would allow a bigger safety margin
- The absence of competitive tyre testing would reduce costs
- As relatively small differences in tyre compound and construction can have a significant effect on lap times, a single tyre supplier would simply ensure that no team would be adversely affected by being contracted to the “wrong” supplier
- Slick tyres would be re-introduced as a part of the low-downforce and high-mechanical-grip package
- Lower profile tyres would be introduced in order to give the wheels and tyres a more modern look and also permit more freedom on brakes and suspension
- A ban on tyre heating devices would eliminate this significant but unnecessary expenditure
Last edited:
Chassis
- The minimum height of the centre of gravity of the chassis will be specified
- The minimum weight for a chassis will be specified
- Energy of all impact tests will be increased
- Loads for all static tests will be increased
- Side intrusion test requirements will be increased
- Ballast will be reduced to minimal levels
- To ensure that weight is distributed throughout the chassis
- The centre of gravity requirement should result in less pure ballast being used, the minimum weight will have to be achieved by the construction of a stronger chassis
- By raising the impact test speeds, the static load criteria on structures such as roll hoops and increasing the penetration resistance, drivers will be even better protected than they are at present
- All cars will be fitted with brake discs, pads and callipers which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification
- To reduce the cost of continual development of new materials and designs, the FIA specified products will be designed to work on all types of track and last an entire Grand Prix weekend
- With specific exceptions, any data acquisition system, telemetry system or associated sensors additional to those associated with the ECU will be physically separate and completely isolated from the control electronics
- Pit to car telemetry will be prohibited
- To ensure that any data acquisition system used by a team cannot interfere with the FIA specified ECU and sensors
- To ensure teams are unable to send messages to a car and potentially affect its performance
- Limitations, similar to those within the 2006 engine regulations, will be imposed on all parts of the car
- Costs will be reduced as research into exotic materials will be unnecessary
- All cars will be equipped with a driver operated starter which is capable of starting the car without outside assistance a minimum number of times
- To simplify the operation of starting a car, at present it is massively complex
- To give the driver a chance of starting a car unaided in the event of it stopping on the track
- To reduce the number of personnel needed at an Event and hence reduce costs
- Notice periods for changing the rules will be related to the effect (if any) of a change on the design of a car rather than an artificial distinction between “sporting” and “technical” regulations. There will no longer be a distinction between changes to the engine, transmission or chassis.
- To ensure that changes may be made to the regulations in a timely and more realistic way
- Spare cars will be prohibited, i.e. no team may have more than two built-up cars available at an Event at any one time. Spare chassis will be permitted but precisely what constitutes a car in this context will be clearly defined
- By taking one car less to races teams will be able to save considerable sums of money as, apart from the cost of the car itself, fewer personnel will be needed
- Testing will be limited to 30000km per team between 1st January and 31st December, subject to a single tyre supplier being appointed
- To reduce the enormous amounts of money currently being spent on testing
- Teams will be free to buy a complete car or any part of a car from another constructor
- How constructor’s points are to be allocated will be clearly defined after further discussion
- To enable a team to buy a complete car, or any part of a car, from another constructor. As a result teams will be able to save considerable sums of money on the design and development of their cars
Last edited:
Some good news about this weekend. 
Look at the TV times below..
Qualifying LIVE: Saturday 18 June 1850 – 2000 (ITV2)
Oualifying: Saturday 18 June 2330 – 0045 (ITV1)
Live race: Sunday 19 June 1800 – 2050 (ITV1)
Highlights: Monday 20 June 0020 – 0120 (ITV1)
Highlights: Monday 20 June 0145 – 0235 (ITV2)
Full race replay: Tuesday 21 June ITV1 0050 – 0345 (ITV1)
Looks like they caved in to all the complaints.
Simon/~Flibster
Look at the TV times below..
Qualifying LIVE: Saturday 18 June 1850 – 2000 (ITV2)
Oualifying: Saturday 18 June 2330 – 0045 (ITV1)
Live race: Sunday 19 June 1800 – 2050 (ITV1)
Highlights: Monday 20 June 0020 – 0120 (ITV1)
Highlights: Monday 20 June 0145 – 0235 (ITV2)
Full race replay: Tuesday 21 June ITV1 0050 – 0345 (ITV1)
Looks like they caved in to all the complaints.
Simon/~Flibster
goreblast said:
Just do what I used to do - means you can then take a rest overnight *unlike in canada.
*All I did was hide the results using a colour code that makes the text the same colour as the background in the code box..
Taking the data from Monaco *only one on this hdd atm..*
Thursday Free Practice 1.
Code:
[b]Pos No Driver Team Time[/b]
1 10 Juan Pablo Montoya McLaren-Mercedes 1:17.152
2 5 Fernando Alonso Renault 1:17.301
3 37 Christian Klien Red Bull Racing 1:17.511
4 1 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 1:17.640
5 6 Giancarlo Fisichella Renault 1:17.869
6 35 Alexander Wurz McLaren-Mercedes 1:18.059
7 7 Mark Webber Williams-BMW 1:18.244
8 17 Ralf Schumacher Toyota 1:18.482
9 14 David Coulthard Red Bull Racing 1:18.669
10 2 Rubens Barrichello Ferrari 1:18.838
11 8 Nick Heidfeld Williams-BMW 1:18.859
12 9 Kimi Räikkönen McLaren-Mercedes 1:19.055
13 16 Jarno Trulli Toyota 1:19.255
14 11 Jacques Villeneuve Sauber-Petronas 1:19.755
15 15 Vitantonio Liuzzi Red Bull Racing 1:19.844
16 12 Felipe Massa Sauber-Petronas 1:20.180
17 38 Ricardo Zonta Toyota 1:20.979
18 39 Robert Doornbos Jordan-Toyota 1:21.511
19 20 Patrick Friesacher Minardi-Cosworth 1:21.968
20 18 Tiago Monteiro Jordan-Toyota 1:22.388
21 19 Narain Karthikeyan Jordan-Toyota 1:23.521
22 21 Christijan Albers Minardi-Cosworth 1:25.664All I would do is add [ color=003366] after the column titles and add [ /color] at the end before the final [/code]...like thus
Thursday Free Practice 1.
Code:
[b]Pos No Driver Team Time[color=#003366][/b]
1 10 Juan Pablo Montoya McLaren-Mercedes 1:17.152
2 5 Fernando Alonso Renault 1:17.301
3 37 Christian Klien Red Bull Racing 1:17.511
4 1 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 1:17.640
5 6 Giancarlo Fisichella Renault 1:17.869
6 35 Alexander Wurz McLaren-Mercedes 1:18.059
7 7 Mark Webber Williams-BMW 1:18.244
8 17 Ralf Schumacher Toyota 1:18.482
9 14 David Coulthard Red Bull Racing 1:18.669
10 2 Rubens Barrichello Ferrari 1:18.838
11 8 Nick Heidfeld Williams-BMW 1:18.859
12 9 Kimi Räikkönen McLaren-Mercedes 1:19.055
13 16 Jarno Trulli Toyota 1:19.255
14 11 Jacques Villeneuve Sauber-Petronas 1:19.755
15 15 Vitantonio Liuzzi Red Bull Racing 1:19.844
16 12 Felipe Massa Sauber-Petronas 1:20.180
17 38 Ricardo Zonta Toyota 1:20.979
18 39 Robert Doornbos Jordan-Toyota 1:21.511
19 20 Patrick Friesacher Minardi-Cosworth 1:21.968
20 18 Tiago Monteiro Jordan-Toyota 1:22.388
21 19 Narain Karthikeyan Jordan-Toyota 1:23.521
22 21 Christijan Albers Minardi-Cosworth 1:25.664 [/color]Simon/~Flibster
Last edited:
Right - my view on this 'race'
People in the wrong - FIA
People who acted innapropriately - Everyone else
First off...let me quote Max Mosely from the European Grand Prix..
So the teams/michelin did what he asked then. They were unsure about the safety of the cars and as such retiresd them.
The problem with the tyres was a manafacturing defect that was undetectable once the tyre was complete without cutting the tyres apart as far as I could gather. That is impractical.
There was a safer set of tyres available - however the main carcass of the tyre was the same as the one that was failing - and as such there was no guarantees that the safer tyre would not fail either.
The only solution was to add the chicane in really.
Flying in another set of tyres would not be allowed as they would be running an uninspected and unauthorised set of tyres - something which is not allowed as the teams have to decide which tyres to run on the saturday morning.
Having the Michelin runner go through turn 13 at around 50-100mph slower than the Bridgestone runners - really safe that. Sorry - that is one of the most stupid suggestions that I've EVER heard fromt he FIA
Or we had the chicaine...
Now - they didn't want to disadvantage bridgestone - Fair enough.
Let them change their tyres if they want as well - as for the Chicaine - would be the same for everyone - no one would know what it would be like.
Someone needs to take charge of F1 - Bernie seems to no longer be able to order teams around and force an agreement out of them.
I'd suggest someone like say - Dave Richards - he knows what is sensible and what isn't.
This issue was known about for 48 HOURS!!
If no agreement fromt he teams could have been reached the FIA should have taken a look at the most sensible options and then force the teams to agree.
As for the vote/agreement - all the teams were asked - some took no notice.
There were 3 Michelin teams running the harder tyres - guess which??
I sincerely doubt that F1 will be in the USA next year - could this be one of the longer nails into the F1 coffin? Who knows for now.
Oh - and the teams being called infront of the FIA..It's "lets play hunt the scapegoat!!!"
It was certainly a 'dammed of you do - dammed if you don't' situation.
Oh and Jordan and Monteiro celebrating - Please leave F1 now and don't come back.
As for the people who have decided to pay this thread a visit and then start saying that they haven't watched F1 for years...Why did you come in this thread then??
People in the wrong - FIA
People who acted innapropriately - Everyone else
First off...let me quote Max Mosely from the European Grand Prix..
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=33025 said:
So the teams/michelin did what he asked then. They were unsure about the safety of the cars and as such retiresd them.
The problem with the tyres was a manafacturing defect that was undetectable once the tyre was complete without cutting the tyres apart as far as I could gather. That is impractical.
There was a safer set of tyres available - however the main carcass of the tyre was the same as the one that was failing - and as such there was no guarantees that the safer tyre would not fail either.
The only solution was to add the chicane in really.
Flying in another set of tyres would not be allowed as they would be running an uninspected and unauthorised set of tyres - something which is not allowed as the teams have to decide which tyres to run on the saturday morning.
Having the Michelin runner go through turn 13 at around 50-100mph slower than the Bridgestone runners - really safe that.
Sorry - that is one of the most stupid suggestions that I've EVER heard fromt he FIAOr we had the chicaine...
Now - they didn't want to disadvantage bridgestone - Fair enough.
Let them change their tyres if they want as well - as for the Chicaine - would be the same for everyone - no one would know what it would be like.
Someone needs to take charge of F1 - Bernie seems to no longer be able to order teams around and force an agreement out of them.
I'd suggest someone like say - Dave Richards - he knows what is sensible and what isn't.
This issue was known about for 48 HOURS!!
If no agreement fromt he teams could have been reached the FIA should have taken a look at the most sensible options and then force the teams to agree.
As for the vote/agreement - all the teams were asked - some took no notice.
There were 3 Michelin teams running the harder tyres - guess which??
I sincerely doubt that F1 will be in the USA next year - could this be one of the longer nails into the F1 coffin? Who knows for now.
Oh - and the teams being called infront of the FIA..It's "lets play hunt the scapegoat!!!"
It was certainly a 'dammed of you do - dammed if you don't' situation.
Oh and Jordan and Monteiro celebrating - Please leave F1 now and don't come back.
As for the people who have decided to pay this thread a visit and then start saying that they haven't watched F1 for years...Why did you come in this thread then??
Last edited:
Dutch Guy said:
...and the Michelin teams were prepared for a chicaine on the track and had the strategies all sorted without knowing what it would have looked like?
Everyone would have been galloping up diarrhoea drive without a saddle.
No one would have known what it would have done with the current setups - however this could have been done on Friday night and all ready to test on Saturday morning.
Hell - let Bridgestone change their tyres as well - all fair then.
Simon/~Flibster
Oh hell - it wasn't the durability of the tyre that was the problem!
There was a fault in the sidewall construction of the carcass of the tyre - BOTH tyres used had the same carcass under the tyre.
Thus both were potentially unsafe.
It was a construction problem not a wear problem.
If there was no fault with the sidewall there would have not been a problem with the race.
Simon/~Flibster
There was a fault in the sidewall construction of the carcass of the tyre - BOTH tyres used had the same carcass under the tyre.
Thus both were potentially unsafe.
It was a construction problem not a wear problem.
If there was no fault with the sidewall there would have not been a problem with the race.
Simon/~Flibster
Bridgestone and Firestone are 1 company near enough.
Firestone produces tyres for the IRL...
Michelin do not. They had not seen the new surface.
Bridgestone used Firestones data on the new surface.
As for using Indy for testin - it's not a test curcuit as it has to be specially modified for F1 to go there and would cost a fortune to get it done for a test. As it is - Indy GP has never made a profit.
Simon/~Flibster
Firestone produces tyres for the IRL...
Michelin do not. They had not seen the new surface.
Bridgestone used Firestones data on the new surface.
As for using Indy for testin - it's not a test curcuit as it has to be specially modified for F1 to go there and would cost a fortune to get it done for a test. As it is - Indy GP has never made a profit.
Simon/~Flibster