F1 Testing 2012 - Week 3, Barcelona

i think all this exhaust crap is riduculous we were given the impression last year that we should expect exhausts clearing exiting facing skywords and now were pretty much back to exactly how they were last year anyway but without the blowing maps
 
Was going to post the same earlier Arknor, how they manage to **** up over and over again is beyond me.

The most simple way of sorting the job out would have been to exit the exhausts from the rear of the car, well behind the diffuser in an area that would provide absolutely zero chance of a performance advantage. This would also stop the teams from complaining about it messing up any airflow.
 
Last edited:
TaKeN said:
Was going to post the same earlier Arknor, how they manage to **** up over and over again is beyond me.

The most simple way of sorting the job out would have been to exit the exhausts from the rear of the car, well behind the diffuser in an area that would provide absolutely zero chance of a performance advantage. This would also stop the teams from complaining about it messing up any airflow.
Click to expand...

they should just have made it so they had to be 1-2inchs raised above the sidepods with nothing obstructing view of them from any angle.. no one would be able to use bodywork to deflect the exhaust anywhere

no doubt yet again the fia used to retarded wording that might aswell have been writtein in chinese and google translated to multiple random languages before finally beeing translated to english
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
rbrs trick bits such as?
mercedes snowplow front wing coppy
mercedes exhaust position with saubers duct
mercedes double diffuser copy


RBR dont seem to have any trick bits they didnt borrow from other people this year yet newey still gets the glory for every one of those bits because of all the fanboys.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Found the perfect picture for your caption!

AnKynQrCAAAF_tr.jpg:large


:D:p
 
Skeeter said:
Shock as teams find ways to exploit new regulations.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Years ago (back in '06) I made a thread in Motors about Smokey Yunick, one of the greats of American motorsport engineering. His thoughts on regulation in motorsport? He was talking about NASCAR, but the point he made applies equally to F1.

They will find out there is no way to police creativity. No way in hell! There's always some guy who comes along, like Ray Evernham, that's smarter than the average cat, and he's going to figure out a way to get around it. The difference between Gary Nelson's ability to think and Ray Evernham's - well, probably there's not a lot of difference in their IQs, but Evernham concentrates on engines and certain areas with a lot of expensive, very educated help. For 60 hours a week, he's studying new stuff to beat the rules. Gary Nelson is spending 50 hours a week trying to enforce the rules that were made yesterday. They're not even in the same game.
Click to expand...
 
I don't understand the different reactions. Half the time when someone comes up with a clever interpretation of the rules they are praised for their ingenuity, yet other times they are slated for cheating? Or in this case, everyone flies off the handle at the rule makers :confused:.
 
Skeeter said:
I don't understand the different reactions. Half the time when someone comes up with a clever interpretation of the rules they are praised for their ingenuity, yet other times they are slated for cheating? Or in this case, everyone flies off the handle at the rule makers :confused:.
Click to expand...

team favouritism?

the fiasco with RBR's front wing practically touchng the track was exploitation of rules (which should have been closed by the FIA, as one section of the rules didnt exclude certain possibilities)

It would be nice if the FIA explained their decisions, but I guess it has to depend on when information is known about how a team is doing a certain thing in the first place (which might be hidden inside the car). Ie to fully explain the FIA might need to go into detail about how it works, giving away a team's fair advantage
 
Damn, I missed all the fun yesterday :p


Day 4 times

Code: 
[b]Pos  Driver         Team            Time                Laps[/b]
 1.  Raikkonen      Lotus           1m22.030s           121
 2.  Alonso         Ferrari         1m22.250s  +0.220   115
 3.  Senna          Williams        1m22.296s  +0.266   53
 4.  Hulkenberg     Force India     1m22.312s  +0.282   101
 5.  Kobayashi      Sauber          1m22.386s  +0.356   72
 6.  Hamilton       McLaren         1m22.430s  +0.400   115
 7.  Petrov         Caterham        1m22.795s  +0.765   101
 8.  Schumacher     Mercedes        1m22.939s  +0.909   100
 9.  Maldonado      Williams        1m23.347s  +1.317   48
10.  Ricciardo      Toro Rosso      1m23.393s  +1.363   100
11.  Vettel         Red Bull        1m23.608s  +1.578   23


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97838

Most of the field spent the afternoon focusing on race simulations, meaning that Raikkonen's 1m22.030s lap, set inside the final 20 minutes of the morning, was unlikely to come under fire.

The Lotus driver's race simulation was among the most impressive of the day as he completed a 65-lap run on four sets of Pirelli tyres; three soft, one hard. During these stints he suffered performance drop-off of no more than 1.8s on any given set of tyres.

While his drop-off figures were the best of the race simulations, his overall pace was still shy of Lewis Hamilton's McLaren, which seemed to have a 0.2s advantage on any given lap of a stint.
Click to expand...
 
Skeeter said:
The Merc diffuser is fed by a tunnel through the rear crash structure, and was only revealed 2 weeks ago. For Red Bull to have copied it, as opposed to have already developed it themselves, they would have had to understand it, design it, build it, crash test it and get it fitted into the rest of the rear end design, all in the space of 2 weeks. Not to mention throwing out months of their own development to copy a completely different design.

If the RBR has designs that are similar to Mercedes or any other teams its because there designers have come up with the same solutions, and not just copied each other.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Did you not watch that Williams F1 Megafactories?

If im not mistaken, they designed, manufactured and tested a brand new front wing within a hand full of days. All done on a budget, which I can only imagine is massively lower that RBR's.

Now im not saying RBR copied Mercs design here but IF they needed to, in order to have a competitive motor, then it is possible to turn around in very little time.
 
i dont know why people seem to think lotus are so good they did the race sim on new tyres while most other top teams used old tyres.

there fastest lap was a 1lap flyer on fumes and it was still only 0.5 faster than what merc , rbr and mclaren managed on hards on a 7-10lap stint
 
FrankJH said:
team favouritism?
Click to expand...

Maybe, or just peoples feelings about whoever developed it at the time? Its just a bit odd that things like the double diffuser, F ducts, reactive ride heights and EBD's (twice now) have all got completely different reactions from fans, when in essence they are all just clever ways teams have exploited the rules. It gets even more confusing when you add into the mix the people wanting F1 rules to be more open as they claim there isn't enough development and ingenuity going on :confused:.

But at the end of the day, this is what F1 is all about. The FIA set the rules, the teams bend and stretch them, the FIA change the rules, wash, rinse, repeat. Creativity always finds a way :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom