Formula 1 2012: General Discussion Thread

Frank Bullitt · 22-01-2012 6:13pm

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?

vectra · 22-01-2012 7:14pm

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?

Frank Bullitt · 22-01-2012 7:24pm

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.

vectra · 22-01-2012 8:00pm

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."

Frank Bullitt · 22-01-2012 8:19pm

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?

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.

frostie500 · 23-01-2012 8:19am

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

vectra · 23-01-2012 10:20am

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.

frostie500 · 23-01-2012 10:44am

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.

Frank Bullitt · 23-01-2012 10:51am

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.

vectra · 23-01-2012 2:06pm

Fair enough..
I stand corrected :P

Jordan 199 · 23-01-2012 5:01pm

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.

Kevski · 24-01-2012 2:41pm

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.

ratedR · 24-01-2012 10:18pm

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.

Kevski · 25-01-2012 12:38pm

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

frostie500 · 25-01-2012 12:41pm

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!

Jordan 199 · 25-01-2012 2:35pm

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

Side view pic on Autosport.

Killinator · 25-01-2012 8:08pm

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!

Grim. · 25-01-2012 9:50pm

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

smurf22 · 26-01-2012 12:24am

Kevski wrote: »

The new Catherham breaks cover. That is one ugly nose!

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.

Jordan 199 · 26-01-2012 1:53am

Some info on the 2012 rules and other stuff here.

freestyla · 26-01-2012 9:48am

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

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

Jordan 199 · 27-01-2012 8:19pm

Side pic of the Caterham CT01.

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

lolie · 28-01-2012 1:14am

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.

Cookie_Monster · 28-01-2012 10:09pm

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.

Sheeps · 28-01-2012 10:24pm

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

Jordan 199 · 28-01-2012 10:39pm

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.

Daniel S · 29-01-2012 7:23pm

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.

Jordan 199 · 29-01-2012 10:35pm

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.

TheChrisD · 29-01-2012 10:55pm

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

Frank Bullitt · 29-01-2012 10:59pm

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

Jordan 199 · 29-01-2012 11:23pm

Gintonious wrote: »

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

Indeed. McLaren on Wednesday, Ferrari and Force India on Friday, and Lotus next Sunday.

I can't wait to see what the McLaren & Ferrari will look like. Their cars should be interesting as they are going down the radical route.

Daniel S · 29-01-2012 11:26pm

TheChrisD wrote: »

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

Nah, the Indy cars are better imo. I wish we could have the 2006/7 cars again, they looked awesome!

ottostreet · 31-01-2012 7:31pm

Nearly there now...McLaren launch tomorrow don't they?

Anyone see that Autosport article that was pulled shortly afterwards? Basically saying McLaren expect to have to battle to make sure their car is counted as legal?

amacachi · 31-01-2012 7:40pm

Daniel S wrote: »

Nah, the Indy cars are better imo. I wish we could have the 2006/7 cars again, they looked awesome!

They're just the old car with extra bodywork on the back, looks awful.

Jordan 199 · 31-01-2012 8:26pm

ottostreet wrote: »

Nearly there now...McLaren launch tomorrow don't they?

Anyone see that Autosport article that was pulled shortly afterwards? Basically saying McLaren expect to have to battle to make sure their car is counted as legal?

Article is here.

The last two paragraphs are very interesting...

decisions · 31-01-2012 8:41pm

I'm liking the sound of the McLaren, it being innovative. But I think it highlights a point: if a team come up with something new and quick it should not be up to other teams to complain and kick up a fuss, the fia should be forced to make a final decision before the cars are launched.

Those last 2 paragraphs are intresting. But I'm still convinced that that red bull had some serious trickery going on last season.

amacachi · 31-01-2012 8:52pm

Jordan 191 wrote: »

Article is here.

The last two paragraphs are very interesting...

He only outscored Button by 15 points over the last 9 races, not as bad as they're making out. :pac: I've said before and I'll keep on saying it, the RB had a good second or more in the bag that Webber didn't work out all season and Vettel only used for a lap or two in most races. Whether is engine settings or gearbox settings that are a bit on the edge I don't know but he often would be 1-2 seconds a lap quicker at the start of the race and dial it back as the stint continued. Often he had no answer later when under pressure suggesting sometimes the option wasn't available for one reason or another.

decisions · 01-02-2012 6:28pm

Edit *putting photos in launch thread*

hotwhiskey · 01-02-2012 7:46pm

Autosport

Snow at Fiorano may hinder first run of new Ferrari F1 car

Ferrari is likely to be forced to cancel a planned shakedown of its new car at Fiorano later this week because of snow at Maranello. The Italian team had intended to run its new car for filming purposes straight after its official launch on Friday morning.
However, wintry conditions have left the outfit's Fiorano circuit covered in snow - which is unlikely to melt over the new few days.
A statement on Ferrari's official website, which confirmed the launch was still going ahead as planned, said: "It now looks as though there is little chance of carrying out the planned promotional filming featuring action shots of the car at the Fiorano track.
"Even if the snow was to stop, it's hard to imagine that the escape roads could be cleared of their blanket of snow which is gradually building up.

vectra · 01-02-2012 9:42pm

decisions wrote: »

http://media.t3.com/img/resized/mc/xl_McLaren_MP427_4_624.jpg

Gonna sound dumb here but is that the exhaust poking out of the little pod there?
I though the outlets had to out the rear of the car?

Cookie_Monster · 01-02-2012 10:20pm

vectra wrote: »

Gonna sound dumb here but is that the exhaust poking out of the little pod there?
I though the outlets had to out the rear of the car?

yes it is and the rules now state they must exit on the top surface rather than rear.

vectra · 02-02-2012 1:56am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yes it is and the rules now state they must exit on the top surface rather than rear.

Ah,
Missed out on that.
Cheers

decisions · 03-02-2012 12:04pm

Edit *putting photos in launch thread*

decisions · 03-02-2012 12:11pm

the lump thing on the nose is fugly

vectra · 03-02-2012 2:52pm

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Guy can we stop putting photos of the new cars in this thread we have a seperate thread dedicated for this! I have edited this thread.

Any more posts of launch cars in here will result in a warning

Edited my reply to a pic and changed the img to url..

-gilly-09- · 03-02-2012 4:59pm

HRT must be having a laugh. Karthikeyan wasnt up to the cut this time last year, hes not likely to have impoved much in the last 12 months. Its only a matter of time before they want rid agian. Im just presuming nothing better has arose and another driver can’t match his sponsership at the moment and they are waiting for a better opportunity to arise during the season.

amacachi · 03-02-2012 5:01pm

Surely Chandhok would've been a better bet?

Top Dog · 03-02-2012 5:34pm

amacachi wrote: »

Surely Chandhok would've been a better bet?

But could he have brought the same amount of money? Its got feck all to do with skill - its all about the dollars/euros/etc

amacachi · 03-02-2012 5:57pm

Top Dog wrote: »

But could he have brought the same amount of money? Its got feck all to do with skill - its all about the dollars/euros/etc

True but surely the sponsors (I may be assuming mistakenly) are mainly Indian and they could invest in a driver who has a bit younger and might achieve something over his career, Karthekayen is 35 and has had his chance a coupla times already.

Myrddin · 03-02-2012 6:34pm

amacachi wrote: »

Surely Chandhok would've been a better bet?

My heart goes out to Chandok. What a sound fellow he seems, & he's very engaging to listen to also. Whenever he gets a drive, he seems to be up against it be it with weather or some other condition.

Formula 1 2012: General Discussion Thread

Comments