Malaysian Grand Prix 2014, Kuala Lumpur - Race 2/19
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
They've been doing it a while - at least since Monza last year
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,013
They've been doing digital advertising on the steps at the Stade de France for the rugby for 5 or more years, it had to spread further sooner or later. I bet it is only existing contractual conditions that stpped it happening sooner.
People need to decide what they want. There have been years of complaints that F1 is too aero reliant and the cars are on rails. We now have buckets of torque and drastically reduced aero resulting in cars that have to be "driven" around the whole lap, yet they aren't happy.
I love the fact that tracks are gaining new corners that didn't exist in previous years due to not being able to take them easy flat any more. Imagine how much more of a challenge corners like Maggotts and Beckett's, Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Etc are going to be!
But no, let's all moan about noise. It's as bad as people in previous years saying a really exciting race was boring simply because Vettel won.
I love the fact that tracks are gaining new corners that didn't exist in previous years due to not being able to take them easy flat any more. Imagine how much more of a challenge corners like Maggotts and Beckett's, Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Etc are going to be!
But no, let's all moan about noise. It's as bad as people in previous years saying a really exciting race was boring simply because Vettel won.
Not to forget the whinging for years that F1 isn't the pinnacle of motorsport - yet now we have the most complex and impressive power units, people aren't happy.
Shame, isn't it.
Am I right in thinking that this years technical changes were decided by a committee of the teams, manufacturers and FIA? No one person is to blame and this is what was decided in order to keep the massive financial commitment relevant.
Shame, isn't it.
Am I right in thinking that this years technical changes were decided by a committee of the teams, manufacturers and FIA? No one person is to blame and this is what was decided in order to keep the massive financial commitment relevant.
Do I need to requote your comments on F1 being dead due to lack of noise?
Yet you are complaining when others do the same, sometimes I think you just want someone and something to argue about.
No one is denying the balance to mechanical grip needed to be addressed are you saying this was the only way it could be done?
I enjoyed the opening laps but if it's a season where a car is 1 second per lap faster than the rest it's just as boring a championship regardless of who it is. It's early days and who knows if and when the others will make up ground. I said last year I thought this would happen with one manufacturer getting more power than the rest. Just as Mclaren had 1 second or more in 98 with big reg changes.
Red Bull could be struggling for ever if Renault don't get their act together, it's not like Mercedes will ever want to give them their units if they have any sense
Its a shame that so many people let 1 thing dominate their opinion.
But anyway, I wouldn't call it a committee as such. The FIA recognised the need to move to a relevant engine and were being pressured by the car makers (or lack of). The initial I4 idea was bang on the global car market trend. Just look at how many road cars run a turbo 1.6 I4! The marketing potential was amazing, and lots of manufacturers became interested.
But the super car makers (Ferrari and Mercedes) weren't happy, which is fair as an I4 is not relevant to them at all. They convinced the FIA to shift to the V6. The issue with the V6 is its irrelevent to everyone. Nobody (that I can think of) makes road cars with small capacity V6 turbos. The move also meant we lost attention from VAG and others, including PURE. But we did keep Mercedes (Ferrari were never going to leave).
So not a committee really, but it had input from enough people to ensure it broadly met the aims of the exercise.
But anyway, I wouldn't call it a committee as such. The FIA recognised the need to move to a relevant engine and were being pressured by the car makers (or lack of). The initial I4 idea was bang on the global car market trend. Just look at how many road cars run a turbo 1.6 I4! The marketing potential was amazing, and lots of manufacturers became interested.
But the super car makers (Ferrari and Mercedes) weren't happy, which is fair as an I4 is not relevant to them at all. They convinced the FIA to shift to the V6. The issue with the V6 is its irrelevent to everyone. Nobody (that I can think of) makes road cars with small capacity V6 turbos. The move also meant we lost attention from VAG and others, including PURE. But we did keep Mercedes (Ferrari were never going to leave).
So not a committee really, but it had input from enough people to ensure it broadly met the aims of the exercise.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 1,435
- Location
- UK
Id call it a success no? if all they can moan about really is the noise of the car... then surely the racing has improved and the viewing experience.
Yep. The alternative was a formula with, at most, 2 engine makers. The I4 would have potentially seen even more than the 4 we will have next year, but with hindsight an I4 in an F1 car may have been a step too far. It would have been pretty impressive to see them squeeze 600bhp from them however.
So yes, it did what they aimed to do, and while the engine noise sucks, its a nessasary evil and there have been some significant improvements elsewhere.
I don't think the config of the combustion engine is as important when the whole drivetrain is considered, the pro's and cons of different configs are well known. The v6 also meant they could use it as a stressed part of the chassis whilst the i4 may have required a subframe. The new formula is more about the drivetrain so the ice is no longer the focus although it is a factor, I think they want the focus to be on the ers side.
I question though, if they had stuck with the i4's, would they end up revving higher, and people might have actually preferred the sound as it would have been closer to the v8 engines in sound so more familiar.
I question though, if they had stuck with the i4's, would they end up revving higher, and people might have actually preferred the sound as it would have been closer to the v8 engines in sound so more familiar.
Agreed and well said. You can't please everyone! I for one love the new F1 and I love the sounds as well.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Media in general seem to really be pushing the "Hamilton utterly destroyed Rosberg" angle, trying to create some animosity between them. I do think Hamilton is significantly better, but a couple results like Australia and Hamilton ends up playing catch up. If Hamilton wins the next two races with Rosberg 2nd, he'll still be behind in the championship despite beating him easily in races and qualifying but one piece of bad luck and it's a close fight.
Indeed, that's the main point I recall about going to V6 over I4, for chassis compatibility, although doubtless there was also lobbying for other reasons too.
I do wonder how many covert Honda employees are currently in the Mclaren garage and how guarded Mercedes are with their engine around Mclaren now?
If Honda have owt about them - many. If Mercedes have owt about them - very guarded.
Quick note for Sliver - I'm about to say something that doesn't constitute fulsome praise of F1. If that is so terribly offending to you, please find the intelligence to simply ignore it rather than post crap.
Now that we've got that out of the way....
The engine sound problem has a fairly obvious fix - remove the fuel flow limit. That's the only reason that these engines aren't turning 15,000rpm (which is the limit specified in the rulebook). Leave the fuel mass limit where it is, let them use it however they want.
And at the end of the day, the volume of the engine exhaust note really shouldn't be as much of an issue as it's being made out to be. Like I said last time out:
me said:
On the evidence of these first two rounds, I'd rather watch these cars race than those from 2008.
I do wonder how many covert Honda employees are currently in the Mclaren garage and how guarded Mercedes are with their engine around Mclaren now?
Genuine question - how can Mercedes guard against McLaren knowing about their "own" engine?
I can imagine software updates etc might be delayed some, especially nearer the end of the season, but with how much monitoring each team has to do on all the different parts of the new power trains, surely it cant all be Merc employees manning the McLaren screens (or Force India / Williams etc)?
I would be surprised if there werent some Honda guys travelling with McLaren to every race this season
LH is BOUND to make a few mistakes through the season, he always does. Whether its down to his on/off squeeze or something / someone else is another matter but something is bound to happen. Malaysia suited LH , no doubt about it, but there will be other tracks where Rosberg will hopefully be really competitve against him.
Australia was a fun race, even if Rosberg sailed into the distance. Malaysia is a bit of a meh track, and was hoping for a really wet race so as to close everyone up, but it was pretty tedious in general until right at the end. Im hoping the older tracks will produce better races.
Last edited:
Of course they would, they would have run the thing to destruction many many times. Well not quite destruction but they would stress it was past 15k and do detailed analysis to see if and what was breaking down.
Sadly there's just no benefit to running them that high right now
