Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Formula 1 2012: General Discussion Thread

Options
1…34689…64

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    vectra wrote: »
    Yup.
    Ferrari,
    As far as they are concerned they are the only team that should be allowed run illegal parts
    ie.Moveable floors for one

    Why would they protest against a system they were going to run?


  • Options
    #153
    vectra
    Registered Users Posts: 15,504 ✭✭✭✭vectra


    Gintonious wrote: »
    Why would they protest against a system they were going to run?

    They were not ready to run it.Yes they were preparing a system IF it were passed by the FIA but who do you think queried it in the first place?


  • Options
    #154
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    vectra wrote: »
    They were not ready to run it.Yes they were preparing a system IF it were passed by the FIA but who do you think queried it in the first place?

    Ferrari had a system to run, they asked the FIA about it even though it was given the green light to Renault/Lotus last January. Ferrari were told that the system was legal also.

    General consensus on twitter from people in the know say it was a query from a team who were in "no rush" to get a system of their own to run.

    So you can leave your Ferrari bashing at the door.


  • Options
    #155
    vectra
    Registered Users Posts: 15,504 ✭✭✭✭vectra


    Gintonious wrote: »
    Ferrari had a system to run, they asked the FIA about it even though it was given the green light to Renault/Lotus last January. Ferrari were told that the system was legal also.

    General consensus on twitter from people in the know say it was a query from a team who were in "no rush" to get a system of their own to run.

    So you can leave your Ferrari bashing at the door.


    Sounds to me that Ferrari were in fact on to the FIA about it.
    Why did they not just go ahead and use it when the FIA did in fact pass it already?

    One concept Ferrari might have to work on is a ride-height mechanism that is rumoured to have been pioneered by Lotus. A report in Gazzetta dello Sport suggests that the device stabilises the car under braking by providing a constant ride-height when the front of the car would normally dip. Autosport reports that the mechanism is legal because it is reactive to brake torque and not driver activated, but Domenicali said the team was awaiting clarification from the FIA. "What you are talking about, is more related to having stability under braking," Domenicali said. "It is a system that I know there have been some documents in writing between the FIA and the teams. We are waiting for the final confirmation if this kind of devices will be acceptable or not. But for sure we are looking around these sorts of devices to see if they contribute to a performance. But we need to wait and see what will be the reaction to the FIA on that."


  • Options
    #156
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    vectra wrote: »
    Sounds to me that Ferrari were in fact on to the FIA about it.
    Why did they not just go ahead and use it when the FIA did in fact pass it already?

    One concept Ferrari might have to work on is a ride-height mechanism that is rumoured to have been pioneered by Lotus. A report in Gazzetta dello Sport suggests that the device stabilises the car under braking by providing a constant ride-height when the front of the car would normally dip. Autosport reports that the mechanism is legal because it is reactive to brake torque and not driver activated, but Domenicali said the team was awaiting clarification from the FIA. "What you are talking about, is more related to having stability under braking," Domenicali said. "It is a system that I know there have been some documents in writing between the FIA and the teams. We are waiting for the final confirmation if this kind of devices will be acceptable or not. But for sure we are looking around these sorts of devices to see if they contribute to a performance. But we need to wait and see what will be the reaction to the FIA on that."


    If they did not go to the FIA before Oz, then win the GP, a protest is put in by a team and the result is void.
    The two teams were initially told the device, which aims to keep the car stable during braking, was legal.
    From BBC site.

    That to me sounds like it was not Lotus or indeed Ferrari, as you say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    frostie500
    Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    vectra wrote: »
    Sounds to me that Ferrari were in fact on to the FIA about it.
    Why did they not just go ahead and use it when the FIA did in fact pass it already?

    The reason that Ferrari went to the FIA was to clarify that their system was legal. Anytime that a team is bringing in a new part/system/aero device they query with Charlie Whiting that the part is in fact legal.
    They would have known that the theory of their device conformed to the regs but they needed to ensure that every part of it was completely legal. It's standard procedure to work with the FIA when developing parts so that you dont move down a blind alley and have an illegal part.
    Red Bull said that they were not looking to develop this device so in all fairness it is considerably more likely that they protested the parts and not Ferrari. Why you think that Ferrari would protest a part on the Lotus that they planned to run themselves is beyond me


  • Options
    #158
    vectra
    Registered Users Posts: 15,504 ✭✭✭✭vectra


    frostie500 wrote: »
    The reason that Ferrari went to the FIA was to clarify that their system was legal. Anytime that a team is bringing in a new part/system/aero device they query with Charlie Whiting that the part is in fact legal.
    They would have known that the theory of their device conformed to the regs but they needed to ensure that every part of it was completely legal. It's standard procedure to work with the FIA when developing parts so that you dont move down a blind alley and have an illegal part.
    Red Bull said that they were not looking to develop this device so in all fairness it is considerably more likely that they protested the parts and not Ferrari. Why you think that Ferrari would protest a part on the Lotus that they planned to run themselves is beyond me


    Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the FIA already give Lotus the go ahead so therefore deeming it Legal? If so, then why would Ferrari need to approach the FIA asking about something that was already passed?

    As for Red Bull?
    I don't think they needed it to stay ahead of Renault but there was/is a good chance of Lotus hassling Ferrari so it would be in their interest to keep them behind.


  • Options
    #159
    frostie500
    Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    vectra wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the FIA already give Lotus the go ahead so therefore deeming it Legal? If so, then why would Ferrari need to approach the FIA asking about something that was already passed?
    Ferrari would have approached the FIA to make sure that their development path and process was also within the scope of the regulations. There are many ways of skinning a cat and one teams solution can be very different to anothers even though their interpretation of the rule may be the same.
    As a result teams discuss with the FIA and their technical department whether the development is within the scope of the regulations.
    vectra wrote: »
    As for Red Bull?
    I don't think they needed it to stay ahead of Renault but there was/is a good chance of Lotus hassling Ferrari so it would be in their interest to keep them behind.
    I dont agree with that at all. When in 2011 did Lotus show that they could do anything to challenge at the front of the field or that they would be a serious threat to Ferrari over the course of the season? Why would Ferrari have appealed to the FIA to ban the system as you said in an earlier post while they had already developed the part for their car. Why would they limit the potential of their own car?
    Red Bull on the other hand openly stated that they werent going to go down that development path. I'm not saying Red Bull protested the system but they would be much more likely to have done so than Ferrari.


    Just to get back to the process of developing new parts it is worth noting that the FIA does not actually legislate whether anything is legal, the role of the governing body is to draw up the regulations and assist the teams in any way during the development of their cars.
    The teams have an open channel of discussion with the FIA and go through their development step by step with the FIA. It is however race stewards who determine whether a car actually conforms to the regulations to let them race.


  • Options
    #160
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    vectra wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the FIA already give Lotus the go ahead so therefore deeming it Legal? If so, then why would Ferrari need to approach the FIA asking about something that was already passed?

    As for Red Bull?
    I don't think they needed it to stay ahead of Renault but there was/is a good chance of Lotus hassling Ferrari so it would be in their interest to keep them behind.

    Ferrari aren't running the same system as Lotus, its their version of it and therefore had to be clarified. Thats why Ferrari had to approach the FIA, they aren't the same team as Lotus.

    As for Red Bull not needing to stay ahead of Renault? thats an odd point to make, I would say Red Bull would want to stay ahead of everyone?

    Your other point of Ferrari hassling Lotus to keep them behind them is also quite funny, seen as Ferrari had their own system to run.


  • Options
    #161
    vectra
    Registered Users Posts: 15,504 ✭✭✭✭vectra


    Fair enough..
    I stand corrected :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Jordan 199
    Registered Users Posts: 11,649 ✭✭✭✭Jordan 199


    frostie500 wrote: »
    The reason that Ferrari went to the FIA was to clarify that their system was legal. Anytime that a team is bringing in a new part/system/aero device they query with Charlie Whiting that the part is in fact legal.
    They would have known that the theory of their device conformed to the regs but they needed to ensure that every part of it was completely legal. It's standard procedure to work with the FIA when developing parts so that you dont move down a blind alley and have an illegal part.
    Red Bull said that they were not looking to develop this device so in all fairness it is considerably more likely that they protested the parts and not Ferrari. Why you think that Ferrari would protest a part on the Lotus that they planned to run themselves is beyond me

    Indeed, it's right to seek clarification from the FIA when you come up with a new part whether to see it's legal or not, as the last thing a team would want is to turn up to a race and have a car fail scrutineering because of some illegal part.


  • Options
    #163
    Kevski
    Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Kevski


    Images of what is claimed to be this years Ferrari - Link

    They're certainly gone radical on the sidepods, housing the crash structure in those wings on either side of the cockpit. It'll be interesting to see what kind of performance advantage they'll bring.


  • Options
    #164
    ratedR
    Registered Users Posts: 334 ✭✭ratedR


    Anyone on here thinking of attending a GP this year ?

    I'll almost certainly be going to the Hungarian Grand Prix in July, just need to finalise the last few details. Seems the cheapest European option, and it fits in well around the Euro's and The Olympics.

    Anyone ever been, any advice ? I've been to a GP before, Australia 09, but never one in Europe.


  • Options
    #165
    Kevski
    Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭Kevski


    The new Catherham breaks cover. That is one ugly nose! Aj_6btHCAAAjU_G.jpg:large


  • Options
    #166
    frostie500
    Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    Kevski wrote: »
    The new Catherham breaks cover. That is one ugly nose!

    Sure is but a lot of cars are gonna be pretty ugly this year!


  • Options
    #167
    Jordan 199
    Registered Users Posts: 11,649 ✭✭✭✭Jordan 199


    That nose does look ugly, but if it helps Caterham move in the right direction, so be it.

    Side view pic on Autosport.


  • Options
    #168
    Killinator
    Registered Users Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭Killinator


    Kevski wrote: »
    The new Catherham breaks cover. That is one ugly nose!

    On SSN just this minute they said Catherham had unveiled the new car and it didn't look remotely like that, it just looked like the older car, They even had Heikki sitting next to it talking about it!


  • Options
    #169
    Grim.
    Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Grim.


    Killinator wrote: »
    On SSN just this minute they said Catherham had unveiled the new car and it didn't look remotely like that, it just looked like the older car, They even had Heikki sitting next to it talking about it!

    haven't seen it yet but i have a feeling they were being their normal lazy selves and using stock footage from last years launch


  • Options
    #170
    smurf22
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭smurf22


    Kevski wrote: »
    The new Catherham breaks cover. That is one ugly nose! Aj_6btHCAAAjU_G.jpg:large

    People will say ok its an ugly looking car but if it helps them go faster then thats what they have to do.

    But seriously, for a team thats at the back of the grid and trying to find more sponsorship this could be a huge mistake, sponsers will be put off wanting to put their logo on the side of this horrible looking thing, u think im talking crap but if i was a corperate mutimillionaire id be put off having my logo on it.


  • Options
    #171
    Jordan 199
    Registered Users Posts: 11,649 ✭✭✭✭Jordan 199


    Some info on the 2012 rules and other stuff here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    freestyla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭freestyla


    I don't know if could call ugly something that's so high tech like F1 cars.. I mean it's about speed right?

    Parents told me I used to ignore all Formula looking toy cars when I was kid because apparently I hated open wheels "hanging out of chassis" and was tearing them off :D

    Then this attitude changed after visiting go-kart track for the first time.. Beauty comes with speed :D


  • Options
    #173
    Jordan 199
    Registered Users Posts: 11,649 ✭✭✭✭Jordan 199


    Side pic of the Caterham CT01.

    502998437.jpg

    Most interesting bits about it are the sidepods and the nose.


  • Options
    #174
    lolie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,330 ✭✭✭lolie


    Anyone watch nationwide earlier.

    Featured some guy (forget his name) who makes little miniature models of f1 helmets and drivers to go with the model cars.

    Also a big Ayrton Senna fan, showed short clips of both senna's and ratsenburger's crashes.
    Should be on rte player.


  • Options
    #175
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,470 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Jordan 191 wrote: »
    Side pic of the Caterham CT01.

    Most interesting bits about it are the sidepods and the nose.

    that's a damn ugly rise of the nose at the front wheels.


  • Options
    #176
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    ugh, didn't notice that before. that's gross


  • Options
    #177
    Jordan 199
    Registered Users Posts: 11,649 ✭✭✭✭Jordan 199


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    that's a damn ugly rise of the nose at the front wheels.

    Indeed. The rest of the cars will have something similar as there was a change in the regulations. I posted a link in a post above about the 2012 regulations.

    Stefano Domenicali also said that this years Ferrari will have an ugly bump in it's nose so I'd say it will look like that one on the Caterham.


  • Options
    #178
    Daniel S
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭Daniel S


    Jordan 191 wrote: »
    Indeed. The rest of the cars will have something similar as there was a change in the regulations. I posted a link in a post above about the 2012 regulations.

    Stefano Domenicali also said that this years Ferrari will have an ugly bump in it's nose so I'd say it will look like that one on the Caterham.
    Why do they have to make the cars soooo god damn FUGLY!!!

    BTW, where can we find a summary of the new regulations?

    Nevermind.


  • Options
    #179
    Jordan 199
    Registered Users Posts: 11,649 ✭✭✭✭Jordan 199


    Daniel S wrote: »
    Why do they have to make the cars soooo god damn FUGLY!!!

    Alot to do with the new regulations I suppose. I don't like how the Caterham looks in the photo I attached, especially with those sidepods and that awful nose.


  • Options
    #180
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users Posts: 4,502 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    They could be worse, they could be the 2012 IndyCars.
    image.png




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Should be a busy week with some new cars on the blocks, excellent.


Advertisement