Motorsport Off Topic Thread

[MagicBoy]

Odd that they restarted it then it went red straight away.

 

[mrgubby]

It was a rather spectacular shunt, Will Burns has three fractured ribs & Collard attended hospital for checks but is OK

 

[vanpeebles]

Awesome pics!!

 

[this_is_gav]

Could you imagine the hysteria if all the F1 field qualified within a second? People get excited when four or five cars get within a second of each other.

Is 1.3 seconds on much longer tracks close enough? All within 1 second in Q1 except for the debutant Alguersuari: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Hungarian_Grand_Prix#Qualifying

Otherwise 1.1 seconds over the whole field at Sepang (if you round to the nearest tenth then they are exactly a second apart ). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Malaysian_Grand_Prix#Qualifying. Of course when you consider the length of lap and number of the corners the F1 field would be considered closer than BTCC Silverstone:

I'm sure it's happened somewhere over the years, but in my head 2009 is the closest season we've had. New rules where the dominants teams all went backwards and the rear fighters jumped straight into the midfield, but before the new teams were introduced.

 

[Shimmy]

Leclerc FP1 hype for four of the remaining weekends.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/leclerc-secures-four-fp1-outings-with-sauber-956021/

 

[Flibster]

So... there may be more engine penalties next year. FIA have 'revised' the penalties system.

Teams will have 3 of each of the ICE, turbo and MGU-H, but only 2 of the MGU-K, energy Store and control electronics.
21 races next year, so this could be interesting. So one of each of the MGU-K, eneregy stores and control electronics will have to do 11 races..... Ouch.

 

[deuse]

So... there may be more engine penalties next year. FIA have 'revised' the penalties system.

Teams will have 3 of each of the ICE, turbo and MGU-H, but only 2 of the MGU-K, energy Store and control electronics.
21 races next year, so this could be interesting. So one of each of the MGU-K, eneregy stores and control electronics will have to do 11 races..... Ouch.

Just as I thought that the FIA couldn't get more stupid, they prove me wrong!

 

[this_is_gav]

The plan has been in existence since the inception of the V6s. They couldn't really change it now as teams will have planned years ahead.

In the grand scheme of things it won't affect much. You'll still have one race with a grid penalty if you have to take an extra, but it's unlikely to decide either championship in itself.

Though I do disagree with engine penalties hurting the driver. As has been mooted a few times, punish the team, not the driver. It's a team sport, but so long as the driver hasn't caused damage (as a result of a crash for example) then it still feels wrong to penalise drivers for engine unreliability in 2017 - that went out of the window in the 90s.

 

[deuse]

In the grand scheme of things it won't affect much. You'll still have one race with a grid penalty if you have to take an extra, but it's unlikely to decide either championship in itself.

Tell that to Hamilton. As Toto said "yes the engine blow up lost Lewis the WDC in 2016"

 

[this_is_gav]

Tell that to Hamilton. As Toto said "yes the engine blow up lost Lewis the WDC in 2016"

But that doesn't have anything to do with the penalty system.

 

[Flibster]

Well, the FIA have finally pulled their thumbs out of their butts and got some crash test information out for the halo. Better late than never, but this is too late for 2018 really.

This is what I've found in the regs so far.

15.2.1
All cars must have two roll structures which are designed to help prevent injury to the driver in the event of the car becoming inverted.

The principal structure must be at least 940mm above the reference plane at a point 30mm behind the plane C-C.

The secondary roll structure, which is not considered part of the survival cell, must be positioned symmetrically about the car centre plane with its front fixing axis 975mm forward of the plane C-C and 640mm above the reference plane. The mounting faces for the rearward fixings must lie on a plane parallel to and 675mm above the reference plane.

The driver's helmet and steering wheel must be arranged such that they lie below a line drawn between the front fixing axis of the secondary roll structure and a point 75mm vertically below the highest point of the principal roll structure.


15.2.3
The secondary roll structure attachments to the survival cell must pass two static load tests details of which may be found in Article 17.2. Furthermore, each team must supply detailed calculations which clearly show that these attachments are able to sustain:

a) The prescribed test loads specified in Articles 17.2.5 and 17.2.6 when fitted with the secondary structure as specified in Article 15.2.5 with the deformation simulated as purely elastic.

b) A load of 75kN vertically upward on each rear attachment.

c) A load equivalent to 88kN vertically upward and 88kN longitudinally rearward on the axis of the front attachment.



15.2.5
The secondary roll structure must be supplied by the FIA designated manufacturer. Details of the structure and its mountings may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

15.2.6
The secondary roll structure may have a fairing attached to it, provided it is bonded to the structure and made of prescribed laminate (details of this laminate may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations). No part of any such fairing may be more than 20mm from the structure and no part may lie within the helmet free volume template (details of this volume may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations). Furthermore, no part of the fairing may be more than 350mm from car centre plane or less than 675mm above the reference plane.

Also see Article 3.4.2.


17.2 Secondary roll structure attachments tests:

17.2.1
A dummy structure, the specification of which may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations, must be used in place of the secondary roll structure.

17.2.2
The loads may be applied using a 150mm diameter pad or through a spherical joint whose centre lies in the specified loading position.

17.2.3
For each test, peak loads must be applied in less than three minutes and be maintained for five seconds.

17.2.4
After five seconds of application there must be no failure of any part of the survival cell or of any attachment between the structure and the survival cell.

17.2.5
A load equivalent to 116kN vertically downward and 46kN longitudinally rearward must be applied at a position 785mm forward of the plane C-C and 810mm above the reference plane and positioned on the car centre plane.

During the test, the structure must be attached to the survival cell which is supported on its underside on a flat plate, fixed to it through its engine mounting points.

17.2.6
A load equivalent to 93kN laterally inward and 83kN longitudinally rearward must be applied at a position 590mm forward of the plane C-C and 790mm above the reference plane to the outer surface of the structure.

During the test, the survival cell may be supported in any way provided this does not increase the strength of the attachments being tested.

 

[deuse]

But that doesn't have anything to do with the penalty system.

Because they can only use a certain number of parts. Unlike the V8 days. But you said

In the grand scheme of things it won't affect much. You'll still have one race with a grid penalty if you have to take an extra, but it's unlikely to decide either championship in itself.

It will be very likely to decide the WDC next year.

 

[this_is_gav]

Because they can only use a certain number of parts. Unlike the V8 days. But you said

You're forgetting the limited engines rules was introduced with the V8s - 5 years before the V6s - and gearboxes in 2011.

Reliability has been an issue since they started making cars. It's the same for everyone, in theory at least; if your team can't make a part reliable enough then you'll suffer in the championship, the way it always has. That's not down to the restrictions - you design for the rules in place and leave nothing on the table. It's the same for every manufacturer and they've had plenty of time to plan for it.

 

[deuse]

You're forgetting the limited engines rules was introduced with the V8s - 5 years before the V6s - and gearboxes in 2011.

Reliability has been an issue since they started making cars. It's the same for everyone, in theory at least; if your team can't make a part reliable enough then you'll suffer in the championship, the way it always has. That's not down to the restrictions - you design for the rules in place and leave nothing on the table. It's the same for every manufacturer and they've had plenty of time to plan for it.

All I've got to say to you is...Thank a pixie god for MotoGP

 

[UTmaniac]

Rather than grid penalties for replacing too many engine bits, let them start where they qualified, but make them sit without work being done on the car when they make their compulsory pit stop.

 

[this_is_gav]

Rather than grid penalties for replacing too many engine bits, let them start where they qualified, but make them sit without work being done on the car when they make their compulsory pit stop.

It still punishes the driver for a manufacturer mistake.

Just deduct constructor points or reward money (spreading it among customer teams) depending on which component was replaced, or, one original suggestion I saw a couple of weeks ago, reward other teams in some way (either with constructor points or a tallying points system which, when reaching a certain total, would allow rivals to change PU components free of charge at their discretion). It's a bit wacky, but I suppose it would be a penalty with no on-track or direct championship ramifications.

Another suggestion I've seen was to punish manufacturers by them having to pay customer teams (including rival teams) for a extra PU change. In my head that doesn't work at all (F1 budgets can't work on projected potential failures) but it would certainly be a novel way of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Other than being completely wacky and unworkable, it would also bankrupt Honda.

The simple solution is to deduct constructor points, but again, that's unlikely to have a significant effect on the championship, reducing the incentive for better reliability. The romantic side of me kind of likes the other ideas that reward the teams that are more reliable, and especially the smaller customer teams.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I don't really see a better solution. As much as we all have our preferred drivers it is a team sport at the end of the day not a drivers championship. There are no prises for the drivers championship and it rarely goes to the best driver. It normally just goes to the driver that has a combination of the fastest and most reliable car. Last year is a perfect example of that. So much so actually Nico quit, he knew he got lucky and decided to end it that way.

It is widely considered the best two drivers on the grid are Alonso and Hamilton followed by Vettel. Yet Vettel has won more championships and much earlier in his career which co-insides with my point about having the fastest most reliable car.

Reliability is a massive part of the sport and it can cost you a championship or for a smaller team a huge amount of prise money. At the moment if your car cannot achieve the reliability then you get put to the back of the grid. I don't really have a problem with it. The suggestions above don't really make much sense as they are a disproportionate punishment for smaller teams who quite frankly can't afford it.

Don't want to be put to the back of the grid? Build a better engine, perhaps someone should tell Honda! Gearbox penalties are a bit brutal though, they should switch so they work the same way as engines. You get 4 and you can pick how you use them rather than having to last 5 consecutive races. It's also only Honda who are actually having serious reliability issues at the moment. I guess Renault are on the edge though. Mercedes and Ferrari are doing pretty well.

The sport really needs more engine manufactures, perhaps 5 or 6 works teams each supplying a customer team. It would be great to have 5 or 6 competing at the top for the crown of best engine but I don't think we will get that unless the complexity is reduced significantly. You could even have a separate mini championship for the customer teams.

 

[Glaucus]

let engines blow up, I miss that unknowen, they are far to reliable these days, and whilst we are at it bring gravel run offs back.

cars breaking down already punish the team and driver by not scoring points.
I don't know if there's any official break downs of cost, but i imagine development pushed up by the need of reliability massively outweighs the cost of manufacture.

You cant make f1 cheap without further moving away from the technological background of f1 history.

 

[vanpeebles]

Instead of grid penalty fines make them hefty money fines to go into a grid support pot, then distribute that money in a descending scale to the lowest teams ranked first then to midfield teams. It's not ideal but might keep the bottom end teams in the sport.

 

[deuse]

"Aston Martin will become the Red Bull Formula 1 team’s title sponsor for the 2018 season"
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/aston-martin-red-bull-title-sponsorship-957455/

The new name is Aston Martin Red Bull. Sounds great to me.