Motorsport Off Topic Thread

Lewis Hamilton moaning that "older drivers" who are no longer "relevant" should no longer be given a platform questioning why the “older voices” are still being given the chance to talk about Formula 1 when attitudes have changed.

Obviously completely disagree with Piquet's remarks but I don't see why older Staff/Drivers shouldn't be allowed to say what they want quite frankly (except if its racist, etc!).

Should we not hear from the likes of Stewart, Hakkinen, Prost and Mansell just because they're "older voices"
 
Yeah, however motor racing, is the last bastion of old school tie etc. They really have not moved with the times.
It is literally riddled with old boys clubs.
I'm sure Lewis didn't mean to tar everyone with the same brush, but if you think about it.
They make all the right noises obviously, but deep down the governance and the backroom boys need changing.

It is a business yes, but it goes under the umbrella of a world championship and as such needs to be governed and controlled by people qualified to do so not the top boys from the club.
 
chrismscotland said:
Lewis Hamilton moaning that "older drivers" who are no longer "relevant" should no longer be given a platform questioning why the “older voices” are still being given the chance to talk about Formula 1 when attitudes have changed.

Obviously completely disagree with Piquet's remarks but I don't see why older Staff/Drivers shouldn't be allowed to say what they want quite frankly (except if its racist, etc!).

Should we not hear from the likes of Stewart, Hakkinen, Prost and Mansell just because they're "older voices"
Click to expand...

I mean...I suspect I'm in the minority here, but I'd rather listen to Nigel Mansell read the phone book than listen to Sir Lewis Hamilton wang on about how the car isn't working and the tyres don't work and the team called him in too early or too late and...
 
chrismscotland said:
Lewis Hamilton moaning that "older drivers" who are no longer "relevant" should no longer be given a platform questioning why the “older voices” are still being given the chance to talk about Formula 1 when attitudes have changed.

Obviously completely disagree with Piquet's remarks but I don't see why older Staff/Drivers shouldn't be allowed to say what they want quite frankly (except if its racist, etc!).

Should we not hear from the likes of Stewart, Hakkinen, Prost and Mansell just because they're "older voices"
Click to expand...

Did you actually bother to read the interview or just go by the clickbait title on the BBC?

He didn't talk about banning people. He said that they shouldn't be given a platform on which they can spout racist, bigoted or other such unpleasant rubbish. So yes, he's quite happy to hear from the likes of Mansell or Hakkinen.
 
Alibaba99 said:
Did you actually bother to read the interview or just go by the clickbait title on the BBC?

He didn't talk about banning people. He said that they shouldn't be given a platform on which they can spout racist, bigoted or other such unpleasant rubbish. So yes, he's quite happy to hear from the likes of Mansell or Hakkinen.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the whole thing but I did read about it on a few sites (none of the the BBC actually)
 
I'm not going to watch that video as YouTube is swamped with adverts now. The only thing I would say is that if audi and porsche are joining f1 I expect power train rules to be clear.
Given the magnet of wec hypercar rules, f1 cannot afford to allow any funny business.

Personally I think hypercar has the potential to be epic. Whereas I am becoming weary of the f1 shenanigans, there always seems to be some sort of political bull **** rammed out of the TV screen. Its almost as if the media have lost touch with the actual racing.
The rule makers have abjectly failed so far to come up with simpler, cheaper easier to develope cars.
 
Slam62 said:
Kind of puts the team managers row in Canada in a different light.
Click to expand...
I remember some time back RB did something pretty clever with their barge board to allow them to run lower to the ground. It was something along the lines of using different metals/materials to mount the bargeboard/skid block that expanded/contracted when heated(Via the friction between the car and the surface of the track) that in effect lifted the barge board/skid block higher up. Extremely clever stuff and kind of what F1 is all about. Bending the rules and regulations as far as you can without snapping them. :D
 
KiNgPiN83 said:
I remember some time back RB did something pretty clever with their barge board to allow them to run lower to the ground. It was something along the lines of using different metals/materials to mount the bargeboard/skid block that expanded/contracted when heated(Via the friction between the car and the surface of the track) that in effect lifted the barge board/skid block higher up. Extremely clever stuff and kind of what F1 is all about. Bending the rules and regulations as far as you can without snapping them. :D
Click to expand...

The technology is interesting but what you describe there isn't bending the rules, it is outright cheating. If the rule says "X must not do Y" and it does Y in a way that can't be detected, it doesn't mean they aren't cheating. Bending the rules in F1 would be more like the F-duct (can't have a moveable aerodynamic device but the air moving past the car isn't a "device" and must move so...) or back in the 80s with Lotus et al and their "water cooled brakes". You were allowed to refill coolant back then so they'd fill a huge tank with water and of course it would be empty by the end of lap 1 or 2, giving them an absolutely enormous weight advantage - entirely 'legal' within the rules. Some of the cars running the system were disqualified, others weren't and it was a bit controversial but they were meeting the letter of the regs. Tyrell tried similar things years later but instead of refilling the car with water they refilled it with lead shot - that is emphatically cheating.

All of the teams bend the rules, look for the loopholes, find bits of the regulations where there is a gap not legislated for at all etc. Deliberately constructing your car in such a way to directly perform in a way that is explicitly banned in a way that cannot be tested for is cheating!
 
DRZ said:
The technology is interesting but what you describe there isn't bending the rules, it is outright cheating. If the rule says "X must not do Y" and it does Y in a way that can't be detected, it doesn't mean they aren't cheating. Bending the rules in F1 would be more like the F-duct (can't have a moveable aerodynamic device but the air moving past the car isn't a "device" and must move so...) or back in the 80s with Lotus et al and their "water cooled brakes". You were allowed to refill coolant back then so they'd fill a huge tank with water and of course it would be empty by the end of lap 1 or 2, giving them an absolutely enormous weight advantage - entirely 'legal' within the rules. Some of the cars running the system were disqualified, others weren't and it was a bit controversial but they were meeting the letter of the regs. Tyrell tried similar things years later but instead of refilling the car with water they refilled it with lead shot - that is emphatically cheating.

All of the teams bend the rules, look for the loopholes, find bits of the regulations where there is a gap not legislated for at all etc. Deliberately constructing your car in such a way to directly perform in a way that is explicitly banned in a way that cannot be tested for is cheating!
Click to expand...
They say if you're not cheating in some way in F1 you're not trying hard enough and leaving performance on the track.
 
MissChief said:
They say if you're not cheating in some way in F1 you're not trying hard enough and leaving performance on the track.
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment but to me there is a huge difference between doing something not technically disallowed by the rules (eg Brawn's double diffuser) and something that you have specifically engineered to specifically contravene a rule (RB's droopy front wings, Ferrari's fuel rate cheating)
 
DRZ said:
I understand the sentiment but to me there is a huge difference between doing something not technically disallowed by the rules (eg Brawn's double diffuser) and something that you have specifically engineered to specifically contravene a rule (RB's droopy front wings, Ferrari's fuel rate cheating)
Click to expand...
It's always been a game of cat and mouse between the FIA and the Scrutineers/Stewards and the Teams and their designers going over the regulations with a fine toothed comb looking for any loophole or advantage they can glean. If the droopy wings were passing the Load tests as they were set out, were they illegal? Technically no, but then the rules do state any aerodynamic surface most not move!
 
MissChief said:
It's always been a game of cat and mouse between the FIA and the Scrutineers/Stewards and the Teams and their designers going over the regulations with a fine toothed comb looking for any loophole or advantage they can glean. If the droopy wings were passing the Load tests as they were set out, were they illegal? Technically no, but then the rules do state any aerodynamic surface most not move!
Click to expand...

This is the backwards crap that RB et al want you to believe. The test wasn't the rule, the rule was that the surface/component must not move/deflect. The test was weak as the technical people in the FIA aren't as good as the technical people in the teams. Their wings were quite deliberately in breach of the letter and spirit of the rules and the introduction of a flawed test did not change that but did legitimise them in the eyes of many.

You simply have to compare/contrast the various things that have been deemed to be not banned vs things that have been banned over the years to see where the line is supposed to be drawn. Brawn diffuser - genius, totally not legislated for, legal. F-duct - genius, totally not legislated for, legal. Ferrari abusing the known sampling rate of the FIA-supplied fuel flow sensor and pulsing fuel through when it wasn't looking? Totally illegal, explicitly against the rules (The way that was handled was a disgrace). McLaren's third (brake) pedal? Totally illegal, explicitly against the rules. Brabham BT46B - absolute genius, properly on the line of the wording of the regulations and deemed to be legal.

The rules said that the wings should not deflect. They deflected visibly! An utter disgrace that they were allowed to continue cheating.
 
DRZ said:
This is the backwards crap that RB et al want you to believe. The test wasn't the rule, the rule was that the surface/component must not move/deflect. The test was weak as the technical people in the FIA aren't as good as the technical people in the teams. Their wings were quite deliberately in breach of the letter and spirit of the rules and the introduction of a flawed test did not change that but did legitimise them in the eyes of many.

You simply have to compare/contrast the various things that have been deemed to be not banned vs things that have been banned over the years to see where the line is supposed to be drawn. Brawn diffuser - genius, totally not legislated for, legal. F-duct - genius, totally not legislated for, legal. Ferrari abusing the known sampling rate of the FIA-supplied fuel flow sensor and pulsing fuel through when it wasn't looking? Totally illegal, explicitly against the rules (The way that was handled was a disgrace). McLaren's third (brake) pedal? Totally illegal, explicitly against the rules. Brabham BT46B - absolute genius, properly on the line of the wording of the regulations and deemed to be legal.

The rules said that the wings should not deflect. They deflected visibly! An utter disgrace that they were allowed to continue cheating.
Click to expand...
With the Ferrari fuel flow sensor it was actually quite ingenious and, I believe, never actually proven that's what they were doing. The FIA could have proven it after exhaustive and expensive tests but Ferrari agreed not to continue to use their system as long as no investigation or punishment was forthcoming. So yes, they got away with 'cheating' (as it was never proven) but their performance dropped massively at the very next race.
 
I’m interested to see where this ends up.

Would be thoroughly entertaining if it’s Ferrari and Red Bull and the no side pods concept is actually the fastest now all the other teams have started to copy RB’s concept.
 
MM-Seat said:
I’m interested to see where this ends up.

Would be thoroughly entertaining if it’s Ferrari and Red Bull and the no side pods concept is actually the fastest now all the other teams have started to copy RB’s concept.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I think I saw a quote that 'hinted' that it was perhaps RB and maybe Ferrari (Said something like they expected to see the gap between them and the front-runners close up), if anyone, using a flexi-floor that they expect from France to be a bit slower. But who knows, it would be hilarious if at France the RB starts bouncing around like the Merc has been :p

I also side with DRZ above, cheating is cheating... If the rules say something isn't allowed then to do it is cheating, no matter how ingenious it is. Even the Toyota Celica turbo/restrictor setup in 1995 which was utter genius was still just cheating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom