| Wr4wrX | 04-06-2007 06:46 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;17632774]On a completely unrelated note, Puma is having a 50% off sale on everything in the store. I got a Ferrari jacket for 70 and then a pair of Futurecat shoes for 35.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the tip, Stu! I only had the chance to quickly browse the Puma store and none of the prices looked slashed. Do they take the discount at checkout?
Thanks for the tip, Stu! I only had the chance to quickly browse the Puma store and none of the prices looked slashed. Do they take the discount at checkout?
| StuBeck | 04-06-2007 10:53 PM |
Yeah, they take it at the checkout. It can't be anything which is on clearence though. The jacket was 70 and the shoes were 70, but they knocked the price of the shoes down to 35.
| KAX | 04-06-2007 10:58 PM |
is that at the outlet or a normal puma store?
| StuBeck | 04-06-2007 11:53 PM |
It was at an outlet, sorry for finally tellin gyou all the info in three posts. It might be the same for the normal ones, but we don't have any around here.
I know this makes me REALLY slow, but I just realized that almost half the cars are basically unsponsored. Red Bull and STR are just running RBR colors, Honda's a hippy, and Ferrari is just red. Pretty cool.
I can't wait till the race tomorrow.
I know this makes me REALLY slow, but I just realized that almost half the cars are basically unsponsored. Red Bull and STR are just running RBR colors, Honda's a hippy, and Ferrari is just red. Pretty cool.
I can't wait till the race tomorrow.
| wvallwheeldrive | 04-06-2007 11:59 PM |
[quote=StuBeck;17635903]It was at an outlet, sorry for finally tellin gyou all the info in three posts. It might be the same for the normal ones, but we don't have any around here.
I know this makes me REALLY slow, but I just realized that almost half the cars are basically unsponsored. Red Bull and STR are just running RBR colors, Honda's a hippy, and Ferrari is just red. Pretty cool.
I can't wait till the race tomorrow.[/quote]
Ferrari is still sponsored by Marboro they just can't put it on the car
I know this makes me REALLY slow, but I just realized that almost half the cars are basically unsponsored. Red Bull and STR are just running RBR colors, Honda's a hippy, and Ferrari is just red. Pretty cool.
I can't wait till the race tomorrow.[/quote]
Ferrari is still sponsored by Marboro they just can't put it on the car
| meebs | 04-07-2007 08:02 PM |
I just realized Kimi wears his watch on his right hand... is he left handed?
| StuBeck | 04-07-2007 09:09 PM |
[QUOTE=wvallwheeldrive;17635940]Ferrari is still sponsored by Marboro they just can't put it on the car[/QUOTE]
I know. Its just not on the car [I]right now[/I] which was my point.
I know. Its just not on the car [I]right now[/I] which was my point.
| KAX | 04-08-2007 03:01 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;17642686]I know. Its just not on the car [I]right now[/I] which was my point.[/QUOTE]
its kinda wierd. did they change the rules to completely ban tobacco ads in F1 or are they still on the rule where they can only put their name on one team in any racing? because peugeot isnt in the WRC anymore so they cant have their name on the car.
its kinda wierd. did they change the rules to completely ban tobacco ads in F1 or are they still on the rule where they can only put their name on one team in any racing? because peugeot isnt in the WRC anymore so they cant have their name on the car.
| ptclaus98 | 04-08-2007 09:28 PM |
[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/BAR-HONDA-F1-TEAM-RACING-JACKET-COOL-XXL_W0QQitemZ190100400286QQihZ009QQcategoryZ57990QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem[/url]
I think Matt would like this.
I think Matt would like this.
| Ferg | 04-08-2007 10:31 PM |
The RB to Honda rumor has surfaced again.
[QUOTE][B][U]Exclusive: Honda in talks with Ross Brawn
[/U][/B]
By Jonathan Noble Sunday, April 8th 2007, 18:33 GMT
Honda Racing boss Nick Fry is in talks with Ross Brawn in a bid to convince Ferrari's former technical director to join the Japanese manufacturer, autosport.com can reveal.
On the back of Honda's disastrous start to their 2007 campaign, with the RA107 suffering from major aerodynamic problems, Fry is targeting Brawn as a key appointment to resurrect his team's fortunes in the long term.
Following the departure of then technical director Geoff Willis in the middle of last year, Honda Racing have lacked leadership from someone with extensive F1 design experience. Senior technical director Shuhei Nakamoto's background is in engine design and motorbike racing.
Brawn is currently on a sabbatical from Ferrari and, although he has promised to speak to the Maranello outfit before deciding his future, sources have revealed that the Briton has no contractual obligation to rejoin his old team.
That means Brawn is free to join any outfit from the start of 2008 and, it is understood, the Briton has expressed an interest in joining Honda. It is not clear, though, just how advanced the talks with the Brackley-based team have become.
Brawn has made no secret of the fact that he eventually wants to return to Britain, having worked at Ferrari since 1996, and the challenge of turning Honda into world championship contenders would certainly provide a suitable enough challenge to stimulate him.
Autosport.com understands that the discussions between Brawn and Fry began without the pre-approval of Honda's senior management, as Fry moved unilaterally in a bid to convince Brawn on a personal level.
When asked by autosport.com, Fry refused to confirm that talks were going on, but he fell short of denying it. He said: "I've got no comment to make on that."
However, Fry did later admit that the addition of a leading technical figure like Brawn would be a huge boost to his team.
"I think every team would benefit from Ross Brawn," he said. "Whether it be us or others, but I am sure Ross has some sort of arrangement with Ferrari, so we will see."
Brawn is clearly a big attraction for any F1 team, having guided Ferrari to world championship success from 2000 to 2004.
Despite taking a sabbatical this year, it is widely believed that Brawn does want to return to F1 - with his key interest likely to be in becoming team boss at Ferrari.
In the shorter term, Honda Racing are planning to introduce a new car for the Canadian Grand Prix in a bid to turnaround their season.
Although the new car will not officially be designated a B-spec, team insiders have told autosport.com that it will likely be a complete revamp of the RA107 concept.
Work on the new car began after pre-season testing in Bahrain when the team first realised the difficulties they were in.
Fry would not confirm specific details of what was planned, but admitted that major upgrades were in the pipeline for Montreal.
When asked by autosport.com how new the car would be, he said: "That's to be established at the moment.
"We are working on a fairly extensive array of improvements but, at the moment, a lot of those are being worked on in the wind tunnel.
"Clearly there is a limit in what you can do before Canada and we will do the maximum amount, but it will only be if it works.
"There is no point in changing things for the sake of it. We need to understand why we have the problems we do and make sure they are being properly addressed.
"Changing bits of the car just to make ourselves feel good is not being very constructive, so there is a lot of work to be done."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B][U]Exclusive: Honda in talks with Ross Brawn
[/U][/B]
By Jonathan Noble Sunday, April 8th 2007, 18:33 GMT
Honda Racing boss Nick Fry is in talks with Ross Brawn in a bid to convince Ferrari's former technical director to join the Japanese manufacturer, autosport.com can reveal.
On the back of Honda's disastrous start to their 2007 campaign, with the RA107 suffering from major aerodynamic problems, Fry is targeting Brawn as a key appointment to resurrect his team's fortunes in the long term.
Following the departure of then technical director Geoff Willis in the middle of last year, Honda Racing have lacked leadership from someone with extensive F1 design experience. Senior technical director Shuhei Nakamoto's background is in engine design and motorbike racing.
Brawn is currently on a sabbatical from Ferrari and, although he has promised to speak to the Maranello outfit before deciding his future, sources have revealed that the Briton has no contractual obligation to rejoin his old team.
That means Brawn is free to join any outfit from the start of 2008 and, it is understood, the Briton has expressed an interest in joining Honda. It is not clear, though, just how advanced the talks with the Brackley-based team have become.
Brawn has made no secret of the fact that he eventually wants to return to Britain, having worked at Ferrari since 1996, and the challenge of turning Honda into world championship contenders would certainly provide a suitable enough challenge to stimulate him.
Autosport.com understands that the discussions between Brawn and Fry began without the pre-approval of Honda's senior management, as Fry moved unilaterally in a bid to convince Brawn on a personal level.
When asked by autosport.com, Fry refused to confirm that talks were going on, but he fell short of denying it. He said: "I've got no comment to make on that."
However, Fry did later admit that the addition of a leading technical figure like Brawn would be a huge boost to his team.
"I think every team would benefit from Ross Brawn," he said. "Whether it be us or others, but I am sure Ross has some sort of arrangement with Ferrari, so we will see."
Brawn is clearly a big attraction for any F1 team, having guided Ferrari to world championship success from 2000 to 2004.
Despite taking a sabbatical this year, it is widely believed that Brawn does want to return to F1 - with his key interest likely to be in becoming team boss at Ferrari.
In the shorter term, Honda Racing are planning to introduce a new car for the Canadian Grand Prix in a bid to turnaround their season.
Although the new car will not officially be designated a B-spec, team insiders have told autosport.com that it will likely be a complete revamp of the RA107 concept.
Work on the new car began after pre-season testing in Bahrain when the team first realised the difficulties they were in.
Fry would not confirm specific details of what was planned, but admitted that major upgrades were in the pipeline for Montreal.
When asked by autosport.com how new the car would be, he said: "That's to be established at the moment.
"We are working on a fairly extensive array of improvements but, at the moment, a lot of those are being worked on in the wind tunnel.
"Clearly there is a limit in what you can do before Canada and we will do the maximum amount, but it will only be if it works.
"There is no point in changing things for the sake of it. We need to understand why we have the problems we do and make sure they are being properly addressed.
"Changing bits of the car just to make ourselves feel good is not being very constructive, so there is a lot of work to be done."[/QUOTE]
| thejaredhuang | 04-08-2007 10:35 PM |
Changing tactics isn't going to help much, they need a faster car.
Good job Hamilton; if Alonso wasn't on MM I'd be rooting for you.
Good job Hamilton; if Alonso wasn't on MM I'd be rooting for you.
| Ferg | 04-08-2007 10:45 PM |
Brawn isn't just a tactician...he's also an extremely talented car designer.
As far as technical directors go there isn't a better all around guy to put in charge of an F1 team.
As far as technical directors go there isn't a better all around guy to put in charge of an F1 team.
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 04-08-2007 10:57 PM |
Agreed, I think that position is just what they need.
| wvallwheeldrive | 04-08-2007 11:22 PM |
i think Honda gave SA the wrong car, they gave them this years car instead of last years
| thejaredhuang | 04-09-2007 12:50 AM |
[QUOTE=Ferg;17651904]Brawn isn't just a tactician...he's also an extremely talented car designer.
As far as technical directors go there isn't a better all around guy to put in charge of an F1 team.[/QUOTE]
Didn't know that, thanks.
As far as technical directors go there isn't a better all around guy to put in charge of an F1 team.[/QUOTE]
Didn't know that, thanks.
| StuBeck | 04-09-2007 02:11 AM |
[QUOTE=KAX;17645031]its kinda wierd. did they change the rules to completely ban tobacco ads in F1 or are they still on the rule where they can only put their name on one team in any racing? because peugeot isnt in the WRC anymore so they cant have their name on the car.[/QUOTE]
The advertising in only one area was only in the US. I don't know of what areas they can advertise in, but Philip Morris thinks they can get more people to remember their car by having the white bars then getting out.
The advertising in only one area was only in the US. I don't know of what areas they can advertise in, but Philip Morris thinks they can get more people to remember their car by having the white bars then getting out.
| ecurry | 04-09-2007 05:20 PM |
Has anyone seen that video on youtube of kimi training? He is balancing on one of those exercise balls and playing catch with a medicine ball.
| KAX | 04-09-2007 06:26 PM |
i have not, do you have a link to it?
| sirfrankwilliams | 04-09-2007 06:35 PM |
maybe this is it
[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q-9R-_CLs[/url]
[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q-9R-_CLs[/url]
| KAX | 04-09-2007 07:09 PM |
i think he meant this one
[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ww5XDbBvTFs&mode=related&search=[/url]
[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ww5XDbBvTFs&mode=related&search=[/url]
| Wr4wrX | 04-13-2007 03:20 AM |
I was digging through some old favorite F1 links and stumbled on this video of when Honda was still B.A.R:
[url]http://www.hondaracingf1.com/php/audiovideo_popup.php?audiovideo_id=1002&type=video&size=2[/url]
Does anybody recognize the song at the end? It may be that the tune was commissioned for this clip, but perhaps somebody's heard it elsewhere.
[url]http://www.hondaracingf1.com/php/audiovideo_popup.php?audiovideo_id=1002&type=video&size=2[/url]
Does anybody recognize the song at the end? It may be that the tune was commissioned for this clip, but perhaps somebody's heard it elsewhere.
| StuBeck | 04-13-2007 07:30 AM |
I don't think they use a medicine ball,but one of the fitness books I have talks about getting on a bouncy ball and throwing a tennis ball. I personally don't have the balance required. In the second clip Kimi riding up that small hill in his bike and almost going sideways was pretty nuts.
| Ferg | 04-13-2007 08:47 PM |
Oh yeah, almsot forgot about that whole "Prodrive joining F1 deal..."
[QUOTE][B]Q & A with Prodrive's David Richards
[/B]
By Jonathan Noble Friday, April 13th 2007, 16:11 GMT
[B]Q. What is the latest with Prodrive's Formula One plans?
[/B]
David Richards: Well, we are well down the line with most of it. I must admit that my eye has been off the ball on the Aston Martin project over the last three months. So consequently that is why you have not heard so much about it, or it has not been so obvious. But we are perfectly on target.
[B]Q. Regarding your talks about a chassis supplier, are there still three main options?[/B]
DR: There are options, but we are pretty well agreed what it is going to be.
[B]Q. Is it McLaren?
[/B]
DR: I am obviously not going to say anything, but I hope to be in a position by the summer, probably at the British Grand Prix, to make a full announcement. That will include sponsors, and even drivers, by then.
[B]Q. What is the aim of the visit here?
[/B]
DR: I have been in Kuwait visiting our investors for Aston Martin. We are in the Gulf visiting friends so we thought we would come down here at the same time.
[B]Q. Is there much synergy between Aston Martin and Formula One?
[/B]
DR: In the long term there might be, but certainly not in the immediate future. The immediate future is Aston Martin in sportscar racing. We have got a plan for that now for this year, and we are just working out now what we are going to do for the next two or three years on the sportscar side of things. But who knows? Five years down the line it might be appropriate.
[B]
Q. Are you here to talk with drivers at all?[/B]
DR: No. We already have got plans about that. But it is not here. This visit is purely social.
[B]Q. Are there any concerns about the customer car issue, with Frank Williams suggesting that customer cars may not be allowed under the 2008 Concorde Agreement?[/B]
DR: I have made it very clear from the outset, in all the correspondence with both Max and Bernie last year, that that was the premise we will be entering under. I am reassured that that will still be the case.
[B]Q. So everything is on course and you are quite comfortable with where you are going?[/B]
DR: I am very comfortable about it.
[B]Q. So the deal is for a supply of both chassis and engines for next year?
[/B]
DR: Yes. You would not shop around to do separate deals. It was one of the things that we originally looked at, but at the end of the day that doesn't seem to make sense.
[B]Q. Are you looking for more experienced F1 drivers?
[/B]
DR: I don't think we will get into the detail of which drivers are good and which drivers are bad. If you look at everything we have done in the past, what you have got to look at is how we have behaved in previous sports and what we tend to do. And we tend to choose a more established driver and also a young up-and-coming hotshot. And we will work with that formula.
[B]Q. Is it annoying for you there is speculation that the entry to F1 could be bought by another team?
[/B]
DR: It cannot be bought by another team. That is a fact.
[B]Q. So it is not for sale then[/B]?
DR: No, it is not for sale and it has never been for sale. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Q & A with Prodrive's David Richards
[/B]
By Jonathan Noble Friday, April 13th 2007, 16:11 GMT
[B]Q. What is the latest with Prodrive's Formula One plans?
[/B]
David Richards: Well, we are well down the line with most of it. I must admit that my eye has been off the ball on the Aston Martin project over the last three months. So consequently that is why you have not heard so much about it, or it has not been so obvious. But we are perfectly on target.
[B]Q. Regarding your talks about a chassis supplier, are there still three main options?[/B]
DR: There are options, but we are pretty well agreed what it is going to be.
[B]Q. Is it McLaren?
[/B]
DR: I am obviously not going to say anything, but I hope to be in a position by the summer, probably at the British Grand Prix, to make a full announcement. That will include sponsors, and even drivers, by then.
[B]Q. What is the aim of the visit here?
[/B]
DR: I have been in Kuwait visiting our investors for Aston Martin. We are in the Gulf visiting friends so we thought we would come down here at the same time.
[B]Q. Is there much synergy between Aston Martin and Formula One?
[/B]
DR: In the long term there might be, but certainly not in the immediate future. The immediate future is Aston Martin in sportscar racing. We have got a plan for that now for this year, and we are just working out now what we are going to do for the next two or three years on the sportscar side of things. But who knows? Five years down the line it might be appropriate.
[B]
Q. Are you here to talk with drivers at all?[/B]
DR: No. We already have got plans about that. But it is not here. This visit is purely social.
[B]Q. Are there any concerns about the customer car issue, with Frank Williams suggesting that customer cars may not be allowed under the 2008 Concorde Agreement?[/B]
DR: I have made it very clear from the outset, in all the correspondence with both Max and Bernie last year, that that was the premise we will be entering under. I am reassured that that will still be the case.
[B]Q. So everything is on course and you are quite comfortable with where you are going?[/B]
DR: I am very comfortable about it.
[B]Q. So the deal is for a supply of both chassis and engines for next year?
[/B]
DR: Yes. You would not shop around to do separate deals. It was one of the things that we originally looked at, but at the end of the day that doesn't seem to make sense.
[B]Q. Are you looking for more experienced F1 drivers?
[/B]
DR: I don't think we will get into the detail of which drivers are good and which drivers are bad. If you look at everything we have done in the past, what you have got to look at is how we have behaved in previous sports and what we tend to do. And we tend to choose a more established driver and also a young up-and-coming hotshot. And we will work with that formula.
[B]Q. Is it annoying for you there is speculation that the entry to F1 could be bought by another team?
[/B]
DR: It cannot be bought by another team. That is a fact.
[B]Q. So it is not for sale then[/B]?
DR: No, it is not for sale and it has never been for sale. [/QUOTE]
| OnTheGas | 04-16-2007 01:54 AM |
Being aware of tire strategies for qualifying and racing
�
�
Here's a quick review of the FIA F1 sporting regulations covering tires this season:[quote][URL="http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/20/511.html"]F1 sporting regulations for tires[/URL]
Over the race weekend, each driver has access to 14 sets of dry-weather tyres. Four of those sets (two sets of each specification) may be used on Friday, with the remaining 10 sets (five of each specification) available from Saturday morning onwards. Prior to qualifying each driver must surrender one set of each specification.[/quote]
So that means at the start of qualifying, each driver has 4 sets of each spec tire for both qualifying and the race.
So if the race is a two stop race, (which equals 3 sets of tires), then the driver will need two sets of the better spec tire for the race. Today, in the winner's press conference @ Bahrain, Hamilton mentioned that his 2nd set of tires were scrubbed soft tires, (meaning they had been used during qualifying), which did not perform as well as his first set of new, soft, tires.
One can see on AutoSport.com (and perhaps other sites), how many laps a driver does during each qualifying session. During the first three races, the drivers for the top 3 teams, Ferrari, BMW, McLaren, run only 3 laps for the first, and second qualifying sessions. The other drivers in the first and second qualifying sessions were all running 6, or more laps.
Remember round 2, at Malaysia, when Hamilton impressed us all in the first two turns, where he ate both Ferraris? Here is an excerpt from an autosport article that analysed the Malaysia race.[quote][url=http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/970]AutoSport Journal Analysis of Malaysia By Adam Cooper[/url]
...(T)he way the tyre usage in qualifying panned out was intriguing. Both Alonso (going for a time early in Q3 to beat the rain) and Massa (stymied by traffic) used an extra set of the option tyres (officially medium, but everyone used the shorthand soft). That meant they had no new soft sets left for the race.
While most people agreed that, at this race, over one stint it didn't make a lot of difference whether you had started on new or scrubbed ex-qualifying tyres, there is always an initial advantage off the grid and round the first few corners.
The two men in the leading group who had that bonus were Raikkonen and Hamilton, which... perhaps does help us understand why Lewis was able to find grip that others couldn't on the tight inside line on the first turn, and the outside line on the second.
Alonso was so concerned about the lack of new soft tyres for the start that he actually considered starting on new hard tyres.
"The difference on the long runs between the prime and the option was very small," said test driver Pedro de la Rosa. "It was obvious that the option was quickest for qualifying, but on race pace until the last hour we didn't have a clear picture of which tyres Fernando would use, a used set of options or a new set of primes. He went for the used options..."[/quote]
After qualifying, I think it would be good to know how many sets of each tire spec was used by each driver during qualifying. Does anyone publish this info now?
In addition, on the race grid, is the driver starting on new, or scrubbed, tires?
Has anyone seen, or heard this information presented on the grid for the first three races?
If yes, please share the source with us. :-)
If it is not out there, I'll be writing to SpeedTV, AutoSport, and Formula1.com requesting this info be presented to us...
Over the race weekend, each driver has access to 14 sets of dry-weather tyres. Four of those sets (two sets of each specification) may be used on Friday, with the remaining 10 sets (five of each specification) available from Saturday morning onwards. Prior to qualifying each driver must surrender one set of each specification.[/quote]
So that means at the start of qualifying, each driver has 4 sets of each spec tire for both qualifying and the race.
So if the race is a two stop race, (which equals 3 sets of tires), then the driver will need two sets of the better spec tire for the race. Today, in the winner's press conference @ Bahrain, Hamilton mentioned that his 2nd set of tires were scrubbed soft tires, (meaning they had been used during qualifying), which did not perform as well as his first set of new, soft, tires.
One can see on AutoSport.com (and perhaps other sites), how many laps a driver does during each qualifying session. During the first three races, the drivers for the top 3 teams, Ferrari, BMW, McLaren, run only 3 laps for the first, and second qualifying sessions. The other drivers in the first and second qualifying sessions were all running 6, or more laps.
Remember round 2, at Malaysia, when Hamilton impressed us all in the first two turns, where he ate both Ferraris? Here is an excerpt from an autosport article that analysed the Malaysia race.[quote][url=http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/970]AutoSport Journal Analysis of Malaysia By Adam Cooper[/url]
...(T)he way the tyre usage in qualifying panned out was intriguing. Both Alonso (going for a time early in Q3 to beat the rain) and Massa (stymied by traffic) used an extra set of the option tyres (officially medium, but everyone used the shorthand soft). That meant they had no new soft sets left for the race.
While most people agreed that, at this race, over one stint it didn't make a lot of difference whether you had started on new or scrubbed ex-qualifying tyres, there is always an initial advantage off the grid and round the first few corners.
The two men in the leading group who had that bonus were Raikkonen and Hamilton, which... perhaps does help us understand why Lewis was able to find grip that others couldn't on the tight inside line on the first turn, and the outside line on the second.
Alonso was so concerned about the lack of new soft tyres for the start that he actually considered starting on new hard tyres.
"The difference on the long runs between the prime and the option was very small," said test driver Pedro de la Rosa. "It was obvious that the option was quickest for qualifying, but on race pace until the last hour we didn't have a clear picture of which tyres Fernando would use, a used set of options or a new set of primes. He went for the used options..."[/quote]
After qualifying, I think it would be good to know how many sets of each tire spec was used by each driver during qualifying. Does anyone publish this info now?
In addition, on the race grid, is the driver starting on new, or scrubbed, tires?
Has anyone seen, or heard this information presented on the grid for the first three races?
If yes, please share the source with us. :-)
If it is not out there, I'll be writing to SpeedTV, AutoSport, and Formula1.com requesting this info be presented to us...
| KAX | 04-16-2007 02:41 AM |
Are you looking for this information pre-race, or do you just want to know at some point? I don't think any of the teams will tell anyone their strategy until the race is over. Similar to the idea of fuel levels. You don't know what they are doing until its all been run out.
but it would be cool to have the SPEED announcers say something about it mid-race. that way we can get an idea of their real pace and whether they just f-ed up or were aware of a disadvantage. But if a team started on scrubbed tires, then that would mean they were completely out of new, which could be used for other teams to plan their 2nd and 3rd stints accordingly. So it would need to wait until the race was over.
of course if you are just looking for post-race info, then ignore all that and contact Formula1.com and autosport.
but it would be cool to have the SPEED announcers say something about it mid-race. that way we can get an idea of their real pace and whether they just f-ed up or were aware of a disadvantage. But if a team started on scrubbed tires, then that would mean they were completely out of new, which could be used for other teams to plan their 2nd and 3rd stints accordingly. So it would need to wait until the race was over.
of course if you are just looking for post-race info, then ignore all that and contact Formula1.com and autosport.
| OnTheGas | 04-16-2007 03:26 AM |
Good questions... It would be good to know how many sets of each compound a driver uses for qualifying, immediately upon completition of qualifying. Then one would have a good idea of tire strategies may be employed on Sunday.
My thoughts are that if one is in the paddock, then it is not too much of a secret whether or not a driver is rolling out on scrubs, or stickers, in qualifying. I'm sure the other teams are well aware of what their rivals are using during qualifying.
And on the grid, when the teams remove the tire warmers, not only can we tell whether or not a team is using the soft compound, or not, but also we should be able to tell whether or not the set is stickers, or scrubs. If the broadcaster could report it, it would be good for the live audience to be aware of that, prior to the mad dash down the to 1st turn.
My thoughts are that if one is in the paddock, then it is not too much of a secret whether or not a driver is rolling out on scrubs, or stickers, in qualifying. I'm sure the other teams are well aware of what their rivals are using during qualifying.
And on the grid, when the teams remove the tire warmers, not only can we tell whether or not a team is using the soft compound, or not, but also we should be able to tell whether or not the set is stickers, or scrubs. If the broadcaster could report it, it would be good for the live audience to be aware of that, prior to the mad dash down the to 1st turn.
| KAX | 04-16-2007 03:34 AM |
thats true. there is a good amount of espionage going on in the paddock, so im sure they all do know what they are running on the car before it starts moving.
either way, I agree it would be great to know. Maybe contact SPEED so pre-race when Windsor is doing interviews down the grid, he can check the tires and let the viewers know.
either way, I agree it would be great to know. Maybe contact SPEED so pre-race when Windsor is doing interviews down the grid, he can check the tires and let the viewers know.
| KAX | 04-16-2007 06:51 PM |
customer car row fights back? I kinda do hope they take action against Spyker, its getting annoying.
[QUOTE]Red Bull seek legal action on design leak
By Jonathan Noble Monday, April 16th 2007, 16:47 GMT
Part of the Red Bull blueprint submitted to the stewardsRed Bull Racing are seeking legal action in the matter of their leaked design documents, which were at the centre of Spyker's protest on customer cars in Malaysia, autosport.com has learned.
The team began an investigation last week in a bid to find out how Spyker got hold of confidential blueprints from the Milton Keynes factory.
Subsequently, Red Bull now believe they have identified the source of the leak and are planning to meet this week with their lawyers to discuss legal action against the culprit.
It is unclear whether or not Red Bull are considering legal action against Spyker as well as the leaker; and whether Red Bull wish to file a formal complaint with the police, or file a lawsuit in civil courts.
The blueprint document was submitted to the Malaysian Grand Prix stewards by the Spyker team, who contended that because the design was labelled for both Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso, it proves that one constructor was designing parts for two teams.
Spyker would not reveal how they got hold of these confidential documents, but sources told autosport.com at Sepang that the blueprints were mailed to the Silverstone-based outfit anonymously.
Red Bull Racing boss Christian Horner would not comment on his team's legal plans. He stressed, however, that they are not treating the matter lightly.
"We are still looking into it, in an attempt to understand why, where and how Spyker were able to get hold of these drawings when they are clearly the intellectual property of Red Bull Technology," Horner told autosport.com.
"We're looking into it. We're treating it with the utmost seriousness."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Red Bull seek legal action on design leak
By Jonathan Noble Monday, April 16th 2007, 16:47 GMT
Part of the Red Bull blueprint submitted to the stewardsRed Bull Racing are seeking legal action in the matter of their leaked design documents, which were at the centre of Spyker's protest on customer cars in Malaysia, autosport.com has learned.
The team began an investigation last week in a bid to find out how Spyker got hold of confidential blueprints from the Milton Keynes factory.
Subsequently, Red Bull now believe they have identified the source of the leak and are planning to meet this week with their lawyers to discuss legal action against the culprit.
It is unclear whether or not Red Bull are considering legal action against Spyker as well as the leaker; and whether Red Bull wish to file a formal complaint with the police, or file a lawsuit in civil courts.
The blueprint document was submitted to the Malaysian Grand Prix stewards by the Spyker team, who contended that because the design was labelled for both Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso, it proves that one constructor was designing parts for two teams.
Spyker would not reveal how they got hold of these confidential documents, but sources told autosport.com at Sepang that the blueprints were mailed to the Silverstone-based outfit anonymously.
Red Bull Racing boss Christian Horner would not comment on his team's legal plans. He stressed, however, that they are not treating the matter lightly.
"We are still looking into it, in an attempt to understand why, where and how Spyker were able to get hold of these drawings when they are clearly the intellectual property of Red Bull Technology," Horner told autosport.com.
"We're looking into it. We're treating it with the utmost seriousness."[/QUOTE]
| StuBeck | 04-16-2007 07:08 PM |
Thats not really related to the customer car row though. Its more related to stealing intellectual property from Red Bull. It would be funny if Spyker got in trouble for stealing it though.
| KAX | 04-16-2007 07:17 PM |
well it is related. because those are the plans that lead spyker to the idea that red bull and str are the same car.
| artkevin | 04-16-2007 07:48 PM |
I don't know which part of the car is in question but on the face of it it doesn't sound [I]that[/I] bad. I mean Williams makes Toyota's gear boxes and there are several teams that use the same make of wheel or ECU. Not too sure what the difference is.
| KAX | 04-16-2007 07:55 PM |
im pretty sure the part in question is the chassis. IIRC, red bull had someone outside the team make the chassis or something like that, and both Red Bull and STR are using that chassis design. Customer parts arent a problem, which is obvious considering only 6 teams make their own engines.
| StuBeck | 04-16-2007 10:33 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX;17742027]well it is related. because those are the plans that lead spyker to the idea that red bull and str are the same car.[/QUOTE]
No, they weren't. Spyker had already started the process before this information had come out.
The part from the blueprint isn't the chassis, it is another part of the car. Spyker was protesting because apparently the number for both of them was the same.
No, they weren't. Spyker had already started the process before this information had come out.
The part from the blueprint isn't the chassis, it is another part of the car. Spyker was protesting because apparently the number for both of them was the same.
| OnTheGas | 04-16-2007 10:43 PM |
Follow the money...
�
�
[QUOTE=KAX;17742027]...because those are the plans that lead spyker to the idea that red bull and str are the same car.[/QUOTE]yeah, StuBeck is correct. The idea that red bull and str are the same car appeared obvious to many observers as soon as both designs saw the light of day.
Those plans are presented as proof that the idea that everyone already had, is in fact true.
I'm not sure that the legal action against the party that provided the plans to Stryker is directly related to the customer car case.
Red Bull Racing is concerned that legal agreements were violated by whomever sent those plans to Spyker. I would guess that Red Bull could have a strong case.
The customer car issue is different.
[COLOR="Silver"](Follow the money)[/COLOR]
Those plans are presented as proof that the idea that everyone already had, is in fact true.
I'm not sure that the legal action against the party that provided the plans to Stryker is directly related to the customer car case.
Red Bull Racing is concerned that legal agreements were violated by whomever sent those plans to Spyker. I would guess that Red Bull could have a strong case.
The customer car issue is different.
[COLOR="Silver"](Follow the money)[/COLOR]
| Ferg | 04-16-2007 11:06 PM |
The specific beef about the leaked plans is that the drawings clearly state "Red Bull Racing", not "Red Bull Technology" (or whatever). Red Bull and Toro Rosso have been claiming all along that a third party designed the chassis, and then "sold" them each the intellectual rights, which under the rules (and by the FIA) is legal.
Spyker shows up with a drawing for a part that's on both cars that says "Red Bull Racing" and asking, "So where's the third party here?"
It's a lot of huffing and puffing over what in the end is a typo on a blueprint...
I really don't have a probem with what Red Bull and Toro Rosso are doing, at least they built their tubs, or as much of them as they traditionally do..
With Super Aguri it's much more a case of Honda building them the car then handing over the keys.
Spyker shows up with a drawing for a part that's on both cars that says "Red Bull Racing" and asking, "So where's the third party here?"
It's a lot of huffing and puffing over what in the end is a typo on a blueprint...
I really don't have a probem with what Red Bull and Toro Rosso are doing, at least they built their tubs, or as much of them as they traditionally do..
With Super Aguri it's much more a case of Honda building them the car then handing over the keys.
| wvallwheeldrive | 04-16-2007 11:51 PM |
None of this will matter next year.
| KAX | 04-16-2007 11:58 PM |
exactly. thats why i was getting annoyed with it. spyker can suck it up for a year. By the time anythings solved, its going to be a moot point anyway.
| Wr4wrX | 04-16-2007 11:58 PM |
[QUOTE=Ferg;17745007]
It's a lot of huffing and puffing over what in the end is a typo on a blueprint...[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that RBR and STR have based the legality of their cars on a technicality in the regulations, but are not really honoring the "spirit" of the rules. They claim that both cars are legal because they each purchase the intellectual property rights from Red Bull Technologies, but who are we kidding? So, I suppose if the Red Bullies ;) want to argue semantics, I can see why Spyker would also nit pick. I guess you can say I'm in the Dr. Mario camp which is a bit wary of customer cars.
(Of course, all of this does not absolve Spyker if they illegally obtained those Red Bull schematics.)
It's a lot of huffing and puffing over what in the end is a typo on a blueprint...[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that RBR and STR have based the legality of their cars on a technicality in the regulations, but are not really honoring the "spirit" of the rules. They claim that both cars are legal because they each purchase the intellectual property rights from Red Bull Technologies, but who are we kidding? So, I suppose if the Red Bullies ;) want to argue semantics, I can see why Spyker would also nit pick. I guess you can say I'm in the Dr. Mario camp which is a bit wary of customer cars.
(Of course, all of this does not absolve Spyker if they illegally obtained those Red Bull schematics.)
| wvallwheeldrive | 04-17-2007 12:27 AM |
my question is is there a limit to the amount of teams in F1 and if so how does Prodrive/Aston Martin (whatever they call themselfs) get into the sport?
| nKoan | 04-17-2007 12:55 AM |
[QUOTE=wvallwheeldrive;17745995]my question is is there a limit to the amount of teams in F1 and if so how does Prodrive/Aston Martin (whatever they call themselfs) get into the sport?[/QUOTE]
Yes, the limit is 12 teams at the moment. Last year there was an auctioning process where all prospective teams put in a bid to the FIA to become the 12th team. The FIA supposedly weighed all the possible teams on whatever merits they deemed necessary (resources, ability to be competitive, etc.) and chose one team, and that team was Prodrive.
Yes, the limit is 12 teams at the moment. Last year there was an auctioning process where all prospective teams put in a bid to the FIA to become the 12th team. The FIA supposedly weighed all the possible teams on whatever merits they deemed necessary (resources, ability to be competitive, etc.) and chose one team, and that team was Prodrive.
| StuBeck | 04-17-2007 09:15 AM |
[QUOTE=Wr4wrX;17745678]It seems to me that RBR and STR have based the legality of their cars on a technicality in the regulations, but are not really honoring the "spirit" of the rules. They claim that both cars are legal because they each purchase the intellectual property rights from Red Bull Technologies, but who are we kidding? So, I suppose if the Red Bullies ;) want to argue semantics, I can see why Spyker would also nit pick. I guess you can say I'm in the Dr. Mario camp which is a bit wary of customer cars.
(Of course, all of this does not absolve Spyker if they illegally obtained those Red Bull schematics.)[/QUOTE]
The problem is no one cared last year when SA was running an Arrows (a car they didn't design or build) or STR running an R1. Something more in line with the rules occurs this time (the Honda is built by Honda in Japan, but at least its a modified design), and both STR and RBR manufactuer the car, and every one bitches.
The spirit of the rule was for the teams to design their own car, but that was before teams spent 300 million a year on their car. It was meant to avoid teams running 12 of their cars in 6 separate teams. The reason it is going away next year is because of the stupid costs going into the sport. Sure, a new car every year is a nice idea, but it doesn't make sense with the amount of money they're pouring into them and the lack of development some of them are getting (looking at Honda here.)
(Of course, all of this does not absolve Spyker if they illegally obtained those Red Bull schematics.)[/QUOTE]
The problem is no one cared last year when SA was running an Arrows (a car they didn't design or build) or STR running an R1. Something more in line with the rules occurs this time (the Honda is built by Honda in Japan, but at least its a modified design), and both STR and RBR manufactuer the car, and every one bitches.
The spirit of the rule was for the teams to design their own car, but that was before teams spent 300 million a year on their car. It was meant to avoid teams running 12 of their cars in 6 separate teams. The reason it is going away next year is because of the stupid costs going into the sport. Sure, a new car every year is a nice idea, but it doesn't make sense with the amount of money they're pouring into them and the lack of development some of them are getting (looking at Honda here.)
| Ferg | 04-17-2007 10:15 AM |
The fact is the FIA has already said the cars are legal. Spyker's position is basically that the FIA can go **** themselves.
If history has taught us anything about F1 is that you don't win in the long run when you fight the FIA.
Still, if Spyker weren't making a fuss about this who would be talking about them...
If history has taught us anything about F1 is that you don't win in the long run when you fight the FIA.
Still, if Spyker weren't making a fuss about this who would be talking about them...
| Ferg | 04-17-2007 10:22 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;17748500]Sure, a new car every year is a nice idea, but it doesn't make sense with the amount of money they're pouring into them and the lack of development some of them are getting (looking at Honda here.)[/QUOTE]
You raise an excellent point here Stu. What's been baffling me about the Honda situation is why on Earth (no pun intended I swear..) did they ditch a very promising chassis in the RA107, a car certainly not at the end of it's development potential, for a radical new chassis? A chassis that as it turns out is so bad they're bringing in a "new" car by Canada...basically sinking their 2008 campaign in the process.
Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, and BMW have all shown the way to stay competitive is to develop the car from year to year, evolutionary rather than revolutionary as they love to call it. Sure every now and then you have to make a radical jump, but if you look at how competitive the Super Aguri is this year with only some basic tweaks, then imagine what Honda could have done with the 107 had they put their muscle behind it....
Perfect example of design by committee I gather.
You raise an excellent point here Stu. What's been baffling me about the Honda situation is why on Earth (no pun intended I swear..) did they ditch a very promising chassis in the RA107, a car certainly not at the end of it's development potential, for a radical new chassis? A chassis that as it turns out is so bad they're bringing in a "new" car by Canada...basically sinking their 2008 campaign in the process.
Ferrari, Renault, McLaren, and BMW have all shown the way to stay competitive is to develop the car from year to year, evolutionary rather than revolutionary as they love to call it. Sure every now and then you have to make a radical jump, but if you look at how competitive the Super Aguri is this year with only some basic tweaks, then imagine what Honda could have done with the 107 had they put their muscle behind it....
Perfect example of design by committee I gather.
| 10th Warrior | 04-17-2007 12:34 PM |
[quote]The problem is no one cared last year when SA was running an Arrows (a car they didn't design or build)[/quote]
SA bought the intellectual rights to the Arrows chassis. What they did was perfectly legal.
SA bought the intellectual rights to the Arrows chassis. What they did was perfectly legal.
| artkevin | 04-17-2007 01:11 PM |
So did Red Bull when they took over Jag. It has to do with buying the rights from a non F1 competitor and since Arrows and Jag were both kaput it happened to work out.
| StuBeck | 04-17-2007 02:20 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior;17750898]SA bought the intellectual rights to the Arrows chassis. What they did was perfectly legal.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I understand, but they are doing the same thing this year with their chassis, so there shouldn't be an issue with it.
And I don't think McLaren is a good example of not making revolutionary changes Ferg. In 03 they had to run their 02 car the entire year because of the MP4-18 being bad, then the 19 (or 18A) was crap till they actually brought out a real 19 halfway through the season. They've finally figured it out the last few years though, with the 20-22, although last year they lost their way a bit.
Yes, I understand, but they are doing the same thing this year with their chassis, so there shouldn't be an issue with it.
And I don't think McLaren is a good example of not making revolutionary changes Ferg. In 03 they had to run their 02 car the entire year because of the MP4-18 being bad, then the 19 (or 18A) was crap till they actually brought out a real 19 halfway through the season. They've finally figured it out the last few years though, with the 20-22, although last year they lost their way a bit.
| Ferg | 04-17-2007 08:39 PM |
You're obviously trying to confuse me by bringing up the whole 18-18B-19 saga...I could barely follow it then and have no hope of remembering all the numbers they went through now :lol:
Although it does illustrate exactly what we're talking about. McLaren took too big a step with the 19 (or was it the 18? whatever, the stillborn Newey car that never raced) and lost huge amounts of ground to other teams while they got themselves sorted.
In the end Kimi almost won the WDC in a year old chassis that was just continually improved and developed.
Honda should have been paying closer attention to what Macca went through.
Although it does illustrate exactly what we're talking about. McLaren took too big a step with the 19 (or was it the 18? whatever, the stillborn Newey car that never raced) and lost huge amounts of ground to other teams while they got themselves sorted.
In the end Kimi almost won the WDC in a year old chassis that was just continually improved and developed.
Honda should have been paying closer attention to what Macca went through.
| StuBeck | 04-18-2007 11:55 AM |
MP4/18: Supposed to run in 03, but they delayed its launch until mid season, so they actually ran a development version of the 17 (named the MP4/17D, for David...err Development.) Never raced, only tested
MP4/18A: Further development of the MP4/18.
MP4/19: This is where it gets confusing. It actually was simply the MP4/18A! Was run in the first half of 2004...was prone to breaking and not too fast. This caused everyone to question JPM switching over to McLarne in 05.
MP4/19B: New chassis completely, more ridgid, an actual new chassis. Very fast, won at Spa against the awesome F2004.
Williams also went through their own problems in 04 with the walrus nose car, but they simply changed the nose and were fast again.
This shows why Newey decided to work on the RBR3 for so long last year. They needed a radical change (McLaren and Williams did not) so they had to change it up. While Red Bull has less resources then McLaren, they knew they were stuck in 7th in the championship last year so they decided to not develop it from halfway throught he season to concentrate all their resources on this years car.
I think Red Bull has done great so far this year with the car. They've been faster, and they finally figured the setup out last race. I think a podium later in the season isn't out of the picture at a driver circuit like Monaco or Spa.
MP4/18A: Further development of the MP4/18.
MP4/19: This is where it gets confusing. It actually was simply the MP4/18A! Was run in the first half of 2004...was prone to breaking and not too fast. This caused everyone to question JPM switching over to McLarne in 05.
MP4/19B: New chassis completely, more ridgid, an actual new chassis. Very fast, won at Spa against the awesome F2004.
Williams also went through their own problems in 04 with the walrus nose car, but they simply changed the nose and were fast again.
This shows why Newey decided to work on the RBR3 for so long last year. They needed a radical change (McLaren and Williams did not) so they had to change it up. While Red Bull has less resources then McLaren, they knew they were stuck in 7th in the championship last year so they decided to not develop it from halfway throught he season to concentrate all their resources on this years car.
I think Red Bull has done great so far this year with the car. They've been faster, and they finally figured the setup out last race. I think a podium later in the season isn't out of the picture at a driver circuit like Monaco or Spa.
| wvallwheeldrive | 04-18-2007 12:28 PM |
yeah i agree Stu the second half of this year they will be consistatly collecting points and giving BMW and Renualt fits.
| StuBeck | 04-18-2007 12:57 PM |
I'm not Ferg! :p
| Ferg | 04-18-2007 09:42 PM |
Of course not, you're Stu! :D
[I]<-missed the joke by a few hours..[/I]
[I]<-missed the joke by a few hours..[/I]
| StuBeck | 04-18-2007 10:20 PM |
:p haha.
| Wr4wrX | 04-19-2007 03:14 AM |
[QUOTE=Ferg;17749040]The fact is the FIA has already said the cars are legal. Spyker's position is basically that the FIA can go **** themselves.
If history has taught us anything about F1 is that you don't win in the long run when you fight the FIA.
Still, if Spyker weren't making a fuss about this who would be talking about them...[/QUOTE]
I don't want to stray too far, but I guess I see the FIA as both the legislative and executive branch of F1. That is, the FIA writes and enforces the rules. I feel as though there always existed independent, sporting courts which served as the judicial branch to interpret those rules. For example, in 2005 when BAR went to court to defend themselves in the fuel pump controversy.
Sure, taking on the FIA doesn't usually work out in the long run, but I don't think teams should just roll over and take it up the tailpipe from them. Teams get so much crap from FOM and the FIA, I don't mind them dishing some back.
Perhaps Spyker is fighting a battle that it's already lost, but I think even if they lose, like you said, they are drawing attention...and there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?
[QUOTE=StuBeck;17748500]The problem is no one cared last year when SA was running an Arrows (a car they didn't design or build) or STR running an R1. Something more in line with the rules occurs this time (the Honda is built by Honda in Japan, but at least its a modified design), and both STR and RBR manufacturer the car, and every one bitches.
The spirit of the rule was for the teams to design their own car, but that was before teams spent 300 million a year on their car. It was meant to avoid teams running 12 of their cars in 6 separate teams. The reason it is going away next year is because of the stupid costs going into the sport. Sure, a new car every year is a nice idea, but it doesn't make sense with the amount of money they're pouring into them and the lack of development some of them are getting (looking at Honda here.)[/QUOTE]
I don't think that just because SA or STR ran "customer cars" last year that that necessarily sets a precedent for this year. Granted, I probably haven't followed F1 as long as most of you, but it seems as though many things go unless another team (or teams) makes a stink about them.
You make an excellent point that the spirit of the rule against customer cars came during a time when teams did not have budgets equal to China�s GDP. You really made me think a little more about my position. Now I fear that allowing customer cars may alter the spirit of the sport itself.
If nothing else, Formula 1 takes great pride as the pinnacle of motorsport because it is the most technologically advanced series. F1 is unique because each teams� car is constructed by a constructor and each teams� car is utterly distinct (at least in years past). Customer cars would significantly alter the ethos of F1.
Perhaps customer cars are the only way to keep F1 alive, but there is something unsettling when half the grid could be filled with B teams. Furthermore, half the fun of F1 is that many of the teams spend absurd amounts of cash in development (sometimes to no avail). That absurdity speaks true to the over-the-top nature of F1�it would be unfortunate to lose some of that.
It may be that running customer cars is the only practical solution�I just wish there was another way.
If history has taught us anything about F1 is that you don't win in the long run when you fight the FIA.
Still, if Spyker weren't making a fuss about this who would be talking about them...[/QUOTE]
I don't want to stray too far, but I guess I see the FIA as both the legislative and executive branch of F1. That is, the FIA writes and enforces the rules. I feel as though there always existed independent, sporting courts which served as the judicial branch to interpret those rules. For example, in 2005 when BAR went to court to defend themselves in the fuel pump controversy.
Sure, taking on the FIA doesn't usually work out in the long run, but I don't think teams should just roll over and take it up the tailpipe from them. Teams get so much crap from FOM and the FIA, I don't mind them dishing some back.
Perhaps Spyker is fighting a battle that it's already lost, but I think even if they lose, like you said, they are drawing attention...and there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?
[QUOTE=StuBeck;17748500]The problem is no one cared last year when SA was running an Arrows (a car they didn't design or build) or STR running an R1. Something more in line with the rules occurs this time (the Honda is built by Honda in Japan, but at least its a modified design), and both STR and RBR manufacturer the car, and every one bitches.
The spirit of the rule was for the teams to design their own car, but that was before teams spent 300 million a year on their car. It was meant to avoid teams running 12 of their cars in 6 separate teams. The reason it is going away next year is because of the stupid costs going into the sport. Sure, a new car every year is a nice idea, but it doesn't make sense with the amount of money they're pouring into them and the lack of development some of them are getting (looking at Honda here.)[/QUOTE]
I don't think that just because SA or STR ran "customer cars" last year that that necessarily sets a precedent for this year. Granted, I probably haven't followed F1 as long as most of you, but it seems as though many things go unless another team (or teams) makes a stink about them.
You make an excellent point that the spirit of the rule against customer cars came during a time when teams did not have budgets equal to China�s GDP. You really made me think a little more about my position. Now I fear that allowing customer cars may alter the spirit of the sport itself.
If nothing else, Formula 1 takes great pride as the pinnacle of motorsport because it is the most technologically advanced series. F1 is unique because each teams� car is constructed by a constructor and each teams� car is utterly distinct (at least in years past). Customer cars would significantly alter the ethos of F1.
Perhaps customer cars are the only way to keep F1 alive, but there is something unsettling when half the grid could be filled with B teams. Furthermore, half the fun of F1 is that many of the teams spend absurd amounts of cash in development (sometimes to no avail). That absurdity speaks true to the over-the-top nature of F1�it would be unfortunate to lose some of that.
It may be that running customer cars is the only practical solution�I just wish there was another way.
| Ferg | 04-19-2007 10:36 AM |
[QUOTE=Wr4wrX;17775347]If nothing else, Formula 1 takes great pride as the pinnacle of motorsport because it is the most technologically advanced series. F1 is unique because each teams� car is constructed by a constructor and each teams� car is utterly distinct (at least in years past). Customer cars would significantly alter the ethos of F1.[/QUOTE]
You bring up a lot of excellent points, and certainly hit at one of the fundamental problems modern Formula One racing faces, cost. We had talked a ways back in the thread about how much the sport has changed in just the past ten years. Of the twelve teams that started the 1997 season, only three, Ferrari, Williams, and McLaren remain. Stewart is now Red Bull, Minardi is now Toro Rosso, Jordan is Spyker, Benetton is now Renault...gone completely are Tyrell, Arrows, Prost, and Lola, although to be fair Lola was gone after the first race in '97... While mismanagement definitely played it's part (Prost, Arrows...) the ever rising cost of F1 has forced out the majority of the privateer teams. Eventually when the cost gets high enough the manufacturers will take their trophies and go home. Ford already cashed out, who's next? Toyota? Honda? When that happens what will we have? I don't think anyone really knows. Bernie himself has said many times anyone who tries to predict the future beyond four years is only fooling themselves.
If you do some reading on the history of the sport (speaking of which we need to get some good book recommendations into this thread, so start posting some already! :D) you'll see that for the vast majority of it's history, Grand Prix racing was filled with customer cars. Rob Walker running Lotuses for Sterling Moss comes to mind, or Tyrell running Matras for Jackie Stewart. It really wasn't until the 1970s that teams really started building their own cars en mass, and that was only after Cossie engines became cheap and plentiful. Hell, Ferrari bought some second hand chassis off Lancia (because they were faster than his own cars) one year, called them Lancia-Ferrari (or was it Ferrari-Lancia?) stuck Fangio in one and dominated the 1956 season winning the WDC :lol:
You bring up a lot of excellent points, and certainly hit at one of the fundamental problems modern Formula One racing faces, cost. We had talked a ways back in the thread about how much the sport has changed in just the past ten years. Of the twelve teams that started the 1997 season, only three, Ferrari, Williams, and McLaren remain. Stewart is now Red Bull, Minardi is now Toro Rosso, Jordan is Spyker, Benetton is now Renault...gone completely are Tyrell, Arrows, Prost, and Lola, although to be fair Lola was gone after the first race in '97... While mismanagement definitely played it's part (Prost, Arrows...) the ever rising cost of F1 has forced out the majority of the privateer teams. Eventually when the cost gets high enough the manufacturers will take their trophies and go home. Ford already cashed out, who's next? Toyota? Honda? When that happens what will we have? I don't think anyone really knows. Bernie himself has said many times anyone who tries to predict the future beyond four years is only fooling themselves.
If you do some reading on the history of the sport (speaking of which we need to get some good book recommendations into this thread, so start posting some already! :D) you'll see that for the vast majority of it's history, Grand Prix racing was filled with customer cars. Rob Walker running Lotuses for Sterling Moss comes to mind, or Tyrell running Matras for Jackie Stewart. It really wasn't until the 1970s that teams really started building their own cars en mass, and that was only after Cossie engines became cheap and plentiful. Hell, Ferrari bought some second hand chassis off Lancia (because they were faster than his own cars) one year, called them Lancia-Ferrari (or was it Ferrari-Lancia?) stuck Fangio in one and dominated the 1956 season winning the WDC :lol:
| StuBeck | 04-19-2007 10:39 AM |
The problem that people see with customer cars is that the team isn't making the car. The teams are still developing it themselves though. Even though STR and RBR are running the same chassis, they are running different developments. The other thing is that customer cars are not a new thing. It happened all the time in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Having the entire field be customer cars would be bad, I agree. But that isn't going to happen.
Toyota already looks bad because they can't make their own gearbox. Would they go back even more and run a Williams chassis? No. Is Ferrari, selling their chassis to ProDrive, going to get beat by Prodrive? No. Is the prodrive chassis, which is actually a ferrari, going to be faster than the chassis prodrive would make? Probably, but more importantly, it will allow 12 teams in to the sport. A few years ago we were down to 10 teams, and easily could have been down to 8. I would rather have 12 teams with 4 of them being independently developed customer chassis than having 8 teams with 8 cars which all look pretty much the same.
Teams are going to be developing the car themselves. SA had the chassis built for them this year, yet they still failed the initial crash test. How is that possible if it is a customer chassis from last year? Because they developed the car. I don't think it is as bad as everyone is feeling it could be. People were saying the same thing with spec ECU's and the V8's. The V8's made it safer, and the spec ECU's are bringing in things like banning traction control, which should make the races more fun. It won't really affect things, but the drivers will be more drained than before, and in the rain, it should be even more even.
Toyota already looks bad because they can't make their own gearbox. Would they go back even more and run a Williams chassis? No. Is Ferrari, selling their chassis to ProDrive, going to get beat by Prodrive? No. Is the prodrive chassis, which is actually a ferrari, going to be faster than the chassis prodrive would make? Probably, but more importantly, it will allow 12 teams in to the sport. A few years ago we were down to 10 teams, and easily could have been down to 8. I would rather have 12 teams with 4 of them being independently developed customer chassis than having 8 teams with 8 cars which all look pretty much the same.
Teams are going to be developing the car themselves. SA had the chassis built for them this year, yet they still failed the initial crash test. How is that possible if it is a customer chassis from last year? Because they developed the car. I don't think it is as bad as everyone is feeling it could be. People were saying the same thing with spec ECU's and the V8's. The V8's made it safer, and the spec ECU's are bringing in things like banning traction control, which should make the races more fun. It won't really affect things, but the drivers will be more drained than before, and in the rain, it should be even more even.
| Ferg | 04-19-2007 11:11 AM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;17777313]...and in the rain, it should be even more even.[/QUOTE]
Have to disagree with you a little on this last bit Stu.
I gather that in the wet we'll finally find out who's got the best right foot instead of the simply the best software developer. :)
Have to disagree with you a little on this last bit Stu.
I gather that in the wet we'll finally find out who's got the best right foot instead of the simply the best software developer. :)
| StuBeck | 04-19-2007 11:52 AM |
Thats what I'm saying. Its going to be more even because the cars don't matter, the drivers do.
| artkevin | 04-19-2007 01:00 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;17778267]Thats what I'm saying. Its going to be more even because the cars don't matter, the drivers do.[/QUOTE]
We already have that in Champ Car, IRL, A1GP etc.
We already have that in Champ Car, IRL, A1GP etc.
| StuBeck | 04-19-2007 01:07 PM |
Yep, it makes the driving more interesting because the drivers actually have to countersteer to get out of the under/oversteer caused by the throttle. It may not affect the racing much most of the time, but it will at least be more interesting to watch.
| Ferg | 04-19-2007 10:10 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;17778267]Thats what I'm saying. Its going to be more even because the cars don't matter, the drivers do.[/QUOTE]
Okay I got 'ya.
You're saying the cars are going to more even, which is correct, at least as far as TC, specifically the lack of, goes.
I'm saying it's going to be less even because now there will more of a gap between the merely good and the truly great drivers, especially in the wet.
I think we both come out winners in this :D
Okay I got 'ya.
You're saying the cars are going to more even, which is correct, at least as far as TC, specifically the lack of, goes.
I'm saying it's going to be less even because now there will more of a gap between the merely good and the truly great drivers, especially in the wet.
I think we both come out winners in this :D
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét