Malaysian Grand Prix 2011, Sepang International Circuit - Race 2/19

Some numpty said:
Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner has again been forced to defend his team against accusations of potential rule breaking.

The new Formula One season is only a race old, but already Horner and his team are being scrutinised as to why they flew out of the traps in the opening race in Australia 11 days ago.

World champion Sebastian Vettel's cruise to victory at Melbourne's Albert Park was astonishing given the superiority the German held over the rest of the field, notably in qualifying.

Vettel finished 0.8secs clear of McLaren's Lewis Hamilton, a gap virtually unheard of in F1 these days given how fine the margins are between the front-running teams.

That has resulted in some renewed questioning of the front wing on the Red Bull, a component that was rigorously investigated last season.

It is understood the wing flexes and runs lower to the ground under braking, affording the car greater stability and speed when cornering, and potentially could be worth more than half a second per lap.

The FIA even stiffened their regulations last season, putting Red Bull under considerable pressure, but the team passed all tests with flying colours.

Questioned on the issue again today, Horner, using a reporter's notebook to illustrate the point, said: "Shall I explain it in very basic words how it works?

"McLaren have developed a car that has a very low rear-ride height, and therefore a low front wing for them doesn't work.

"We run quite a high rake angle in our car. So inevitably when the rear of the car is higher, the front of the car is going to be lower to the ground.

"It is obvious science, and therefore our wing complies fully with the regulations. It will look lower to the ground because the rake in the car is higher, but it is simple mathematics."

Asked if he was frustrated by the ongoing review of the systems on his cars, Horner said: "We take it is a compliment to be honest with you.

"I think our front wing has been tested more than any other in the pit lane, and it complies with the regulations, which is what we have to do.

"We don't have to pass a McLaren test, we have to pass an FIA one, and it complies fully with that.

"McLaren have developed a car that is effectively a different philosophy to ours.

"So the benefit we see from the front wing is different to the one they would see, and that is the basis behind it fundamentally."
Click to expand...
 
They should just remove the flex rule of5mm or what ever it is. It's unprovable and just keep upping the weight test if they so wish. It's getting boring now, fia are happy with it, so get your designers on the case to copy it. I dont even think it's braking any rules as several parts seem to be contributing and as such each part is under it's own limit.
 
sunama said:
The drivers do have a choice, though.

They can either run flat out and make more pitstops.

OR

They can treat the race as a marathon and make 1 stop (as Perez did) and run slower, conserving tyres.

The problem right now though (using the Aussie GP as a yardstick) is that the tyre degradation is not severe enough, which means that for the most part, it makes no sense to make 3-5 pitstops...it is better to run slower, conserve tyres and make fewer pitstops. If the tyres can degrade faster, it will no longer be a straight forward choice of making 1-2 pitstops in a race: 3-5 pitstops will become an option.
Click to expand...

More tyre degredation will make the marathon situation worse not better. As noted by the teams in testing, they ran to a pre-computed set pace rather than running as fast as they could. Quite a distance off the pace of the car. You won't be seeing a Mika/Schumacher situation where they reeled off 20 qualifying laps to negate an extra stop because the tyres can't take the levels of punishment. If a car needed 5 stops you are far better off being 3 seconds off the pace of the car and needing less stops and maintaining track position.

Webber himself said that in race simulation runs they went multiple seconds off the pace to give fastest time over a race distance.

On these tyres the fastest way over a race distance will never be taking extra stops and going banzai, in the heat the tyres just won't hold up. So you are looking at predetermined race pace, depending on where you start.
 
Lunatic Dreyfus said:
Personally I'm hoping for a dry race, for once. At least then we can if this DRS nonsense actually does something useful, as Melbourne wasn't promising.

Trouble is, I'm not certain this track is set up right for it either. I would have thought a quicker entry to the DRS straight would be more suitable.
Click to expand...

I think i read a couple of drivers saying it should be better this weekend because of the speed of the corners onto and out of it. We'll see.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
So gutted that I am going to miss quali AND the race :( - girlfriend's birthday this weekend. Guess I will be heading over to iplayer.
Click to expand...

Was wanting to do a massive BBQ but it there must be a mass exodus from Bristol as litterally none of my mates are about. Still get to watch f1 and then do nothing all day.

I hope I finish work early tonight, but should be back for 2nd practice.
 
I know that some of you feel that the DRS failed in Australia. This is incorrect.

The DRS was never designed as a push-to-pass button. It was designed to give the audience extra excitment by bringing the car behind closer to the car in front, by the end of the straight. This would then result in extra excitement.

Previously, what would happen is the car behind (which may be faster), would stay close to the car in front throughout the lap. Then, before the long straight, the car in front would open up a gap in the last (fast) corner. This would then then leave the car behind too much ground to make up on a single straight. This was demonstrated to crushing effect by Petrov and Alonso in the final GP of last year.

I think most people would agree: we do not want a push-to-pass button, which requires virtually no skill. We want the driver to have to work for the overtake.

DRS absolutely delivered and we saw it used by J.Button in Australia. All eyes were on Button whenever Massa and Button hit the straight and Button would inch up on Massa, even though Massa's Ferrari was setup to be faster on the straight. There was excitement.

I'm all for devices which bring cars closer together as this is what creates excitement. What I don't want to see is a driver behind hit a button and the driver in front be utterly powerless to do anything about it.
 
Drs failed before it was implemented, it is not racing, it is not fair and is a totally silly idea. Even if it works how they want, it's still a total failure.
 
Off topic:

So, I was watching the new Senna movie and looking through who most rank as the best F1 driver.

I was reading through the comments section and the name of Jim Clark came up.

It would appear that this driver is ranked by many as the greatest...such a shame that he was unable to complete his career (fatality, aged 32).

I enjoyed reading the following:

Jim Clark won the 1963 Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps in extremely wet, foggy and rainy conditions. After starting eighth on the grid Clark passed all of the cars in front of him, including early leader Graham Hill. About 17 laps into the race, with the rain coming down harder than ever, Clark had not only lapped the entire field except for Bruce McLaren, but he was almost five minutes ahead of McLaren and his Cooper.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clark#Remarkable_performances

As you were gents...
 
AcidHell2 said:
Drs failed before it was implemented, it is not racing, it is not fair and is a totally silly idea.
Click to expand...

I would argue that it is fair.

In years gone by a driver could follow another driver through a series of corners, without worrying about losing downforce/grip, due to the dirty air created by the car in front. You could see proper wheel to wheel racing. This created excitement for the driver as well as the spectators.

In 2011, we have a reached a stage where the car behind is at such a disadvantage (due to the dirty air created by the car in front), that something has to be given back to the car behind - an advantage, if you like. This advantage is called DRS.

If the driver in front is truly faster, then he will be able to open up a gap during the slower parts of the lap. By the time the 2 cars hit the straight, if he is over 1s ahead, the DRS for the driver behind won't activate.

The problem is that heavy aero dependency is here to stay, so the FIA have come up with a way to skirt around the problem (of dirty air).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom