The F1 2014 season
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
My head hurts.
So, those in Q2 that don't make it to Q3 won't have to start on their tyres whilst those that do make it do have to start on their tyres. Hmm. That sounds like a recipe for curious edge cases. I don't suppose it'll be much worse than this year.
I wish they'd drop the whole idea, frankly: it has done nothing to improve the race.
The thing is, they have almost solved the problem, but then skewed off into cookoo land at the last minute.
The problem with Q3 is the teams don't have enough tyres, so giving them an extra set of softs is a good idea. But then trying to keep hold of the retarded "start on your qualifying tyres" rule means they have written some stupid backwards rules that make things stupidly complicated.
Its so broken:
Going out in Q2 means you start the race with a free extra set of brand new Softs
Making it through to Q3 means you then have to use the one extra set of Softs, and nothing more. So they have extended it to 12 minutes, but effectively forced everyone into doing a single run
All the Q3 Softs are handed back, so they will have 10 sets of Soft tyres that have covered just 3 laps thrown in the bin every weekend
The problem with Q3 is the teams don't have enough tyres, so giving them an extra set of softs is a good idea. But then trying to keep hold of the retarded "start on your qualifying tyres" rule means they have written some stupid backwards rules that make things stupidly complicated.
Its so broken:
Going out in Q2 means you start the race with a free extra set of brand new Softs
Making it through to Q3 means you then have to use the one extra set of Softs, and nothing more. So they have extended it to 12 minutes, but effectively forced everyone into doing a single run
All the Q3 Softs are handed back, so they will have 10 sets of Soft tyres that have covered just 3 laps thrown in the bin every weekend
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
So how is she a pay driver? Is there any news source to her actually bringing sponsorship in for Williams?
For someone who is apparently crap, she seemed to do better than some of the other drivers last year at silverstone in what can only be described as a shocking car...
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/1...stian-vettel-fastest-as-susie-wolff-impresses
Day Three Timesheet
1. Vettel, Red Bull, 1:32.894, 79 laps
2. Sutil, Force India, 1:33.242, 99 laps
3. Prost, Lotus, 1:33.256, 83 laps
4. Sainz, Red Bull, 1:33.546, 35 laps
5. Rigon, Ferrari, 1:33.592, 20 laps
6. Massa, Ferrari, 1:33.624, 69 laps
7. Vergne, Toro Rosso, 1:33.647, 42 laps
8. Paffett, McLaren, 1:34.924, 77 laps
9. Wolff, Williams, 1:35.093, 89 laps
10. Van der Garde, Caterham, 1:35.155, 65 laps
11. Kyvat, Toro Rosso, 1:35.281, 16 laps
12. Pic, Caterham, 1:35.576, 46 laps
13. Sato, Sauber, 1:35.642, 57 laps
14. Gonzalez, Marussia, 1:36.339, 24 laps
15. Calado, Force India, 1:36.451, 5 laps
16. Bianchi, Marussia, 1:36.744, 39 laps.
Last edited:
She brings PR attention, rather than money.
How many other development drivers are being talked about all over the internet and having articles written about them? I can't even name most of the teams development drivers.
Susie doesn't bring money. She's British, she doesn't have any
. But she brings PR attention and that is worth something. Just like de Silvestro does at Sauber and de Villota did at Marussia.Having her in the team brings 'value' to Williams, even if not directly financial. No matter how you swing it, she's not their because Williams are training her up to be their next star Race driver.
Pay driver? No. But in the team because of reasons other than driving skill? Most definately. Its just you can't throw around the "its because she's a woman" line as freely as you can the "daddy's got a big chequebook" line we see for most 'pay' drivers.
Last edited:
I'd still rather have all the teams have a single set of super sticky super soft 1 lap special tyres.
Then tyre strategy comes in. When do you use them? Some will be forced to use in Q1 to ensure passage to Q2, they then fall down the grid in Q2 and so on. Could mix the grid up a bit more too.
Would also scrap the moronic "start on the tyres you qualified on" which has just got more complicated...
I do think that someone farting into Dragon Dictate could come up with a better and more easily followed rule set.
Then tyre strategy comes in. When do you use them? Some will be forced to use in Q1 to ensure passage to Q2, they then fall down the grid in Q2 and so on. Could mix the grid up a bit more too.
Would also scrap the moronic "start on the tyres you qualified on" which has just got more complicated...
I do think that someone farting into Dragon Dictate could come up with a better and more easily followed rule set.
If the Q3 time set on the additional set of tyres is the fastest time - wtf is the pioint of handing them back to Pirelli? Those are the actual set they should start the race on (and I agree making them scrap this set after one single run is the start of a good idea gone loony)
Also cars starting in 11/12/13 potentially have a MASSIVE advantage over those in 8/9/10 by getting a brand new extra set of tyres just for the race (admittedly allowing for extra time in the pits to change them but even so)
This has me crying with laughter at my desk in the office and getting some strange looks
Also cars starting in 11/12/13 potentially have a MASSIVE advantage over those in 8/9/10 by getting a brand new extra set of tyres just for the race (admittedly allowing for extra time in the pits to change them but even so)
This has me crying with laughter at my desk in the office and getting some strange looks
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 6,056
They're justifying it because qualifying and the race are already tied together by the fact that the one determines start order for the other. Why should pole position go to the driver who was able to fuel their car lightest or burn off a set of tyres for a single lap, rather than the driver who will be fastest in the race?
They qualify in different conditions to starting the race (lower fuel), so this isnt necessarily true (and certainly isnt true comparing the full race distance)
Unless I have mis-remembered, there were some here saying earlier this year that all four parts of the new energy systems (engine, 2* ERS parts & batteries) were to be considered as one part , and if one of those parts failed the whole unit had to be scrapped.
In the new addition of F1 Racing (I think it came out this week) in the A-Z article it clearly states that these parts can be inter-changed by the teams to suit themselves - so while each chassis has 5 of each for the season, they are not tied together as one unit.
In the new addition of F1 Racing (I think it came out this week) in the A-Z article it clearly states that these parts can be inter-changed by the teams to suit themselves - so while each chassis has 5 of each for the season, they are not tied together as one unit.
It's being reported that the 'double points' scheme will only apply to the final race, not the final three as Bernie wanted.
The engine homologation rules haven't been extended/changed either - this can't be good for the teams that use their PUs.
The engine homologation rules haven't been extended/changed either - this can't be good for the teams that use their PUs.
A couple of years ago, as a statistical oddity, starting 18th seemed to work out better than starting anywhere below 9th.
Last edited:
hmm depending how many years ago you are meaning - surely Vettel started and finished 1st in a good number, so Im struggling to work out how thats possilbe lol
(I acknowledge its only a statistical oddity - just out of interest more than anything)
Badly worded, I was thinking of 10 as being above 9. I meant below 9th* (edited to reflect, cheers)
(If you're interested in it: http://hawkii.co.uk/18thman.pdf - 18 was fudged a little to mean the non-Virgin/Caterham/HRT driver who went out in Q1).
Last edited:
The technical regulations consider the MGUK, MGUH and V6 engine as a single 'power unit'. The ES (batteries) are not included in this.
I'd be interested to know how they would be able to swap them around as they are built together in an interconnected unit, rather than being bolt ons to the block like the previous KERS system.
Chnaging the bits would almost certainly break the FIA seals on the units, so there must have been a substantial change to the rules if they can now swap bits about.