Australian Grand Prix 2015, Melbourne - Race 1/19

Horner made a good point. The 4 engines rule has broken Fridays.

I think there is a good case to allow them additional engines for Fridays only, purely for the good of the fans.
 
Oh god, pay someone to do the speeches, we know none of you guys have the voices to pull it off.

And no ones going to catch mercs, other than a few abnormal races like last year. From practice, fully expect them to be even more dominant.
 
Skeeter said:
Horner made a good point. The 4 engines rule has broken Fridays.

I think there is a good case to allow them additional engines for Fridays only, purely for the good of the fans.
Click to expand...

Meh, bull really, Friday didn't get a huge amount of running last year. But the track was empty because Sauber barely ran, Mclaren barely ran, Marussia didn't run, Caterham weren't there at all and RBR had failures and problems with both cars. Massa had a water leak so missed most/all of one session.

This has nothing to do with teams avoiding it to save engines. There are just physically less cars. Effectively compared to the last race last year there were 4 less teams running, none of them for engine saving reasons. Of course 8 cars not being on track will leave it looking more empty.
 
Revisit your "bull" statement in the latter half of the season when everyone has used 4 engines.

Silverstone want £60 for a Friday only ticket, and there's a real chance you'd hardly see anything if you went.

What would be the harm in allowing 1 or 2 extra PUs that can only be used on Fridays? Parc ferme kicks in from Saturday morning now, so theres a natural separation of Friday from the rest of the weekend anyway.
 
Pick any friday session from last year, take out Marussia and Caterham... the track would be less busy obviously. Take out RBR, Mclaren as well... even more empty, nothing more than that.

Put it this way, Ricciardo's car broke, if they were allowed to run a different engine on Friday what would have changed, his car broke and he couldn't run.

Which team would have been able to run more yesterday should they have unlimited engines... none. Riccy's engine went, it takes hours to replace an engine, they put in a new engine anyway he still didn't get out. Marussia, didn't get out, Mclaren had issues, new engines wouldn't have got them out any more, etc. Horner has a problem, an unreliable PU, and thus is trying to manipulate the situation, nothing more or less.

If they break, they break, they take a penalty and keep racing. It's as with all regulations, if you aim for 4 then they'll be borderline and probably go over but they'll design with that target. Thing is, if they aim for 10 engines... they'll design with 10 in mind and they'll still go 1 or 2 over, that is how engineering works. If the limit is 10, they'll build something that can last 2 races but on the limit. If they had a 10 engines per year limit they would be FAR less reliable than they are today, they absolutely would not make the same engine and use only 5-6 engines as last year and get no where near the limit.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if you got it, the comparison between the A45 AMG, a V8 Supercar and the Minardi 2 seater F1 car was good.

F18 flyover again, pretty standard for motor races in Australia! Said it uses more fuel in 8 minutes than the whole F1 grid will use in the whole race.......
 
drunkenmaster said:
Pick any friday session from last year, take out Marussia and Caterham... the track would be less busy obviously. Take out RBR, Mclaren as well... even more empty, nothing more than that.

Put it this way, Ricciardo's car broke, if they were allowed to run a different engine on Friday what would have changed, his car broke and he couldn't run.

Which team would have been able to run more yesterday should they have unlimited engines... none. Riccy's engine went, it takes hours to replace an engine, they put in a new engine anyway he still didn't get out. Marussia, didn't get out, Mclaren had issues, new engines wouldn't have got them out any more, etc. Horner has a problem, an unreliable PU, and thus is trying to manipulate the situation, nothing more or less.

If they break, they break, they take a penalty and keep racing. It's as with all regulations, if you aim for 4 then they'll be borderline and probably go over but they'll design with that target. Thing is, if they aim for 10 engines... they'll design with 10 in mind and they'll still go 1 or 2 over, that is how engineering works. If the limit is 10, they'll build something that can last 2 races but on the limit. If they had a 10 engines per year limit they would be FAR less reliable than they are today, they absolutely would not make the same engine and use only 5-6 engines as last year and get no where near the limit.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the whole season, not just yesterday!

It was the same last year and it will be the same this year, Friday running will be limited by the amount of running the teams want to put on engines that have to last the whole year.

The same issue exists when it rains. If it looks like a wet weekend then the teams will do hardly any running on Fridays to save tyre.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
I'm talking about the whole season, not just yesterday!

It was the same last year and it will be the same this year, Friday running will be limited by the amount of running the teams want to put on engines that have to last the whole year.

The same issue exists when it rains. If it looks like a wet weekend then the teams will do hardly any running on Fridays to save tyre.
Click to expand...



What they need is a bomb proof engine. How about a V8? :p
 
Jesus Brundle, still retarded, "Jenson is only 2 seconds behind Vettel on the same tire"... yes, if 1:29.3 to 1:32.3 is a 2 second gap, in reality most people would call it a 3 second gap and I don't remotely believe that the Ferrari's were pushing the tires.

Now Mclaren aren't the only ones but ultimately Jenson looked scruffy as hell throughout that lap and that was 3 seconds off the pace and supposedly not near full pace. These tarts banging on through testing about how good it looked aero/control wise... yes when people are driving around 5-10 seconds off the pace on most laps it's easy to look comfortable. Mclaren pushing hard seems a handful. Magnussen was doing his "fast" lap earlier, Alonso was on his fastest lap when he crashed and Jenson didn't have the smoothest looking car on his lap either.
 
Now Mercedes have turned the car up to eleven.

1:28.586 on the soft tyre.
Ferrari 1:29.307 on the super soft that is over a second faster than the soft.

They appear to have very much increased the performance gap at the moment.
 
Glaucus said:
They've doubled the gap over last year, and I doubt it's turned upto 11 either.
Click to expand...

Its odd. I expected massive field spread in 2014 and for it to then compress. But what we had was a surprisingly close 2014 considering the scale of the rule changes, and then massive spread the following year.
 
Flibster said:
Now Mercedes have turned the car up to eleven.

1:28.586 on the soft tyre.
Ferrari 1:29.307 on the super soft that is over a second faster than the soft.

They appear to have very much increased the performance gap at the moment.
Click to expand...

Medium tire, they went out, did a slow (very slow in Hamilton's case) then a easy lap in the what 1:30's, stayed out then did a 1:28'5 then pitted.

Glaucus said:
They've doubled the gap over last year, and I doubt it's turned upto 11 either.
Click to expand...

Yes/no, unknown, I don't think Ferrari were remotely pushing hard. They just went out on softs to get it over with, go out, banker lap end up with some scrubbed softs for the race with a easy lap in them. Sometimes tires work better with a little heat cycling in them and they last better than putting on completely fresh tires, maybe Ferrari know something we don't in that case.

Either way I think Ferrari went out and did a VERY conservative lap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom