2006 Australian Grand Prix - Race 3/18

Flibster said:
Last years car was not good...hence them running a 3rd car again this year.

The 2004 car was though. It does seem like that was a total one off though and they don't know why the car was so good.

Simon/~Flibster

The 2004 car was running the illegal fuel ballast system though, so could well have been running underweight at times. The 2005 car also showed a flash of speed until the system was discovered, and the car was no where near as quick when it was running legally.
 
Flibster said:
Now it seems that if you don't finish the race full stop you can cahnge the engine penalty free.
It doesn't say that, it says if you fail to finish for a reason which is beyond the control of the team or driver. They're basically saying that if you fail to finish for a genuine technical reason then this is deemed "punishment" enough and they won't then impose a grid penalty. The intention was obviously to prevent strategic retirements as we saw last year, again initially from Honda.

What I find very interesting is the question of whether Honda's retirement could be viewed as strategic. The reality is that the team ordered Button to stop short of the flag which would seem to fall foul of the rules, as he stopped on the direction of the team. This of course assumes that he could have reached the flag had he continued, which is unprovable.
 
Alibaba99 said:
The 2004 car was running the illegal fuel ballast system though, so could well have been running underweight at times. The 2005 car also showed a flash of speed until the system was discovered, and the car was no where near as quick when it was running legally.

Errr...It wasn't illegal.

It was cleared repeatedly by the FIA Technical Working Group.
The Stewards cleared it at that and the previous races.

The FIA appealed their own technical stewards. AT NO POINT was BAR found guilty of cheating.

They were found guilty of having a 'lack of transparency'

However - they also ruled that the regulations themselves were unclear.

Strangely - there was other teams running exactly the same system who weren't jumped on. Including a certain Italian based, tobacco sponsored, slightly red coloured team.

All it was, was a containment tank for the high pressure fuel system they they all run. Honda were targetted for being a team who were 'irritating' to the FIA.

Simon/~Flibster
 
frogboy said:
I'm not so sure. The best drivers can adapt to any machine they're driving, as long as it's setup according to their driving style. I'll give Barrichello the benefit of the doubt for now, but in my opinon there is no reason to be so useless in what is effectively one of the fastest cars.

I agree,would be glad to be proven wrong though, Rubens is a nice guy.

I'm not sure if schus heart is totally in it, he's been doing the job for a long time now.

There are signs that Jensons getting impatient so he might come good.

I cant help remembering alonso in canada, i think he made a mistake, but i was surprised to hear him yelling for fisi to get out the way, it showed his level of motivation, i think kimi has the same attitude, fisi and monty, i dont know although fisi looks a bit desperate this year.

I hope i'm wrong, but i just cant see honda cutting it, they're too machine like they need more passion. The same goes for mclaren although i love the car.

Honda have had this tyre/race pace problem for ages now and have taken far too long to sort it out, they need a new boss. :(
 
I thought the rules were quite clear that fuel couldn't be used as ballast and that it was stated that the minimum vehicle weight was the dry weight. With the fuel removed the car came in under weight.

The situation came to a head when some guys from BAR joined another team and wondered why they weren't using such as system. Its illegal was the reply.
 
Teams ask FIA to exclude STR
Super Aguri and Midland F1 have written to the FIA asking that Scuderia Toro Rosso be excluded from scoring points in this year's constructors' championship, as other teams look set to join a campaign to get the performance of V10 engines pegged back, autosport.com can reveal.

Although it appeared that the row over Toro Rosso's V10 engines had died down following their fairly low-key performances in the Bahrain and Malaysian Grands Prix, high-level sources have revealed that behind-the-scene moves are currently taking place to lobby the FIA to change the regulations.

This all came before Vitantonio Liuzzi showed the capabilities of the V10 engine when he overtook Michael Schumacher in the Australian Grand Prix, and Scott Speed crossed the finish line in eighth place before losing that position because of a yellow flag infringement.

Autosport.com understands that at a meeting of the manufacturers' engine representative at Sepang two weeks ago, the equivalency formula between V10 and V8 engines was discussed at length and a proposal was put forward to register the level of unhappiness at the situation with the FIA.

While Toro Rosso had not scored points in the first two races of the season, the engine makers feared that the torque-advantage that is held by the V10 engines would allow the team to mix it near the front of the field at tracks like Monaco and Hungary.

Following the Malaysian Grand Prix, Super Aguri and Midland put together a joint letter, which was handed to the FIA at last weekend's Australian Grand Prix.

The letter expresses the two teams' concerns about the performance of Toro Rosso's V10 engines and, amid fears that the points-scoring potential could have a major impact on their own constructors' championship hopes, the teams ask that the FIA change the regulations so that the Red Bull-owned team do not score constructors' championship points.

Super Aguri managing director Daniel Audetto confirmed the existence of the letter and explained that there was a great deal of frustration at Toro Rosso's use of V10s.

"We are trying to protect our investment," he told autosport.com. "We think that it was an unfair situation when Red Bull bought Minardi, because I understand they gave this authorisation to use the V10 because otherwise Paul Stoddart was out of business. The teams said, 'okay we need 10 teams so you have this special dispensation.'

"That was the reason and the fact that Red Bull is now owning Toro Rosso, they have not only the money to buy a V8 but they could buy Cosworth if they want.

"It gives them an unfair advantage against the small teams, but at circuits like Monaco, Hungary, Montreal or if it is wet then they could mix it up with the big boys and take away points from the others.

"We think the best thing is for the FIA to let them race but without scoring points for the constructors' championship. They should still get points in the drivers' championship."

Audetto admitted, however, that the chances of the FIA acting on their request were slim, especially because any change to the Formula One Sporting Regulations would need unanimous approval. Toro Rosso and sister team Red Bull Racing would certainly not vote in favour of the move.

"I think it is unlikely that the FIA will accept our request because it is very difficult to change during the year the regulations, but at least we made a point," added Audetto.

The letter from Super Aguri and Midland is expected to be followed in the next fortnight by a joint letter from a number of teams and manufacturers urging the FIA to take action about the V10 engine situation.

Sources suggest that the letter, which is being drafted at the moment, will indicate support for the Super Aguri and Midland request, but adopt a slightly softer stance in requesting the FIA to 'encourage' Toro Rosso to move away from a V10 engine.

"The best way to encourage them is simply to turn their power down," said one source who was supporting the campaign. "If you make a V10 a lot slower, then Toro Rosso will want to switch to a V8."

Audetto said he welcomed the future support from rival teams and said even if the request falls on deaf ears, at least the FIA will have been made aware of the discontent among teams.

"I think it is important that [FIA president] Max [Mosley] knows our feeling - that we made a point," he added.

"Even if he cannot change the rules. And I think also for [Red Bull owner] Mr. [Dietrich] Mateschitz, to be aware of an unfair situation. I think he is a very honourable man and will make his own decision."

Toro Rosso team principal Franz Tost was unmoved by the complaints from rival teams, however, and insisted that his outfit were doing nothing wrong in trying to make the most our of their situation.

He told autosport.com: "The FIA last year created a regulation that allows the private teams to use a V10 engine. If these teams complain now that we have an advantage, then I am sorry because I cannot understand it.

"We can sell them an engine if they want, they can buy an engine from us. If they think that the increase in performance from Toro Rosso is only because of the engine then they are a little bit wrong, I would say.

"The FIA made this regulation, all the other teams signed and they agreed to this. And I don't think that the FIA will change anything because we are not so far in front."

Tost indicated that his team were fully focused on getting even quicker this season - and warned his rival teams that they had better get used to seeing Toro Rosso challenging them.

"The people have to get used to, in their minds, the fact that Toro Rosso will not stay on the last row of the grid," he said. "We will fight and we will come forward.

"There is no point in the regulations that says Toro Rosso with the V10 engine is not allowed to be within the first ten. For me it is a question of expectations. Where do our opponents expect us to be?

"If they expect us to be in the last two positions, then their expectations are wrong because we will not be in the last two positions, even with another engine.

"And the other teams should be happy we do not have a V8 because otherwise we would be in the top 10 for sure."

OK, the rules clearly state that a V10 is allowed. The only things stopping every other team on the grid running one is a) a gentleman's agreement not to and b) getting a supply of V10s.

So Tonio Luizzi passes MS, what's the big deal? The Ferrari was running 2s plus off the pace, just because it's red doesn't give it the right to run ahead of everyone else.

It's the usual problem with F1 politics, teams make decisions and then go off in the huff if everything pans out differently from their expectations. If you make the bed, lie in it.
 
Dutch Guy said:
Funny you say that, I noticed slight movement as well on the front wing but maybe it is within regulations :confused:

I noticed that too. As far as I'm aware though, the regulations stipulate a maximum amount of deflection from a fixed point, not no movement at all - it's probable that the amount the wing is flexing is within the bounds set in the regulations.

Wouldn't mind Flib to clear it up though :).
 
//Mike said:
I noticed that too. As far as I'm aware though, the regulations stipulate a maximum amount of deflection from a fixed point, not no movement at all - it's probable that the amount the wing is flexing is within the bounds set in the regulations.

Wouldn't mind Flib to clear it up though :).


its obviously a grey area (not 100% clear) as all the teams wouldn't exploit it. Different team interpret the rules in different ways.

The rules read like a law document anyway... sigh! thats what you get for having a berk in charge of the fia :mad:
 
Richard T said:
its obviously a grey area (not 100% clear) as all the teams wouldn't exploit it. Different team interpret the rules in different ways.
Why does it always have to be so difficult to understand.

They are not allowed to have a moving aero thingy, so even if the wing moves one millimeter they are illegal :confused:
 
NightSt@lk3r said:
then shurely the flexing mirrors should be illegal

The mirrors aren't flexing as a result of an aero effect mind, I think it's purely as a result of vibrations from the track and I dont think the mirrors are regarded as an aero element. Anyhow, if anything, the mirrors flexing at higher speeds will have a negative effect on aero performance.
 
Hill nominated for BRDC presidency

Former World Champion Damon Hill has been nominated to succeed Jackie Stewart as president of the British Racing Drivers' Club.

Hill has been nominated by Mike Knight and Jackie Oliver, two present members of the BRDC Board.

Stewart had already announced he would not to seek re-election at the AGM on Friday 28 April 2006.

If Hill is elected he would be the second Formula One World Champion to hold the position in the 78 years of history of the club. His nomination was unanimously supported by the board.

"The democratic decision on electing a President lies with our membership but I have no doubt that there will be popular support within the Club for Damon to succeed Sir Jackie," said Stuart Rolt, Chairman of the Board. "As a Formula One World Champion himself, he will take on the prestige that exists in the position of President of the BRDC as an ambassador for UK motorsport.

"Damon will also symbolise the passing on of the Presidency to a younger generation which will send out an encouraging message to our newer and younger members who must take up the reigns of leadership of the Club in the future."

Stewart added: "I hope the Members give Damon their full support in working with the Board in the best interests of the Club.

"Damon, like his father Graham, is a shining example of excellence from a family absolutely steeped in motor racing. I wish him all success in the future."
 
Ferrari not adapted well enough to the regulations

Luca di Montezemolo has blamed constant rule changes in formula one for Ferrari's fall from dominance.

The Italian team's president told the Brazilian press that Ferrari has not adapted well enough to the 2006 F1 regulations, including the return of tyre-change pit stops and 2.4 litre V8 engines.

He said : ''The changes were introduced to limit Ferrari's supremacy, which many believed was boring.''

Previously, however, Montezemolo had praised the FIA's 2006 rulebook, having condemned last year's rules for making formula one a 'tyre championship'.

''With so much change, even if you are at the top, everything has to start again from scratch,'' he said this week. ''You have to change the motor, the aerodynamics, the tyres.''


Wish he'd make up his bloody mind.

BTW...what happened last year then? :p
 
Schumi Wants Challenging Australian 'Bump' Removed

Michael Schumacher would like organisers of the Australian GP to remove the bump that sent him into the wall at the Albert Park circuit.

The Ferrari driver ran wide at the fast final corner, but only lost control of his '248' over a patch in the grass verge -- reportedly a path to give stewards access to the layout south of Melbourne.

''I have to wonder why it needs to be there,'' Germany's Schumacher told the 'RTL' TV channel.

''In practice (here) three years ago I had another accident there, but nothing has changed.''

Juan Pablo Montoya's race also ended when his McLaren bumped violently over the area.

Well..easy answer is to...

Stay on the bloody track!
 
Flibster said:
Well..easy answer is to...

Stay on the bloody track!

I don't think anyone's heard Montoya complaining of the bump yet... Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Anyhow, by removing that bump you will set a precedent for every circuit on the calender to be completely smoothed out...
 
Back
Top Bottom