Formula 1 2015: General Discussion Thread

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Max Verstappen passed his driving test today as he turned 18. The article mentined that he would now be allowed to drink the champagne if he ever makes it on the podium. It's so strange that he would be allowed to drive a Torro Rosso but not allowed to drink the champagne if he drove it particularly well.

is it not 16 in holland and a lot of other countries anyway, why is 18 the rules is f1?

Gintonious wrote: »

"improving emissions" should NEVER be associated with F1, ever.

it should, just not on the track. By all means invest in reducing the ridiculous amount of kit and personnel flown / ferried and driven all over the world. Far far bigger impacts available here then cars on the track.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

is it not 16 in holland and a lot of other countries anyway, why is 18 the rules is f1?

Because at the rate things were going there would have been 14 year olds in the cars soon!

Gintonious wrote:

"improving emissions" should NEVER be associated with F1, ever.

I bet people said the same thing about seat belts

I totally disagree. Doing more with less fuel is a big part of the future of car manufacturing. It's completely at home in F1.

Ghost Train wrote:

But I don't think the blame for the current state of f1 can be blamed solely on the engines.

Why do F1 fans spend so much time whinging about the current state of racing? I started following the sport in 98 and it has been a consistent part of the coverage. Every year people don't like the lookof the new cars. But so many people love the cars from 5-10 years ago.

Is there a myth out there that in the 70s and 80s there was nothing but balls out racing where anyone could win and there were no such thing as backmarkers? Nobody ever ran away with a title back then. No mechanical failures either I suppose. It's like when Bill O Reily talks about the good old days of America. A time when everyone in the neighborhood was white and Christian and wives didn't mind being slapped around and non - whites enjoyed doing the menial jobs.

Does it ever occur to the whingers that they are looking at highlights of that era? The point is that there are 2 weeks between races and the news sites need to say something. Whinging is better for them than saying ' nothing to report' or 'we don't have enough information to do anything other than speculate'.

I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy watching F1.

HighLine wrote:

I read a comment on here one day that "noise is wasted energy". Let the planet savers fook off and watch Formula E.

Maybe people who want noise should fook off and watch an air show

mickdw wrote:

F1 don't use abs or auto boxes.

No they don't use it now. They did developed the tech and used it in the past. It trickled down to road cars which is being taken for granted in the post I quoted

Manor signed a deal for Mercedes engines, and also transmission and suspension from Williams

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/34410873

Andrew76 wrote: »

Surprised he stayed or surprised McLaren retained him?

He's nothing to lose by staying the extra year and gets an extra $5m in his pocket. Would be nice to see them fighting closer to the front next year but that would be some turn around if it happens.

Delighted.
He can now go into next year. If car is as expected off the pace, he can announce his retirement early on and go out in style celebrating his last Silverstone, monaco etc

Jordan 191 wrote:

The different types of rear wing Mercedes are using this year:

Lovely picture. Great detail in the monkey seat from high to low down force circuits. There's a tiny curve in the lower beam of the wing on the right (presumably the Monza wing)

On a related point, have Ferrari sorted out their wind tunnel? They were bringing aero parts which just weren't working because something in the wind tunnels was wrong. They seem to have gotten their act together this year though.

In other motorsport related news, haha. Jaime Alguersari has retired at the age of 25 from motorsports, to focus on his career in music.

I find that unbelievable that he has retired, he showed great promise in his time in F1, and RB gave him the elbow with very little reason or notice.

Doing more with less is the way everything is going at the moment. The 70s and 80s were all about gas guzzling, and waste was seen as a sign of affluence. F1 was leading the way back then. Now is a new era and F1 will either keep up, lead the way or become part of the past. I know what I want it to do.

I am in the sam boat as you then. F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsports, and I guess it still is. The cars are as complex as ever, but I think F1 has lost its way in relation to its direction. There is a push for it to be more eco friendly so they introduce new PU's, but then development is severely limited. Why have F1 lead the way for road cars when they can't develop them openly? It's a bit of a catch 22.

Yeah and Leonardo de Vinci invented the helicopter so I suppose the Vietnam War had no influence on helicopter technology either.

You've lost me on this one. But ill make a guess that you are implying that F1 perfected ABS or made it better or something to that direction? ABS was developed outside of F1 and hasn't been used in F1 for over 20 years now, so not sure what you're getting at.

No influence? Are you playing devil's advocate here or do you actually think that's true? Do you think it's just coincidence that companies who make road cars engines and engine technology are the ones who also make F1 power units?

If there was no relationship between F1 engine tech and road car engine tech, why on earth would they bother? Why wouldn't Microsoft also produce F1 engines? Or any other company who has the resources and could use the PR?

Planting trees and all that guff is just PR. Probably aimed at people who can't don't connect the dots between F1 technology development and road car development.

Your missing the point here, the turbo charged engine was around before it was used in F1 or motorsports. Its not an F1 exclusive. Do you honestly think that the turbos used in F1 today, or back in the 70's/80's would be useful in a car on the road?

I have never said that there was no relationship, I was pointing out that the relationship is so disconnected that to the average consumer that the only type of F1 tech that ends up in a road car is in a car with a massive price tag.

Connecting the dots as you put it, between the tech in F1 and road cars or consumer products shows up things like the LaFerrari, McLaren road cars with double clutch gear boxes, road bikes used in the Tour DeFrance that weigh a kilo or so. Seeing a pattern here? The price.

If anything at all is happening, its making F1 cars more like road cars than making road cars like F1 cars.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The technology isn't the problem there, it's the testing ban as you rightly identified. It's the teams at the top that won't allow them to bring in cost caps that would allow real competition. Now we have a situation where they have to be seen to reduce costs (testing ban) but not in such a way that would allow real competition and risk the smaller teams being on par. One team on the grid is actually allowed to veto any sporting decision. They get to make the rules, they get money off the top before the pot is divided between the rest of the teams. That's a major impediment to true competition. The top teams get to save money on testing but still maintain their position at the top of the sport.

New engine technology is always expensive when its novel and innovative. without new technology, what would be the point?

I think you have completely missed the point that F1 was great in the 70s and 80s because it was leading the cultural charge. At that time the culture demanded bigger, noisier everything, engines included. Now the demand is for smaller, more efficient, clever everything, engines included. F1 is only relevant if it leads the technological charge of its day. Otherwise it would be some kind of novelty legacy event which would never attract new viewers and would fade into obscurity as it bares less and less relevance to the world.



I was saying that F1 has certainly improved those technologies. They take time to trickle down to road cars in usable form but they do trickle down.



The tech doesn't need to be fitted to road cars immediately to be relevant. Technological evolution is a slow process but it has to be developed



They spend millions to develop technology, then they make a cog or a wigit which is lighter, faster, more durable, more functional, more heat resistant, more pliable, more predictable wear rate. Then they find a way to make it more cheaply to the point that they can mass produce them and make them in all shapes and sizes and for completely unrelated purposes. That's technology and that's what F1 does better than any other sport and the developers get to offset the cost of development by advertising their products to a global audience.

Do you really think road bikes would be as technologically advanced without other fields also advancing tech which trickles down to them? The bike that weighs a kilo is expensive but they will find a way to balance weight with durability and sell you that bike and over time that tech becomes common place. It has to be developed for the first time at some point.

War and motor racing. That's how a lot of tech is developed.

And breath... I don't know about you but I feel much better after that rant.
Thanks

Ill reply to this at some point. I do love a good discussion.

I LOVE YOU MAN!!!!!!!:P

The technology isn't the problem there, it's the testing ban as you rightly identified. It's the teams at the top that won't allow them to bring in cost caps that would allow real competition. Now we have a situation where they have to be seen to reduce costs (testing ban) but not in such a way that would allow real competition and risk the smaller teams being on par. One team on the grid is actually allowed to veto any sporting decision. They get to make the rules, they get money off the top before the pot is divided between the rest of the teams. That's a major impediment to true competition. The top teams get to save money on testing but still maintain their position at the top of the sport.

New engine technology is always expensive when its novel and innovative. without new technology, what would be the point?

I think you have completely missed the point that F1 was great in the 70s and 80s because it was leading the cultural charge. At that time the culture demanded bigger, noisier everything, engines included. Now the demand is for smaller, more efficient, clever everything, engines included. F1 is only relevant if it leads the technological charge of its day. Otherwise it would be some kind of novelty legacy event which would never attract new viewers and would fade into obscurity as it bares less and less relevance to the world.

In terms of leading the technical charge, for the current crop of hybrid tech I think F1 is late to the party, and falls behind the LMP1 cars. I agree that new tech is expensive, and perhaps the manner in which the FIA implemented the rue change was too drastic, I would argue that it was. I think they were onto something with KERS, and how that played a role with gathering the energy that the V8's and the braking brought, which is similar to what a hybrid road car does like a Prius or a Volt.

Im also full on board with the issues that F1 has in running itself. The veto that Ferrari have isn't fair on other teams and this is what creates the imbalance that F1 has now. The PU's are just one of the issues that F1 has right now, it trickles down from there.

I'm would not agree with the bolded part fully. F1 does need to lead a charge to a degree but I don't think it would fade into obscurity. Again I emphasis the gulf between F1 cars/tech to road cars directly. Carbon fibre road cars are not the norm, nor are double clutch seamless gearboxes, or KERS packages that respond in the same way that F1's do, or turbos that spin at 120,000 RPM. What little parts of F1 tech that does trickle down to the consumer is sparse at best or incredibly expensive.

So while it might seem like manufacturers use F1 as some sort of fast forwarding its development for the average Joe on the street, its really not the case as the money they spend on F1 could be better spent on actual developing their true road car RnD budgets. The teams that do benefit more are McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes who are in that bracket of high class vehicles to the consumer. Renault pushed more for these rules when they were being penned, as it related to their consumer base more, and it hasn't really worked out for them. Their very public spat with RB shows this, but they were able to use their success during the V10 and V8 era to sell more cars, but the tech from their F1 team isn't on a Clio or Megan.

I was saying that F1 has certainly improved those technologies. They take time to trickle down to road cars in usable form but they do trickle down.


The tech doesn't need to be fitted to road cars immediately to be relevant. Technological evolution is a slow process but it has to be developed

Agreed. Tech does need a timeline for it to fully develop, and some of the tech that F1 has improved has eventually found itself onto some road cars. But how long does this take and at what cost overall? I know Ferrari and McLaren use their tech hands on in the P1 and the LaFerrari, but again, we're talking hypercars here, not even supercars.

They spend millions to develop technology, then they make a cog or a wigit which is lighter, faster, more durable, more functional, more heat resistant, more pliable, more predictable wear rate. Then they find a way to make it more cheaply to the point that they can mass produce them and make them in all shapes and sizes and for completely unrelated purposes. That's technology and that's what F1 does better than any other sport and the developers get to offset the cost of development by advertising their products to a global audience.

Do you really think road bikes would be as technologically advanced without other fields also advancing tech which trickles down to them? The bike that weighs a kilo is expensive but they will find a way to balance weight with durability and sell you that bike and over time that tech becomes common place. It has to be developed for the first time at some point.

I think what I can see and gather on this, and that we might agree on, is that F1 can act as a catalyst for technology over all, in the same way NASA and Lockheed Martin do. Take the flappy paddle/semi-automatic/double clutch gearbox as an example. That tech that they used then and how it is now in F1, only appears in really high end cars of today. There are more affordable cars that have paddle shift and are semi automatic, but I think to say that they are F1-tech derived is like saying that my microwave at home is derived from a nuclear reactor.

War and motor racing. That's how a lot of tech is developed.

And breath... I don't know about you but I feel much better after that rant.
Thanks

I hope this hasn't taken a personal tone, thats not my intention.

After my rant I can confirm I feel much better also.

I think thats part of the deal, they also have a technical partnership with Williams now.

Manor could really be a team to watch next year.

http://www.infiniti-redbullracing.com/video/f1-meets-le-mans-sebastien-buemi

Buemi ripping around the short LeMans track. God F1 used to sounds great.

True, I still think Merc will be out in the distance for a long time yet.

flazio wrote: »

Wonder if they are interested in reviving the French Grand Prix?

I always wondered why they never used LeMans for it. I don't mean the full track, that would be too big, but the track that MotoGP uses at least. Or an alteration of that as well.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

On a related point, have Ferrari sorted out their wind tunnel? They were bringing aero parts which just weren't working because something in the wind tunnels was wrong. They seem to have gotten their act together this year though.

They have it sorted now. They used the Toyota wind tunnel in Cologne while work was carried out on the wind tunnel in Maranello.

I always enjoyed the races from Magny Cours but as we all know it's business not quality of races that decides whether a track stats on the calander or not, I mean Baku? WTF?

If I recall correctly the Magny Cours management had a falling out with Bernie and the French laws banning tobacco advertising than the rest of Europe at the time. As a result there was no political impetus either within F1 or France to find an alternative venue for the French GP and Germany got a second GP.

tigerboon wrote: »

It's too short. It's also a fairly boring circuit as it wouldn't include most of the famous Le Mans landmarks. They would need to develop a new circuit.

Essentially the French version of the Nurbergring.