| TimStevens | 05-18-2007 10:29 AM |
Diesel F1!??!?! : puke :
| rupertberr | 05-18-2007 10:51 AM |
They already have an environmentally friendly Grand Prix series. Its called the America's Cup.
[IMG]http://www.americascup.com/multimedia/images/img_traitees/2007/05/lvsf070516sg_38748w_2col.jpg[/IMG]
however, awd, 2.2 liter, turbo, hmmm, reminds me of some car manufacturer, can't quite place it though...
and Fernando...well done!:banana: :lol:
[IMG]http://www.americascup.com/multimedia/images/img_traitees/2007/05/lvsf070516sg_38748w_2col.jpg[/IMG]
however, awd, 2.2 liter, turbo, hmmm, reminds me of some car manufacturer, can't quite place it though...
and Fernando...well done!:banana: :lol:
| Ferg | 05-18-2007 11:05 AM |
..and at the same time we'd really like to cut the costs of Grand Prix Racing. :lol:
| TimStevens | 05-18-2007 11:17 AM |
[QUOTE=Ferg;18115283]..and at the same time we'd really like to cut the costs of Grand Prix Racing. :lol:[/QUOTE]
C'mon Ferg, I'm sure a full 1% of your average F1 team's budget goes to fuel! By increasing mileage they're liable to save sheer [i]hundreds[/i] of dollars per event!
C'mon Ferg, I'm sure a full 1% of your average F1 team's budget goes to fuel! By increasing mileage they're liable to save sheer [i]hundreds[/i] of dollars per event!
| splurta | 05-18-2007 11:24 AM |
I think its great that they are considering making a switch to alternative fuels. F1 is meant to be the technologial showpeice of the auto industry so I can think of few better venues for the development of new technologies, especially those that are geared towards environmental sustainability. Hopefully they will be going hydrogen in the not-too-distant future. F1 history suggests that performance will not be hurt in the medium (much less the long) term, so it doesn't seem that there's much not to like.
| Ferg | 05-18-2007 11:45 AM |
[QUOTE=splurta;18115522]F1 is meant to be the technologial showpeice of the auto industry...[/QUOTE]
According to whom?
It's only since the manufacturers invaded en mass that the idea of F1 being some sort of technology show-pony for the auto industry has been floated. Obviously there's been tremendous innovation in F1, and that's trickled down to regular street cars, but up until recently it's only been in the pursuit of making a faster [i]racing[/i] car, not for working out the bugs of bio-fuel and hydrogen..there are much cheaper ways of doing that.
If it's for marketing the newfound "greenness" of the auto companies I say thanks but no thanks. In fact, if being green is the direction they really want to go I'd politely tell them to **** off and go play with endurance racing. Market your ability to compete in the most demanding and competitive form of motorsport around by winning some races...
I had hoped that when Mosely talked about taking grand prix racing back to basics he meant it...but allowing the wholesale change of the fundamentals of the sport is asking for disaster.
Honeslty, does a car running bio-fuel, a silly rev limit, one-make chassis, four wheel drive, traction (and no doubt stability as well) control, and ****-all knows what else still sound like F1?
F1 should change, but only in a way that makes it more competitive, more demanding of the teams and drivers (not just dollar amounts) and ultimatly makes for better racing.
I don't see this as a move in a good direction.
The only good thing is that given history, there's no chance of anyone agreeing to such a wild swing in regulations anytime soon...
2020 maybe...2011, I think not :lol:
According to whom?
It's only since the manufacturers invaded en mass that the idea of F1 being some sort of technology show-pony for the auto industry has been floated. Obviously there's been tremendous innovation in F1, and that's trickled down to regular street cars, but up until recently it's only been in the pursuit of making a faster [i]racing[/i] car, not for working out the bugs of bio-fuel and hydrogen..there are much cheaper ways of doing that.
If it's for marketing the newfound "greenness" of the auto companies I say thanks but no thanks. In fact, if being green is the direction they really want to go I'd politely tell them to **** off and go play with endurance racing. Market your ability to compete in the most demanding and competitive form of motorsport around by winning some races...
I had hoped that when Mosely talked about taking grand prix racing back to basics he meant it...but allowing the wholesale change of the fundamentals of the sport is asking for disaster.
Honeslty, does a car running bio-fuel, a silly rev limit, one-make chassis, four wheel drive, traction (and no doubt stability as well) control, and ****-all knows what else still sound like F1?
F1 should change, but only in a way that makes it more competitive, more demanding of the teams and drivers (not just dollar amounts) and ultimatly makes for better racing.
I don't see this as a move in a good direction.
The only good thing is that given history, there's no chance of anyone agreeing to such a wild swing in regulations anytime soon...
2020 maybe...2011, I think not :lol:
| Ferg | 05-18-2007 12:10 PM |
Nigel on the "green" issue....
[QUOTE][B]Dear Nigel,
Leaving aside costs and the fact that F1 is first and foremost sport, it surprises me that the FIA or the manufacturers haven't proposed more radical engine rules for 2010 and beyond that would really drive 'environment-friendly' technologies. F1 is the fastest product development lab on earth, why not tell engine designers to build engines with 0% greenhouse gases emissions and see what happens next? Wouldn't it be great to see a 5-litre fuel-cell powered BMW winning the world championship in 2015?
Martin Zustak[/B]
Dear Martin,
Would it be great to see a 5-litre 'fuel cell' powered BMW winning the World Championship in 2015? For a start, what sort of noise would it make...?
We all have our own ideas about what a racing car should be, and my fundamental requirements have always been simple: it should look wonderful, sound glorious, and go very fast. You begin your first paragraph with, 'Leaving aside costs, and the fact that F1 is first and foremost a sport' - but how can you 'leave aside' those things?
For a start, put costs into the stratosphere, and you won't see the manufacturers for dust. For another, while I think it's arguable these days that F1 is 'first and foremost a sport' - as Frank Williams puts it, "It's a sport between two and four on a Sunday afternoon; all the rest of the time it's just commerce..." - for God's Sake, don't let's make it any less of one!
I'm as aware as anyone of what's happening to the planet, and well understand the need for 'environmentally friendly' technologies, but I think, with regard to F1, we need to keep a sense of proportion: as a man from one of the fuel companies told me a few years ago, "An entire Grand Prix season uses less fuel than a single transatlantic flight by a 747 - and one of those takes off every five minutes..."
The FIA clearly recognises the need for motor racing to be seen to be doing its bit in the fight against greenhouse gases, etc, and various new technologies are under study. But, as far as I'm concerned, if you're going to change the fundamental ethos of F1, you might as well close it down.
I'm very much with Patrick Head on this: "I see absolutely no need for F1 to justify its existence," he said, "by 'improving the breed', in terms of road cars. I'm sure the manufacturers learn from racing, and some of that technology ultimately finds its way into their road cars - that, and good publicity, is how they justify their involvement in F1, and that's fine. But I firmly believe F1 can justify itself simply as a sport, an entertainment - an endeavour..."
I understand the need for F1 to be seen to be as responsible as possible (within limits) - as you say, it's the fastest product development lab on earth - but I've absolutely no wish to see its essential character eroded. As countless fans have told me over the years, they watch a Grand Prix, either at the track or on the box, in the hope of seeing drama and excitement: "I want to see a race," one said to me at the NEC recently, "not a software exhibition." Amen to that.
The fundamentals must remain, that's the point. In the early 1970s Lotus flirted with a gas turbine F1 car, which raced a few times. As it whispered silently past the pits at Monza in '71, driven by Emerson Fittipaldi, it was a novelty, and therefore of interest. But as Denis Jenkinson said at the time, "Bloody hell, just think how boring it would be if they all sounded like that." No one cried too much when it disappeared into obscurity. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Dear Nigel,
Leaving aside costs and the fact that F1 is first and foremost sport, it surprises me that the FIA or the manufacturers haven't proposed more radical engine rules for 2010 and beyond that would really drive 'environment-friendly' technologies. F1 is the fastest product development lab on earth, why not tell engine designers to build engines with 0% greenhouse gases emissions and see what happens next? Wouldn't it be great to see a 5-litre fuel-cell powered BMW winning the world championship in 2015?
Martin Zustak[/B]
Dear Martin,
Would it be great to see a 5-litre 'fuel cell' powered BMW winning the World Championship in 2015? For a start, what sort of noise would it make...?
We all have our own ideas about what a racing car should be, and my fundamental requirements have always been simple: it should look wonderful, sound glorious, and go very fast. You begin your first paragraph with, 'Leaving aside costs, and the fact that F1 is first and foremost a sport' - but how can you 'leave aside' those things?
For a start, put costs into the stratosphere, and you won't see the manufacturers for dust. For another, while I think it's arguable these days that F1 is 'first and foremost a sport' - as Frank Williams puts it, "It's a sport between two and four on a Sunday afternoon; all the rest of the time it's just commerce..." - for God's Sake, don't let's make it any less of one!
I'm as aware as anyone of what's happening to the planet, and well understand the need for 'environmentally friendly' technologies, but I think, with regard to F1, we need to keep a sense of proportion: as a man from one of the fuel companies told me a few years ago, "An entire Grand Prix season uses less fuel than a single transatlantic flight by a 747 - and one of those takes off every five minutes..."
The FIA clearly recognises the need for motor racing to be seen to be doing its bit in the fight against greenhouse gases, etc, and various new technologies are under study. But, as far as I'm concerned, if you're going to change the fundamental ethos of F1, you might as well close it down.
I'm very much with Patrick Head on this: "I see absolutely no need for F1 to justify its existence," he said, "by 'improving the breed', in terms of road cars. I'm sure the manufacturers learn from racing, and some of that technology ultimately finds its way into their road cars - that, and good publicity, is how they justify their involvement in F1, and that's fine. But I firmly believe F1 can justify itself simply as a sport, an entertainment - an endeavour..."
I understand the need for F1 to be seen to be as responsible as possible (within limits) - as you say, it's the fastest product development lab on earth - but I've absolutely no wish to see its essential character eroded. As countless fans have told me over the years, they watch a Grand Prix, either at the track or on the box, in the hope of seeing drama and excitement: "I want to see a race," one said to me at the NEC recently, "not a software exhibition." Amen to that.
The fundamentals must remain, that's the point. In the early 1970s Lotus flirted with a gas turbine F1 car, which raced a few times. As it whispered silently past the pits at Monza in '71, driven by Emerson Fittipaldi, it was a novelty, and therefore of interest. But as Denis Jenkinson said at the time, "Bloody hell, just think how boring it would be if they all sounded like that." No one cried too much when it disappeared into obscurity. [/QUOTE]
| Ferg | 05-18-2007 09:45 PM |
Last day at PR...
[QUOTE][B]Raikkonen finishes Ricard test on top[/B]
By Pablo Elizalde Friday, May 18th 2007, 16:16 GMT
Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen just edged Renault driver Giancarlo Fisichella to finish on top of the times on the final day of testing at the Paul Ricard circuit.
The Finn posted a best time of 1:28.624 to finish as quickest for the second day running.
Raikkonen enjoyed a more productive day than yesterday, when he was hit by an electronic problem that cut his running short.
The Ferrari driver covered over 100 laps today as the Italian squad continued with their preparations for the Canadian Grand Prix next month, working around 5.2-km 1E layout of the circuit.
On a sunny day at the French circuit, Fisichella finished less than 0.020 seconds behind Raikkonen after 111 laps with his Renault.
Spaniard Pedro de la Rosa was third quickest for the McLaren-Mercedes team, despite his three-day old engine expiring around noon.
There were another two red flags during the day, the first caused by Spyker's Adrian Sutil, who stopped on track at 10:40am, and the final one triggered by Jenson Button, whose Honda engine let go with 50 minutes of the session remaining.
Frenchman Franck Montagny completed a positive four-day test for the Toyota team with the fourth fastest time, ahead of Williams' test driver Kazuki Nakajima.
David Coulthard completed 77 laps on his way to the sixth quickest time of the day, his Red Bull team carrying out high and low downforce set-up work.
"I did high downforce work in the morning, something we could not do yesterday, and low down force work in the afternoon," Coulthard told autosport.com. "We tried both tyres, so we will see how they will behave in Monaco. It's very difficult to simulate Monaco anywhere so we will find out in a few days."
Briton James Rossiter was the busiest man on track as he completed 131 laps of the French track to wrap up his maiden test with the Super Aguri team.
BMW Sauber's Nick Heidfeld took over from teammate Robert Kubica as the German squad worked on optimising their set-up for low and medium downforce tracks. Heidfeld finished the day as ninth fastest.
"The car seems okay in low downforce and I was doing some work left over from yesterday," Heidfeld told autosport.com. "I also tried Montreal wing configurations and it is hard to tell but the (wind tunnel) numbers are okay and from a driver's side the feeling is okay.
"It is just that this track in not Montreal and Monaco, so it's hard to judge."
Today's times:
Pos Driver Team Time Laps
1. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:28.624 101
2. Fisichella Renault (B) 1:28.641 111
3. de la Rosa McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:29.249 78
4. Montagny Toyota (B) 1:29.312 79
5. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:29.631 100
6. Coulthard Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:29.834 77
7. Rossiter Super Aguri-Honda (B) 1:29.869 131
8. Sutil Spyker-Ferrari (B) 1:29.869 83
9. Heidfeld BMW-Sauber (B) 1:29.978 118
10. Button Honda (B) 1:29.989 100
11. Liuzzi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:29.993 56[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Raikkonen finishes Ricard test on top[/B]
By Pablo Elizalde Friday, May 18th 2007, 16:16 GMT
Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen just edged Renault driver Giancarlo Fisichella to finish on top of the times on the final day of testing at the Paul Ricard circuit.
The Finn posted a best time of 1:28.624 to finish as quickest for the second day running.
Raikkonen enjoyed a more productive day than yesterday, when he was hit by an electronic problem that cut his running short.
The Ferrari driver covered over 100 laps today as the Italian squad continued with their preparations for the Canadian Grand Prix next month, working around 5.2-km 1E layout of the circuit.
On a sunny day at the French circuit, Fisichella finished less than 0.020 seconds behind Raikkonen after 111 laps with his Renault.
Spaniard Pedro de la Rosa was third quickest for the McLaren-Mercedes team, despite his three-day old engine expiring around noon.
There were another two red flags during the day, the first caused by Spyker's Adrian Sutil, who stopped on track at 10:40am, and the final one triggered by Jenson Button, whose Honda engine let go with 50 minutes of the session remaining.
Frenchman Franck Montagny completed a positive four-day test for the Toyota team with the fourth fastest time, ahead of Williams' test driver Kazuki Nakajima.
David Coulthard completed 77 laps on his way to the sixth quickest time of the day, his Red Bull team carrying out high and low downforce set-up work.
"I did high downforce work in the morning, something we could not do yesterday, and low down force work in the afternoon," Coulthard told autosport.com. "We tried both tyres, so we will see how they will behave in Monaco. It's very difficult to simulate Monaco anywhere so we will find out in a few days."
Briton James Rossiter was the busiest man on track as he completed 131 laps of the French track to wrap up his maiden test with the Super Aguri team.
BMW Sauber's Nick Heidfeld took over from teammate Robert Kubica as the German squad worked on optimising their set-up for low and medium downforce tracks. Heidfeld finished the day as ninth fastest.
"The car seems okay in low downforce and I was doing some work left over from yesterday," Heidfeld told autosport.com. "I also tried Montreal wing configurations and it is hard to tell but the (wind tunnel) numbers are okay and from a driver's side the feeling is okay.
"It is just that this track in not Montreal and Monaco, so it's hard to judge."
Today's times:
Pos Driver Team Time Laps
1. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:28.624 101
2. Fisichella Renault (B) 1:28.641 111
3. de la Rosa McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:29.249 78
4. Montagny Toyota (B) 1:29.312 79
5. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:29.631 100
6. Coulthard Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:29.834 77
7. Rossiter Super Aguri-Honda (B) 1:29.869 131
8. Sutil Spyker-Ferrari (B) 1:29.869 83
9. Heidfeld BMW-Sauber (B) 1:29.978 118
10. Button Honda (B) 1:29.989 100
11. Liuzzi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:29.993 56[/QUOTE]
| splurta | 05-18-2007 09:46 PM |
I see your points, but I don't see how technological development that happens to be in the direction of environmental sustainability would be bad for the sport. The cars wont go any slower, so what's the problem? Ferg I agree that endurance racing is, generally speaking, perhaps a better venue for testing new technologies but I still think that F1 as the most prestigious and technologically advanced form of motorsport should take the lead in a variety of new fields of automotive technology. And I disagree with the response to Martin Zustak's letter. Basing the majority of an argument around concerns about the sound of the cars seems a bit weak to me. Popularising these sorts of justifications doesn't help to move us forward in my view. On one hand, I am sure they can make cars that run on a variety of power sources that sound great; on the other hand, how long does Nigel think that automobiles will (or should!) continue be powered by the internal combusion engine, which relatively speaking is a highly unsophisticated bit of technology that has lasted well beyong its time? My argument has little to do with responsibility (as in his fuel consumption point, which is particularly weak) and more to do with the opportunities that motorsports presents for technological advancement, and since F1 is at the pinnacle of motorsports...
Anyway, I completely agree that making F1 more competitive should be the main priority as the rules evolve. I just dont think that pushing the development of useful technologies is mutually exclusive. My 2.5 cents :)
Anyway, I completely agree that making F1 more competitive should be the main priority as the rules evolve. I just dont think that pushing the development of useful technologies is mutually exclusive. My 2.5 cents :)
| splurta | 05-18-2007 09:49 PM |
[QUOTE=Ferg;18122378]Last day at PR...[/QUOTE]
Wow! Nice to see the Renault so far up the board! I hope this is the sign of something positive (and not just partly a story of factory vs test drivers), and we will see them competing near the top come next wknd. It would be great to see at least 4 teams (Ferrari, Mclaren, BMW, Renault)) fighting for podium before season's end.
Thanks for posting.
Wow! Nice to see the Renault so far up the board! I hope this is the sign of something positive (and not just partly a story of factory vs test drivers), and we will see them competing near the top come next wknd. It would be great to see at least 4 teams (Ferrari, Mclaren, BMW, Renault)) fighting for podium before season's end.
Thanks for posting.
| Ferg | 05-18-2007 10:07 PM |
Good stuff.
Well I think what we're basically debating is what exactly should the point of Grand Prix racing be in the future.
Should it be as the manufacturers and the FIA seem to want, a testing and development lab for new automotive technologies of the green variety?
Should it be as the purists and fans want, a sport, a spectacle, or as Patrick Head put it, an endeavour?
Hard question to answer really.
As you say, F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, and it should remain a sport first and foremost. I tend to agree with Nigel on what constitutes a good racing car, looks, sound, and speed. If the FIA can make a low rev diesel V6 sound exciting and their proposed single make chassis look fantastic, and the whole package is plenty fast then where's the problem? There may not be one, but I ask again, should that be the future of F1? What exactly is so responsible and progressive about this proposed formula? And how exactly do all wheel drive and traction (possibly stability) control improve the sport?
There can be a balance between the sporting side and the technology side. I was very excited when the FIA proposed the idea of regenerative power devices a few years ago. Perfect I thought! Here's a very cool piece of automotive technology, that after a few years of being developed in the heat of F1 would come out lighter and more efficient. Not only that but it's impact on the sporting side would be minimal, possibly even improving the racing. Although I don't like the idea of a "push to pass" button the fact that it would be up to the driver to decide how much energy to store and when to use it and not just an arbitrary amount made it more acceptable.
Bottom line for me anyways... I watch and follow Grand Prix racing because of it's drama. The characters, the teams, the drivers, the circuits, and sometimes even the racing are what keeps me coming back.
Honestly I'm beginning to hope the manufacturers do decide to bail our of F1, sell their teams back to the privateers who can then get back to the point of all this fuss, the racing.
Well I think what we're basically debating is what exactly should the point of Grand Prix racing be in the future.
Should it be as the manufacturers and the FIA seem to want, a testing and development lab for new automotive technologies of the green variety?
Should it be as the purists and fans want, a sport, a spectacle, or as Patrick Head put it, an endeavour?
Hard question to answer really.
As you say, F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, and it should remain a sport first and foremost. I tend to agree with Nigel on what constitutes a good racing car, looks, sound, and speed. If the FIA can make a low rev diesel V6 sound exciting and their proposed single make chassis look fantastic, and the whole package is plenty fast then where's the problem? There may not be one, but I ask again, should that be the future of F1? What exactly is so responsible and progressive about this proposed formula? And how exactly do all wheel drive and traction (possibly stability) control improve the sport?
There can be a balance between the sporting side and the technology side. I was very excited when the FIA proposed the idea of regenerative power devices a few years ago. Perfect I thought! Here's a very cool piece of automotive technology, that after a few years of being developed in the heat of F1 would come out lighter and more efficient. Not only that but it's impact on the sporting side would be minimal, possibly even improving the racing. Although I don't like the idea of a "push to pass" button the fact that it would be up to the driver to decide how much energy to store and when to use it and not just an arbitrary amount made it more acceptable.
Bottom line for me anyways... I watch and follow Grand Prix racing because of it's drama. The characters, the teams, the drivers, the circuits, and sometimes even the racing are what keeps me coming back.
Honestly I'm beginning to hope the manufacturers do decide to bail our of F1, sell their teams back to the privateers who can then get back to the point of all this fuss, the racing.
| ptclaus98 | 05-19-2007 04:01 PM |
I think diesel would be nice. It would be the return of Audi in Grand Prix racing.
| StuBeck | 05-19-2007 05:05 PM |
People tend to go nuts every time they state what is going on, and everyone thinks its Max being an idiot too. I don't think all of the rules will go through. They do this each time its brought up, and nothing to insane comes along, unless the teams go "naa naa naa can't hear you."
As it is, I think bio fuel will happen, the engines may change, but AWD won't happen and the 5 GP per engine won't happen either. Yes, the car manufacturers being brought in meant they wanted to bring stuff to the road cars. As it is though, we need the manufacturers. We need them for the engines if nothing else, and I doubt we're going to have another manufacturer for a while who is willing to simply make engines. If they pulled out, yes, someone would buy the teams, but there hasn't been a successful third party engine manufactuer in a long time. Supertec was using Renault, Asiatech was using Peugeot, and Cosworth was majorly funded by Ford for 40 years, so while they were making amazing engines for the money. With that, you can't really call them wholey independent.
There is really only one independent team right now in Williams, and they are getting free engines. Red Bull is a huge company who doesn't have sponsors, and Super Aguri is a Honda B team.
Keeping the manufactuers happy is needed. CART went downhill quickly when they pissed off all the engine suppliers, and I doubt it would have been sold and there would be 2 or 3 teams more in the series easily now. Having it be less low tech but making it more interesting because of new tech going in is cooler in my view.
As it is, I think bio fuel will happen, the engines may change, but AWD won't happen and the 5 GP per engine won't happen either. Yes, the car manufacturers being brought in meant they wanted to bring stuff to the road cars. As it is though, we need the manufacturers. We need them for the engines if nothing else, and I doubt we're going to have another manufacturer for a while who is willing to simply make engines. If they pulled out, yes, someone would buy the teams, but there hasn't been a successful third party engine manufactuer in a long time. Supertec was using Renault, Asiatech was using Peugeot, and Cosworth was majorly funded by Ford for 40 years, so while they were making amazing engines for the money. With that, you can't really call them wholey independent.
There is really only one independent team right now in Williams, and they are getting free engines. Red Bull is a huge company who doesn't have sponsors, and Super Aguri is a Honda B team.
Keeping the manufactuers happy is needed. CART went downhill quickly when they pissed off all the engine suppliers, and I doubt it would have been sold and there would be 2 or 3 teams more in the series easily now. Having it be less low tech but making it more interesting because of new tech going in is cooler in my view.
| splurta | 05-19-2007 07:39 PM |
Hey Ferg,
I think we are in agreement on a lot of things!
My personal view is that, being the pinnacle in motorsport, F1 should be the leader in technological innovation. I dont however believe that this should be pursued at the expense of F1 as a sport. Thus there are some areas where I believe F1 would do well to lead the way, such as alternative fuels; there are others though where I am less convinced, like AWD and traction control. While these are definitely very important technologies for the safety of roadgoing cars, I always cringe a bit when I consider these 'driver aid' devices (fancy diffs in the WRC is potentially another example).
I guess overall I think that F1 should be a test bed but not just for 'green' technologies. Where it fits with the sporting dimension the significant human and financial resources that make F1 so innovative should be channelled in directions that drive the automotive industry forward more generally in terms of fuels and other areas, so for instance I think your regenerative technologies example is an excellent. There is just so much intellectual capital and competition in innovation in F1 that it would be a shame if it is directed towards areas that have little relevance outside the industry.
At the end of the day though I also hope that F1 remains exciting, and with more wheel-to-wheel racing!
Cheers
Jason
I think we are in agreement on a lot of things!
My personal view is that, being the pinnacle in motorsport, F1 should be the leader in technological innovation. I dont however believe that this should be pursued at the expense of F1 as a sport. Thus there are some areas where I believe F1 would do well to lead the way, such as alternative fuels; there are others though where I am less convinced, like AWD and traction control. While these are definitely very important technologies for the safety of roadgoing cars, I always cringe a bit when I consider these 'driver aid' devices (fancy diffs in the WRC is potentially another example).
I guess overall I think that F1 should be a test bed but not just for 'green' technologies. Where it fits with the sporting dimension the significant human and financial resources that make F1 so innovative should be channelled in directions that drive the automotive industry forward more generally in terms of fuels and other areas, so for instance I think your regenerative technologies example is an excellent. There is just so much intellectual capital and competition in innovation in F1 that it would be a shame if it is directed towards areas that have little relevance outside the industry.
At the end of the day though I also hope that F1 remains exciting, and with more wheel-to-wheel racing!
Cheers
Jason
| thejaredhuang | 05-21-2007 01:53 AM |
Biofuel isn't bad, its just the V6. The fuel won't effect how the engine sounds unless its a diesel. What got me into F1 was the sound.
| artkevin | 05-21-2007 10:13 AM |
I personally feel enduro racing is better test bed then F1 can ever be for road applications. I am all for F1 going green but it can't really lead the way but it should pick up tech that makes sense IMHO. Biofuel is one good example.
| OnTheGas | 05-22-2007 02:02 AM |
Mosely is making another mistake...
�
�
Getting in bed w/the auto manufacturers is not smart... I agree w/Ferg here, if the big manufacturers sold out, it would be better long-term for F1.
I think the mistake being made here is that Max is going to the wrong crowd. Instead of sleeping w/the manufacturers, he should be going to the drivers to see how to make for better racing, not better technological innovation. (Of course, half of these drivers are idiots, but still...)
You wanna have better transfer of technology from the track to the street? Then strip off all the wings, and winglets from those chassis! Wings require clean air to work, which requires the racers to not run close together. Without wings, it would force the chassis designers to work harder to obtain better mechnical grip. There is where technology could transfer to the street. In addition, street car manufacturers do not put wings, and winglets, on their cars, because wings only start to have an effect at more than 100mph. But mechanical grip improvements can have an effect at any speed.
As others have said, leadership in technological innovation in motorsport can be found else where, (endurance racing, drag racing, etc.) And that is OK. F1 needs to come back into balance where it is the pinnacle of driver competion.
Just look at this season so far... four races in to it, and the leader coming out of the first turn has won each race. We might as well have been racing at Monaco for those first four races!
F1 has become broken, and Mosely is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I think the mistake being made here is that Max is going to the wrong crowd. Instead of sleeping w/the manufacturers, he should be going to the drivers to see how to make for better racing, not better technological innovation. (Of course, half of these drivers are idiots, but still...)
You wanna have better transfer of technology from the track to the street? Then strip off all the wings, and winglets from those chassis! Wings require clean air to work, which requires the racers to not run close together. Without wings, it would force the chassis designers to work harder to obtain better mechnical grip. There is where technology could transfer to the street. In addition, street car manufacturers do not put wings, and winglets, on their cars, because wings only start to have an effect at more than 100mph. But mechanical grip improvements can have an effect at any speed.
As others have said, leadership in technological innovation in motorsport can be found else where, (endurance racing, drag racing, etc.) And that is OK. F1 needs to come back into balance where it is the pinnacle of driver competion.
Just look at this season so far... four races in to it, and the leader coming out of the first turn has won each race. We might as well have been racing at Monaco for those first four races!
F1 has become broken, and Mosely is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
| artkevin | 05-22-2007 09:23 AM |
Why not look to other series to see what works? I think GP2 does a great job of no driver aids and the use of ground effects. The ground effects let the cars get much closer to each other without effecting the way the drive too much.
| StuBeck | 05-22-2007 02:41 PM |
The wing thing isn't entirely true. Honda had to put a lip spoiler on the back of the Civic to enhance rear end stabiilty with the new Civic's, they do add stability and help with airflow, just not to the same effect as in F1.
I don't think F1 is broken, and changing the leadership isn't suddenly going to change everything. Remember, the FIA did the reg's for GP2 and added those things in to test them out. I think we'll go back to ground effects in a few years, we have enough of it anyways.
I don't think F1 is broken, and changing the leadership isn't suddenly going to change everything. Remember, the FIA did the reg's for GP2 and added those things in to test them out. I think we'll go back to ground effects in a few years, we have enough of it anyways.
| OnTheGas | 05-23-2007 01:37 AM |
�douard Michelin on F1 becoming a spec series
�
�
While I believe that Mosley's strategic vision is in serious error, to be fair, it is a tough balancing act to manage. It is the balance of the significance of the drivers vs. the significance of the design, and engineering of the car.
I feel strongly that F1 has moved too far toward the car, and needs to adjust back to make the driver more significant to the competitiveness of a car. But who cares! I'm just another F1 fan.
There are dangers of reducing the significance of the car of course. So to better illustrate the other side of the argument, I'll share this quote from the late �douard Michelin, (former head of Michelin), who died a year ago.[quote][i][URL="http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/51946"]Edouard explaining why he decided, at the end of 2005, to pull Michelin out of F1.[/URL][/i]
Results improve the image of the company as they are a tremendous test for research, but with a single supplier F1 will partly lose its high technology...
We've always been against a lack of competition among tire manufacturers. [b]To ban competition is the first step towards a single engine and a single bodywork, that is progressively transforming current races into promotional races[/b].[/quote](I added the emphasis.)
I feel strongly that F1 has moved too far toward the car, and needs to adjust back to make the driver more significant to the competitiveness of a car. But who cares! I'm just another F1 fan.
There are dangers of reducing the significance of the car of course. So to better illustrate the other side of the argument, I'll share this quote from the late �douard Michelin, (former head of Michelin), who died a year ago.[quote][i][URL="http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/51946"]Edouard explaining why he decided, at the end of 2005, to pull Michelin out of F1.[/URL][/i]
Results improve the image of the company as they are a tremendous test for research, but with a single supplier F1 will partly lose its high technology...
We've always been against a lack of competition among tire manufacturers. [b]To ban competition is the first step towards a single engine and a single bodywork, that is progressively transforming current races into promotional races[/b].[/quote](I added the emphasis.)
| Ferg | 05-23-2007 11:09 AM |
Some really excellent stuff from Nigel...
[QUOTE][B]Dear Nigel,
In the world of the hypothetical everything is possible, especially in a bar chat after a few pints... so you can become our judge and help us settle this dispute, just for the fun of it.
If you could put in the same grid: Fangio, Moss, Clark, Senna and Schumacher (probably "the" 5 all time top drivers), each on the top of their conditions, and all in a good day. The 5 driving in identical cars with no driver aids at all or technology that wouldn't be familiar to any particular one of them, in what order you believe they would finish?
Rafael Cardenas[/B]
Dear Rafael,
I guess you're simply asking me to list those five drivers in order of greatness, as I see it. I've said many times that it's as good as impossible to compare drivers from different eras because the nature of the job changes so much with the passing of time.
In 1998 Martin Brundle drove a 1955 Mercedes-Benz W196 in a demonstration before the Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps. Having experienced a Formula 1 car of nearly 1000bhp, capable of cornering at close to 5g, he expected to find the Mercedes - 290bhp, skinny tyres, no downforce - relatively gentle to drive, and so it was in absolute terms. In other respects, though, the experience gave him serious food for thought.
"What's never changed about Grand Prix racing," said Brundle, "is that the limit is the limit is the limit. In other respects, though, it seems to me that there are huge differences in the job of the driver from one era to another. Physically, I found the W196 easy to drive, because the g-forces are low, but mentally it was incredibly hard.
"When you're up around 150mph, going through fast corners, you begin to think about the absence of seat belts, roll-over bars, and the like. In a modern car, if you know you're going to crash, you make sure you do certain things beforehand, but in this case I really had no idea what I'd do.
"Then I started thinking, 'And this is the new Spa, with plenty of run-off areas. Fangio and Moss used to drive these things round the old Spa, which was much faster - and if you went off, you were going to hit trees ...
"All right, in the back of a current driver's mind is the acceptance that he might get hurt doing this, but in those days it must have been right at the front of your mind, I'd have thought. And that's a pressure modern drivers don't even think about ..."
So. The possible repercussions of an accident have changed out of sight over time, and so have other things, too. The g-forces were way less in times gone by - but when the cars were front-engined, the drivers were subjected to tremendous heat. The drivers of yore rarely drove flat out for the entire duration of a Grand Prix - but the races were much longer. And on and on ...
However, back to your five-car race, Rafael. I think Stirling Moss would win it, simply because I believe him to be the greatest racing driver God has yet put on this earth. I'll concede that schoolboy bias comes into this a little - he was one of my great heroes when I was a kid - but in all honesty I think Stirling was the consummate driver, with no flaws worth the name.
He excelled in all kinds of car on all kinds of circuit in all kinds of weather. He was a beautiful stylist in a racing car, yet as pure a racer as there has ever been. As far as I'm concerned, he was better than his contemporaries, Fangio, and then Clark. The fact that he was never world champion says more about the worth of the title than the man.
Second - although he hardly ever finished second in his life - I would put Clark. In many respects, Jimmy always me reminded of Stirling - the same beautifully relaxed, effortless, driving style - and he was another man who was brilliant in a variety of different types of car. (I know this latter point doesn't really come into this question, for Senna and Schumacher, once they were established, concentrated exclusively on F1, but still I think it's worth mentioning).
So many times both Moss and Clark took the lead at the start of a race, and disappeared for the afternoon, but I put Jimmy behind Stirling because I don't think he was as good in a fight.
Third, Fangio. The great Juan Manuel drove in 51 World Championship Grands Prix, and won 24 of them, a race:victory ratio which will surely never be approached, let alone equalled. Part of Fangio's genius was invariably going to the right team at the right time - only in 1953, when he was with Maserati, did he have less than a supremely competitive car.
That said, every time he did, as in 1951 (Alfa Romeo), 1954/55 (Mercedes), 1956 (Ferrari) and 1957 (Maserati again), he won the World Championship! Fangio's creed was 'to win the race at the slowest possible speed', and in this he was expert, but when the need arose - as at the Nurburgring in 1957, when he scored his last, and greatest, Grand Prix victory - he could be a charger, too.
In fourth and fifth places I put Senna and Schumacher. Some who have come only recently to the sport will probably be amazed that I don't consider them 'the best of all time', and so on, but when you're rating racing drivers in the round, you must necessarily consider every aspect, and to my mind Ayrton and Michael, while unquestionably among the very greatest pure drivers ever, fall short because of their questionable ethics on the race track.
It's true, of course, that there always been drivers who fell short in this regard. Ask Moss about Giuseppe Farina, the first man to be crowned world champion, and he'll say that, "Farina was undoubtedly a great driver, with the most wonderful relaxed style at the wheel - in fact, I copied it because I thought it looked so good!
"But if he was a great driver, he was also a killer - literally. On the track he was completely ruthless - even with inexperienced drivers he was lapping. And if you presumed to get into a scrap with him, he'd have you off the road as soon as look at you ..."
So there have always been drivers like that, but at one time there were very few of them - and they were reviled for their actions on the track.
Senna, it seems to me, was the first driver to make that sort of thing 'socially acceptable' - which it will never be for me. He saved his worst excesses for nemesis Alain Prost, but was not averse to using what Damon Hill called 'terrorist tactics' with others.
I remember one year at Hockenheim talking to Alboreto after the race - Michele was black-faced with rage at a stunt Ayrton had pulled on him out in the forests, when they were running absolutely flat out.
It always seemed sad to me that Senna, an absolute artist in a racing car, had this flaw in his make-up. As Hill said, "When I was in Formula Ford, most drivers used Ayrton as their role model - they saw what he was doing in F1, using intimidation as a weapon, and they copied it ..."
That's why Senna falls short for me. I think, in some ways, he set a lamentable example to young racing drivers everywhere, and Schumacher, having initially been very critical of Ayrton's behaviour, proceeded to refine it even further.
I think of what Michael did to Hill at Adelaide in 1994, and to Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez in '97, plus his ludicrous antics at the end of Monaco qualifying last year, and can't put him - for all his sublime skill - with such as Clark and Fangio. As Moss said, "Farina would do things a man like Fangio would never even think of ..." [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Dear Nigel,
In the world of the hypothetical everything is possible, especially in a bar chat after a few pints... so you can become our judge and help us settle this dispute, just for the fun of it.
If you could put in the same grid: Fangio, Moss, Clark, Senna and Schumacher (probably "the" 5 all time top drivers), each on the top of their conditions, and all in a good day. The 5 driving in identical cars with no driver aids at all or technology that wouldn't be familiar to any particular one of them, in what order you believe they would finish?
Rafael Cardenas[/B]
Dear Rafael,
I guess you're simply asking me to list those five drivers in order of greatness, as I see it. I've said many times that it's as good as impossible to compare drivers from different eras because the nature of the job changes so much with the passing of time.
In 1998 Martin Brundle drove a 1955 Mercedes-Benz W196 in a demonstration before the Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps. Having experienced a Formula 1 car of nearly 1000bhp, capable of cornering at close to 5g, he expected to find the Mercedes - 290bhp, skinny tyres, no downforce - relatively gentle to drive, and so it was in absolute terms. In other respects, though, the experience gave him serious food for thought.
"What's never changed about Grand Prix racing," said Brundle, "is that the limit is the limit is the limit. In other respects, though, it seems to me that there are huge differences in the job of the driver from one era to another. Physically, I found the W196 easy to drive, because the g-forces are low, but mentally it was incredibly hard.
"When you're up around 150mph, going through fast corners, you begin to think about the absence of seat belts, roll-over bars, and the like. In a modern car, if you know you're going to crash, you make sure you do certain things beforehand, but in this case I really had no idea what I'd do.
"Then I started thinking, 'And this is the new Spa, with plenty of run-off areas. Fangio and Moss used to drive these things round the old Spa, which was much faster - and if you went off, you were going to hit trees ...
"All right, in the back of a current driver's mind is the acceptance that he might get hurt doing this, but in those days it must have been right at the front of your mind, I'd have thought. And that's a pressure modern drivers don't even think about ..."
So. The possible repercussions of an accident have changed out of sight over time, and so have other things, too. The g-forces were way less in times gone by - but when the cars were front-engined, the drivers were subjected to tremendous heat. The drivers of yore rarely drove flat out for the entire duration of a Grand Prix - but the races were much longer. And on and on ...
However, back to your five-car race, Rafael. I think Stirling Moss would win it, simply because I believe him to be the greatest racing driver God has yet put on this earth. I'll concede that schoolboy bias comes into this a little - he was one of my great heroes when I was a kid - but in all honesty I think Stirling was the consummate driver, with no flaws worth the name.
He excelled in all kinds of car on all kinds of circuit in all kinds of weather. He was a beautiful stylist in a racing car, yet as pure a racer as there has ever been. As far as I'm concerned, he was better than his contemporaries, Fangio, and then Clark. The fact that he was never world champion says more about the worth of the title than the man.
Second - although he hardly ever finished second in his life - I would put Clark. In many respects, Jimmy always me reminded of Stirling - the same beautifully relaxed, effortless, driving style - and he was another man who was brilliant in a variety of different types of car. (I know this latter point doesn't really come into this question, for Senna and Schumacher, once they were established, concentrated exclusively on F1, but still I think it's worth mentioning).
So many times both Moss and Clark took the lead at the start of a race, and disappeared for the afternoon, but I put Jimmy behind Stirling because I don't think he was as good in a fight.
Third, Fangio. The great Juan Manuel drove in 51 World Championship Grands Prix, and won 24 of them, a race:victory ratio which will surely never be approached, let alone equalled. Part of Fangio's genius was invariably going to the right team at the right time - only in 1953, when he was with Maserati, did he have less than a supremely competitive car.
That said, every time he did, as in 1951 (Alfa Romeo), 1954/55 (Mercedes), 1956 (Ferrari) and 1957 (Maserati again), he won the World Championship! Fangio's creed was 'to win the race at the slowest possible speed', and in this he was expert, but when the need arose - as at the Nurburgring in 1957, when he scored his last, and greatest, Grand Prix victory - he could be a charger, too.
In fourth and fifth places I put Senna and Schumacher. Some who have come only recently to the sport will probably be amazed that I don't consider them 'the best of all time', and so on, but when you're rating racing drivers in the round, you must necessarily consider every aspect, and to my mind Ayrton and Michael, while unquestionably among the very greatest pure drivers ever, fall short because of their questionable ethics on the race track.
It's true, of course, that there always been drivers who fell short in this regard. Ask Moss about Giuseppe Farina, the first man to be crowned world champion, and he'll say that, "Farina was undoubtedly a great driver, with the most wonderful relaxed style at the wheel - in fact, I copied it because I thought it looked so good!
"But if he was a great driver, he was also a killer - literally. On the track he was completely ruthless - even with inexperienced drivers he was lapping. And if you presumed to get into a scrap with him, he'd have you off the road as soon as look at you ..."
So there have always been drivers like that, but at one time there were very few of them - and they were reviled for their actions on the track.
Senna, it seems to me, was the first driver to make that sort of thing 'socially acceptable' - which it will never be for me. He saved his worst excesses for nemesis Alain Prost, but was not averse to using what Damon Hill called 'terrorist tactics' with others.
I remember one year at Hockenheim talking to Alboreto after the race - Michele was black-faced with rage at a stunt Ayrton had pulled on him out in the forests, when they were running absolutely flat out.
It always seemed sad to me that Senna, an absolute artist in a racing car, had this flaw in his make-up. As Hill said, "When I was in Formula Ford, most drivers used Ayrton as their role model - they saw what he was doing in F1, using intimidation as a weapon, and they copied it ..."
That's why Senna falls short for me. I think, in some ways, he set a lamentable example to young racing drivers everywhere, and Schumacher, having initially been very critical of Ayrton's behaviour, proceeded to refine it even further.
I think of what Michael did to Hill at Adelaide in 1994, and to Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez in '97, plus his ludicrous antics at the end of Monaco qualifying last year, and can't put him - for all his sublime skill - with such as Clark and Fangio. As Moss said, "Farina would do things a man like Fangio would never even think of ..." [/QUOTE]
| Ferg | 05-24-2007 09:24 PM |
Team bosses weigh in....
[QUOTE][B]FIA warned over future rules mov[/B]e
By Mark Glendenning and Jonathan Noble Thursday, May 24th 2007, 18:23 GMT
Motor racing's governing body has been warned against moulding Formula One's future regulations around the desire of car manufacturers.
In the wake of the FIA revealing plans for a more environmentally-friendly F1 from 2011, with discussions due to being in earnest at this weekend's Monaco Grand Prix, the sport's car makers are getting heavily involved in framing future regulations.
But McLaren team boss Ron Dennis, whose team are part-owned by Mercedes-Benz, fears that moves to appease the manufacturers runs the risk of driving independent teams out of the sport completely.
"There are two categories of Grand Prix organisations, those that have equity control from a manufacturer and those teams whose core business is F1," he said on Thursday in Monaco.
"I don't feel comfortable with regulations designed to favour manufacturers who at any time can stop because it is not their core business.
"History shows they do choose to stop at short notice for different reasons. So, to construct therefore F1 for the manufacturers is fundamentally wrong. I see the need for an F1 that embraces many of the things that are part of the paper.
"I am not opposed to it at all, I am supportive of it, but inevitably change is always considered a good solution to un-competitiveness, so cynically I look at a variety of teams saying 'great' because they are uncompetitive and cannot make competitive cars with the current regulations.
"I hope that the thing that has driven virtually every decision of value that is taken over the last five years, which is cost, is kept firmly at the top of the list because this is going to cost a fortune and there isn't anybody that can argue against that. This will cost a fortune.
"We need to be mindful of the fact that this could see the demise of several teams who will not be able to pursue development programmes or receive the support of a manufacturer.
"So going from one minute a situation where we are effectively going to have four cars of the same make, most of which will be produced by the core manufacturing companies, to a situation where the manufacturers are heavily favoured against those core manufacturers, I don't think that is correct. But that is an opinion."
Despite Dennis' fears about the future implications on F1, other team bosses have given a provisional thumbs-up for the proposals that have been put forwards.
Honda Racing team boss Nick Fry said that he believes moves to energy efficient rules are vital if the sport is to survive.
"In our view, it is completely mandatory... i.e. there is unlikely to be a Formula One in the future without steps in that direction," he said.
"I won't go into detail, but would say we would support 80 per cent of the detail of the proposal as well. What we are seeing here is some really game-changing leadership from the FIA and I think that is what is required and I think the whole thing is to be applauded."
Ferrari managing director Jean Todt added: "I think it is a good draft for discussion. Mainly it is addressing the power train situation, so the aerodynamic and the chassis are not well covered and we are now at the end of May 2007 and I hope things can move forward and we can write regulations that suit Formula One."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]FIA warned over future rules mov[/B]e
By Mark Glendenning and Jonathan Noble Thursday, May 24th 2007, 18:23 GMT
Motor racing's governing body has been warned against moulding Formula One's future regulations around the desire of car manufacturers.
In the wake of the FIA revealing plans for a more environmentally-friendly F1 from 2011, with discussions due to being in earnest at this weekend's Monaco Grand Prix, the sport's car makers are getting heavily involved in framing future regulations.
But McLaren team boss Ron Dennis, whose team are part-owned by Mercedes-Benz, fears that moves to appease the manufacturers runs the risk of driving independent teams out of the sport completely.
"There are two categories of Grand Prix organisations, those that have equity control from a manufacturer and those teams whose core business is F1," he said on Thursday in Monaco.
"I don't feel comfortable with regulations designed to favour manufacturers who at any time can stop because it is not their core business.
"History shows they do choose to stop at short notice for different reasons. So, to construct therefore F1 for the manufacturers is fundamentally wrong. I see the need for an F1 that embraces many of the things that are part of the paper.
"I am not opposed to it at all, I am supportive of it, but inevitably change is always considered a good solution to un-competitiveness, so cynically I look at a variety of teams saying 'great' because they are uncompetitive and cannot make competitive cars with the current regulations.
"I hope that the thing that has driven virtually every decision of value that is taken over the last five years, which is cost, is kept firmly at the top of the list because this is going to cost a fortune and there isn't anybody that can argue against that. This will cost a fortune.
"We need to be mindful of the fact that this could see the demise of several teams who will not be able to pursue development programmes or receive the support of a manufacturer.
"So going from one minute a situation where we are effectively going to have four cars of the same make, most of which will be produced by the core manufacturing companies, to a situation where the manufacturers are heavily favoured against those core manufacturers, I don't think that is correct. But that is an opinion."
Despite Dennis' fears about the future implications on F1, other team bosses have given a provisional thumbs-up for the proposals that have been put forwards.
Honda Racing team boss Nick Fry said that he believes moves to energy efficient rules are vital if the sport is to survive.
"In our view, it is completely mandatory... i.e. there is unlikely to be a Formula One in the future without steps in that direction," he said.
"I won't go into detail, but would say we would support 80 per cent of the detail of the proposal as well. What we are seeing here is some really game-changing leadership from the FIA and I think that is what is required and I think the whole thing is to be applauded."
Ferrari managing director Jean Todt added: "I think it is a good draft for discussion. Mainly it is addressing the power train situation, so the aerodynamic and the chassis are not well covered and we are now at the end of May 2007 and I hope things can move forward and we can write regulations that suit Formula One."[/QUOTE]
| Indocti Discant | 05-25-2007 09:33 AM |
Ron Dennis needs to get rid of the sand in his........
all he does is complain and moan about other teams....
most recently he spoke out against the Red Bull Bulletin... i miss that, it was hilarious.
all he does is complain and moan about other teams....
most recently he spoke out against the Red Bull Bulletin... i miss that, it was hilarious.
| OnTheGas | 05-26-2007 01:07 PM |
Good stuff from Ron Dennis!
�
�
I'd already stated in this thread that I believe it is dangerous for Mosely to hop in bed w/the manufacturers. And I figured that the non-factory teams probably felt the same way. But I was pleasantly surprised to see Ron Dennis state their position so publicly. Bravo! Well said!
| StuBeck | 05-26-2007 04:20 PM |
[QUOTE=owace;18190407]Ron Dennis needs to get rid of the sand in his........
all he does is complain and moan about other teams....
most recently he spoke out against the Red Bull Bulletin... i miss that, it was hilarious.[/QUOTE]
It still comes out.
all he does is complain and moan about other teams....
most recently he spoke out against the Red Bull Bulletin... i miss that, it was hilarious.[/QUOTE]
It still comes out.
| Indocti Discant | 05-26-2007 05:33 PM |
[quote=StuBeck;18202039]It still comes out.[/quote]
where? it used to be on f1-live.
where? it used to be on f1-live.
| StuBeck | 05-27-2007 12:18 AM |
Red Bull's website.
| OnTheGas | 05-29-2007 12:35 AM |
Red Bull's aero problems, part 1
�
�
Speaking of Red Bull, earlier this month, after the Spanish GP, some folks accused them of having a flexi rear wing...[quote][i][URL="http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58922"]Red Bull's rear wing under scrutiny[/URL][/i]
(Red Bull) gained more television exposure that normal in Spain, and some of the subsequent on-board footage of Coulthard's car has caused some concern among rivals teams about the behaviour of the rear wing.
The footage is from the rear facing camera that followed Coulthard lapping the circuit with 38 laps to go, and then later with two laps to go while he was suffering with the gearbox issues.
The images appear to show the rear wing pivoting back around the front support strut as the car gains speed on the main straight, before dramatically popping back up into its vertical position under braking for Turn One.
Autosport.com understands that several rival teams are unhappy about what they believe is flexing of the rear wing, although there are no suggestions yet that they will go so far as lodging a protest against Red Bull.
One insider from a leading team said: "There has been a lot of talk about flexi-wings in Formula One, but this it the most blatant example I have ever seen."[/quote]The article goes on to say that it is likely that FIA will be asked about the flexi win @ Monaco. However, I have not seen mention of it this weekend in the press.
So I pulled out my copy of the race, and watched it again last week after reading this story. At first I mis-understood the complaint from other teams, so I was watching for the blades of the wing to flatten out, which they don't do. There was some weird movement, but after re-reading this story, I looked again, and saw what it is they are trying to describe here. The whole rear wing assembly pivots from it's front mounting point. As it winds out on the straight, it lays down, but in braking for slower turn, it stands right back up again.
(Red Bull) gained more television exposure that normal in Spain, and some of the subsequent on-board footage of Coulthard's car has caused some concern among rivals teams about the behaviour of the rear wing.
The footage is from the rear facing camera that followed Coulthard lapping the circuit with 38 laps to go, and then later with two laps to go while he was suffering with the gearbox issues.
The images appear to show the rear wing pivoting back around the front support strut as the car gains speed on the main straight, before dramatically popping back up into its vertical position under braking for Turn One.
Autosport.com understands that several rival teams are unhappy about what they believe is flexing of the rear wing, although there are no suggestions yet that they will go so far as lodging a protest against Red Bull.
One insider from a leading team said: "There has been a lot of talk about flexi-wings in Formula One, but this it the most blatant example I have ever seen."[/quote]The article goes on to say that it is likely that FIA will be asked about the flexi win @ Monaco. However, I have not seen mention of it this weekend in the press.
So I pulled out my copy of the race, and watched it again last week after reading this story. At first I mis-understood the complaint from other teams, so I was watching for the blades of the wing to flatten out, which they don't do. There was some weird movement, but after re-reading this story, I looked again, and saw what it is they are trying to describe here. The whole rear wing assembly pivots from it's front mounting point. As it winds out on the straight, it lays down, but in braking for slower turn, it stands right back up again.
| meebs | 05-29-2007 01:09 AM |
[QUOTE=OnTheGas;18218438]Speaking of Red Bull, earlier this month, after the Spanish GP, some folks accused them of having a flexi rear wing...The article goes on to say that it is likely that FIA will be asked about the flexi win @ Monaco. However, I have not seen mention of it this weekend in the press.
So I pulled out my copy of the race, and watched it again last week after reading this story. At first I mis-understood the complaint from other teams, so I was watching for the blades of the wing to flatten out, which they don't do. There was some weird movement, but after re-reading this story, I looked again, and saw what it is they are trying to describe here. The whole rear wing assembly pivots from it's front mounting point. As it winds out on the straight, it lays down, but in braking for slower turn, it stands right back up again.[/QUOTE]
If they didn't bust McLaren on their obvious front wing flex, why would they go after Red Bull? :confused:
So I pulled out my copy of the race, and watched it again last week after reading this story. At first I mis-understood the complaint from other teams, so I was watching for the blades of the wing to flatten out, which they don't do. There was some weird movement, but after re-reading this story, I looked again, and saw what it is they are trying to describe here. The whole rear wing assembly pivots from it's front mounting point. As it winds out on the straight, it lays down, but in braking for slower turn, it stands right back up again.[/QUOTE]
If they didn't bust McLaren on their obvious front wing flex, why would they go after Red Bull? :confused:
| OnTheGas | 05-29-2007 01:16 AM |
Red Bull's aero problems, part 2
�
�
This story came out Friday, and I was shocked.
[quote][i][URL="http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59127"]RBR may decommission Bedford tunnel[/URL][/i]
Red Bull Racing are considering decommissioning their Bedford wind tunnel for a while to overcome the problems that blighted the birth of their RB3 car.
The Bedford facility was used to help create the team's 2007 challenger, but it became clear in early running of the car in January that the data the tunnel provided did not correlate with what they were experiencing on the track.
And although most of those problems have now been overcome thanks to the team using their smaller facility in Bicester, chief technology officer Adrian Newey has said that the Bedford issues may only be resolved by taking the facility out of action for a while.
"The commissioning of the wind tunnel (originally done by Jaguar Racing) was somewhat hurried, so we need to step back and look at that," Newey told this week's Autosport magazine. "And our trade is not building wind tunnels, it's trying to develop racing cars.
"So we obviously don't have the time or budget to spend our 50 million Euros buying a spare tunnel; we've got to understand Bedford's problems and try to sort them out - which is hampering us a bit at the moment.
"Bedford might possibly need to be decommissioned, but I don't know how long that will take."
Newey has revealed that he had to ignore some of the data coming out of Bedford at the start of the season, and redesign parts purely based on his gut instincts.
"We had some significant differences between how the wind tunnel suggested the car should behave and how it actually did behave.
"And given the very short time we had before Melbourne, we just looked at the parts that might be misbehaving and redesigned them based on my previous experience."[/quote]This explains the instability under braking that plagued the RBR cars for the first 3 or 4 races.
[quote][i][URL="http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59127"]RBR may decommission Bedford tunnel[/URL][/i]
Red Bull Racing are considering decommissioning their Bedford wind tunnel for a while to overcome the problems that blighted the birth of their RB3 car.
The Bedford facility was used to help create the team's 2007 challenger, but it became clear in early running of the car in January that the data the tunnel provided did not correlate with what they were experiencing on the track.
And although most of those problems have now been overcome thanks to the team using their smaller facility in Bicester, chief technology officer Adrian Newey has said that the Bedford issues may only be resolved by taking the facility out of action for a while.
"The commissioning of the wind tunnel (originally done by Jaguar Racing) was somewhat hurried, so we need to step back and look at that," Newey told this week's Autosport magazine. "And our trade is not building wind tunnels, it's trying to develop racing cars.
"So we obviously don't have the time or budget to spend our 50 million Euros buying a spare tunnel; we've got to understand Bedford's problems and try to sort them out - which is hampering us a bit at the moment.
"Bedford might possibly need to be decommissioned, but I don't know how long that will take."
Newey has revealed that he had to ignore some of the data coming out of Bedford at the start of the season, and redesign parts purely based on his gut instincts.
"We had some significant differences between how the wind tunnel suggested the car should behave and how it actually did behave.
"And given the very short time we had before Melbourne, we just looked at the parts that might be misbehaving and redesigned them based on my previous experience."[/quote]This explains the instability under braking that plagued the RBR cars for the first 3 or 4 races.
| wvallwheeldrive | 05-29-2007 10:55 AM |
i like the fact the Newey is now developing parts on "gut instincts" and the car gets better :lol:
| Indocti Discant | 05-30-2007 09:07 AM |
heres a thought on F1
�
�
so we ahve all this talk on F1 being standardized/ spec cars homogenization etc etc... more focus on driver..
what i dont agree with however, is that F1 is much more than just a driver sport, F1 is about the team, the engineers, the engine, the pit crew, strategy etc etc.
One big reason why there has been a huge push for standardization is to bring uniformity amongst the field, and keep costs low, however this has not seemed to help things.
Do you think it would be possible to impose a maximum budget per season per team? Or is this something that would be impossible to track and follow?
what i dont agree with however, is that F1 is much more than just a driver sport, F1 is about the team, the engineers, the engine, the pit crew, strategy etc etc.
One big reason why there has been a huge push for standardization is to bring uniformity amongst the field, and keep costs low, however this has not seemed to help things.
Do you think it would be possible to impose a maximum budget per season per team? Or is this something that would be impossible to track and follow?
| StuBeck | 05-30-2007 10:17 AM |
It would be possible, because no matter what someone says, if Ferrari went into ChampCar, they would not be able to spend 300 million a year on the car, and they can do something similar in F1. It will be interesting how much the decreased testing will have helped the budgets.
| BillT | 05-30-2007 10:32 AM |
Imposing budgeting constraints will only force to teams to hire smarter accountants to bury costs in other non-F1 related areas.
| StuBeck | 05-30-2007 11:35 AM |
It would still be a step in the right direction.
It hasn't been mentioned, but the FIA has said they won't do anything against McLaren for running a winnable strategy at Monaco.
It hasn't been mentioned, but the FIA has said they won't do anything against McLaren for running a winnable strategy at Monaco.
| artkevin | 05-30-2007 12:15 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18232918]It would be possible, because no matter what someone says, if Ferrari went into ChampCar, they would not be able to spend 300 million a year on the car, and they can do something similar in F1. It will be interesting how much the decreased testing will have helped the budgets.[/QUOTE]
But the 300 mil in F1 isn't just for the car. If they can get it they spend it. Either on testing, promotion, adverts, the car, the driver, wind tunnel, enigneers, cleaning crew etc. They will always find a way to spend the money if they can convince someone to pay he bills.
But the 300 mil in F1 isn't just for the car. If they can get it they spend it. Either on testing, promotion, adverts, the car, the driver, wind tunnel, enigneers, cleaning crew etc. They will always find a way to spend the money if they can convince someone to pay he bills.
| StuBeck | 05-30-2007 02:50 PM |
To a point, yes, but the teams are spending less then they were in previous years. I don't think you're going to go from 500 million one year to 100 million the next, but going from 300 to 250 is posssible if you have done what they are doing.
There is only so much money you can spend before people start saying no, and if teams like Williams are spending $100 mil and you're spending $300 and getting beat, people are going to stop giving you money. Its the convincing part that goes away, and its seemed to happen the last two years with Renault winning with a "small" budget.
There is only so much money you can spend before people start saying no, and if teams like Williams are spending $100 mil and you're spending $300 and getting beat, people are going to stop giving you money. Its the convincing part that goes away, and its seemed to happen the last two years with Renault winning with a "small" budget.
| wvallwheeldrive | 05-30-2007 04:33 PM |
As long as the sponsers keep paying these guys to put there logos on the car then the FIA cannot tell the teams what to do with the money. I'd be interested to see the differant sponership deals and who's paying the most money.
| KAX | 05-30-2007 04:51 PM |
[QUOTE=StuBeck;18236558]There is only so much money you can spend before people start saying no, and if teams like Williams are spending $100 mil and you're spending $300 and getting beat, people are going to stop giving you money. Its the convincing part that goes away, and its seemed to happen the last two years with Renault winning with a "small" budget.[/QUOTE]
then how does Toyota still get sponsorship deals?
then how does Toyota still get sponsorship deals?
| artkevin | 05-30-2007 05:37 PM |
They barley do. I think Toyota pays most of the bill followed by Panasonic and then a bunch of small fries, KDDI Kracher etc.
Ferrari will be able to get $500 mil a year as long as they are in the top 3. McLaren, BMW Sauber or anyone else that might be able to beat them should be able to closely match that type of cash flow. Now if you are STR or Spyker the story is much much different.
Ferrari will be able to get $500 mil a year as long as they are in the top 3. McLaren, BMW Sauber or anyone else that might be able to beat them should be able to closely match that type of cash flow. Now if you are STR or Spyker the story is much much different.
| nKoan | 05-30-2007 05:45 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX;18238286]then how does Toyota still get sponsorship deals?[/QUOTE]
Because someone still believes its worth it.
Because someone still believes its worth it.
| StuBeck | 05-30-2007 07:34 PM |
[QUOTE=KAX;18238286]then how does Toyota still get sponsorship deals?[/QUOTE]
Toyota isn't getting sponsors to pay 500 million a year, the manufacturer puts in most of that money themselves.
Toyota isn't getting sponsors to pay 500 million a year, the manufacturer puts in most of that money themselves.
| StuBeck | 05-30-2007 07:40 PM |
[QUOTE=wvallwheeldrive;18238040]As long as the sponsers keep paying these guys to put there logos on the car then the FIA cannot tell the teams what to do with the money. I'd be interested to see the differant sponership deals and who's paying the most money.[/QUOTE]
Sponsorship money I'm fine with, but its not just sponsorship that these teams are spending. Red Bull, STR and Honda have none, Ferrari has one, and the rest of the manufacturers all put in a lot of money individually into it to make the costs huge.
Maybe a limit on non-sponsorship spending could work. It would make it so the teams could still spend a ton of money if they wanted to and people were willing to spend it, but also limit teams from wasting millions of dollars and then rushing themselves out of the sport. If a team can essentially run for a profit, there is no reason they should leave the sport.
Sponsorship money I'm fine with, but its not just sponsorship that these teams are spending. Red Bull, STR and Honda have none, Ferrari has one, and the rest of the manufacturers all put in a lot of money individually into it to make the costs huge.
Maybe a limit on non-sponsorship spending could work. It would make it so the teams could still spend a ton of money if they wanted to and people were willing to spend it, but also limit teams from wasting millions of dollars and then rushing themselves out of the sport. If a team can essentially run for a profit, there is no reason they should leave the sport.
| wvallwheeldrive | 05-31-2007 11:35 AM |
[quote=StuBeck;18240160]Sponsorship money I'm fine with, but its not just sponsorship that these teams are spending. Red Bull, STR and Honda have none, Ferrari has one, and the rest of the manufacturers all put in a lot of money individually into it to make the costs huge. [/QUOTE]
Ferrari has one Main sponsor being Marboro. Acer, Shell, Martini, AMD, and some company called Alice are all on the car. When Marboro isn't on the car there are huge Shell decals on the side so i'm pretty sure they get big money from them for the 14 races Marboro isn't allowed to sponsor the car.
The only teams to my knowledge that do not have sponsors are Honda and RBR/STR. Everyone else has many sponsors names on the car.
Ferrari has one Main sponsor being Marboro. Acer, Shell, Martini, AMD, and some company called Alice are all on the car. When Marboro isn't on the car there are huge Shell decals on the side so i'm pretty sure they get big money from them for the 14 races Marboro isn't allowed to sponsor the car.
The only teams to my knowledge that do not have sponsors are Honda and RBR/STR. Everyone else has many sponsors names on the car.
| Ferg | 05-31-2007 11:39 AM |
Mosley on the proposed 2011 regulations...
[QUOTE][B]Mosley: greener F1 to help reduce costs
[/B]
By Jonathan Noble Thursday, May 31st 2007, 13:50 GMT
FIA president Max Mosley believes that new environmentally-friendly Formula One regulations planned for 2011 will also bring benefits in terms of costs and improving the spectacle of the sport.
With McLaren boss Ron Dennis openly questioning in Monaco whether the new rule ideas would be good for F1, as he expressed fears that the huge costs could drive the independent teams out of business, Mosley has insisted that the new rules will actually help teams spend their money more wisely.
In an interview with the official Formula One website, Mosley claims that teams are currently spending far more than they need to - even though the FIA has worked hard to bring down costs.
"We have observed that only two manufacturers have decreased their budget," said Mosley. "The others have retained theirs, even now with the engine freeze in place, and keep on developing in micro regions at a cost of millions, that will bring them at best three or four horsepower more. This is madness.
"Another example: one of the teams uses one-time wheel bolts that cost US$1,200 per piece. At a consumption rate of 1000 pieces per year that means 1.2 million dollars only for wheel bolts! The FIA has to correct that sort of insane interpretation of performance focus."
When asked how the FIA would stop such high levels of spending, Mosley said: "With a new programme in place in 2011 we will try to stream the creativity and complexity of Formula One technology in a more sound direction.
"We have been talking to the engineers and board members of the big manufacturers and suggested that if they are willing to put millions into the development of Formula One engines then why not with the philosophy to get more performance out of less, or limited, energy.
"The idea behind it is to directly connect the development in Formula One to road car production. The bigger the overlap, the bigger the economization - and the better for the protection of our climate."
Mosley has suggested that there will be strict fuel limits imposed for racing and testing from 2011, to encourage manufacturers to develop more efficient engines.
But he also made it clear that there will be no move to a single-chassis rule, as has been suggested in recent weeks.
"No, only a new chassis regulation," he said. "With this we will reduce the environmental impact and at the same time make the sport more attractive.
"Do you have any idea how much energy is wasted and CO2 pollutes the air when the top teams have their two wind tunnels run 24/7? Hundreds of thousands of tonnes and more - with the unfortunate result that at the end of the day Formula One races become boring."
He added: "The extremely sophisticated aerodynamics inhibits overtaking. With a new regulation we want to make overtaking possible again. This is only feasible if the cars are aerodynamically standardized in a way that the car behind can drive faster than the car leading.
"With this new regulation we want to bring back overtaking. Nothing else will work. The 'new' Formula One should be like this: the manufacturers deliver engines, gearboxes and electronic units that last five races - and the teams build the respective chassis."
Mosley said that the manufacturers have six months to come up with their own ideas before talks finalise the rules for 2011 at the end of this year.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Mosley: greener F1 to help reduce costs
[/B]
By Jonathan Noble Thursday, May 31st 2007, 13:50 GMT
FIA president Max Mosley believes that new environmentally-friendly Formula One regulations planned for 2011 will also bring benefits in terms of costs and improving the spectacle of the sport.
With McLaren boss Ron Dennis openly questioning in Monaco whether the new rule ideas would be good for F1, as he expressed fears that the huge costs could drive the independent teams out of business, Mosley has insisted that the new rules will actually help teams spend their money more wisely.
In an interview with the official Formula One website, Mosley claims that teams are currently spending far more than they need to - even though the FIA has worked hard to bring down costs.
"We have observed that only two manufacturers have decreased their budget," said Mosley. "The others have retained theirs, even now with the engine freeze in place, and keep on developing in micro regions at a cost of millions, that will bring them at best three or four horsepower more. This is madness.
"Another example: one of the teams uses one-time wheel bolts that cost US$1,200 per piece. At a consumption rate of 1000 pieces per year that means 1.2 million dollars only for wheel bolts! The FIA has to correct that sort of insane interpretation of performance focus."
When asked how the FIA would stop such high levels of spending, Mosley said: "With a new programme in place in 2011 we will try to stream the creativity and complexity of Formula One technology in a more sound direction.
"We have been talking to the engineers and board members of the big manufacturers and suggested that if they are willing to put millions into the development of Formula One engines then why not with the philosophy to get more performance out of less, or limited, energy.
"The idea behind it is to directly connect the development in Formula One to road car production. The bigger the overlap, the bigger the economization - and the better for the protection of our climate."
Mosley has suggested that there will be strict fuel limits imposed for racing and testing from 2011, to encourage manufacturers to develop more efficient engines.
But he also made it clear that there will be no move to a single-chassis rule, as has been suggested in recent weeks.
"No, only a new chassis regulation," he said. "With this we will reduce the environmental impact and at the same time make the sport more attractive.
"Do you have any idea how much energy is wasted and CO2 pollutes the air when the top teams have their two wind tunnels run 24/7? Hundreds of thousands of tonnes and more - with the unfortunate result that at the end of the day Formula One races become boring."
He added: "The extremely sophisticated aerodynamics inhibits overtaking. With a new regulation we want to make overtaking possible again. This is only feasible if the cars are aerodynamically standardized in a way that the car behind can drive faster than the car leading.
"With this new regulation we want to bring back overtaking. Nothing else will work. The 'new' Formula One should be like this: the manufacturers deliver engines, gearboxes and electronic units that last five races - and the teams build the respective chassis."
Mosley said that the manufacturers have six months to come up with their own ideas before talks finalise the rules for 2011 at the end of this year.[/QUOTE]
| wvallwheeldrive | 05-31-2007 11:44 AM |
I stand corrected RBR does have a laundry list of sponsers including Siemens and MAC tools.
| cdvma | 05-31-2007 12:39 PM |
[QUOTE=wvallwheeldrive;18246575]Ferrari has one Main sponsor being Marboro. Acer, Shell, Martini, AMD, and some company called Alice are all on the car. When Marboro isn't on the car there are huge Shell decals on the side so i'm pretty sure they get big money from them for the 14 races Marboro isn't allowed to sponsor the car.
The only teams to my knowledge that do not have sponsors are Honda and RBR/STR. Everyone else has many sponsors names on the car.[/QUOTE]
Honda has Bridgestone as their major sponsor. There are a few others but small. They all went in on the new livery scheme too.
The only teams to my knowledge that do not have sponsors are Honda and RBR/STR. Everyone else has many sponsors names on the car.[/QUOTE]
Honda has Bridgestone as their major sponsor. There are a few others but small. They all went in on the new livery scheme too.
| StuBeck | 05-31-2007 04:03 PM |
Most of Red Bull's sponsors are simply based on the tools they have, not on money.
Looks like there won't be a French GP next year at Magny-Cours. Switching to Paul Ricard could be cool.
Looks like there won't be a French GP next year at Magny-Cours. Switching to Paul Ricard could be cool.
| KAX | 05-31-2007 04:17 PM |
ooo, paul ricard would be awesome.
| sirfrankwilliams | 05-31-2007 09:20 PM |
[quote=KAX;18250448]ooo, paul ricard would be awesome.[/quote]
it was! ;)
1990:
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/524114606_56c45cdb68_o.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/524114618_3137cb6e00_o.jpg[/IMG]
[SIZE=1]Leyton House & Ivan Cappeli's pinnacle:[/SIZE]
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/243/524114622_f5c5c2380f_o.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/524114624_8c78748681_o.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/524114628_c754ae2087_o.jpg[/IMG]
it was! ;)
1990:
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/524114606_56c45cdb68_o.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/524114618_3137cb6e00_o.jpg[/IMG]
[SIZE=1]Leyton House & Ivan Cappeli's pinnacle:[/SIZE]
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/243/524114622_f5c5c2380f_o.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/524114624_8c78748681_o.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/524114628_c754ae2087_o.jpg[/IMG]
| ptclaus98 | 05-31-2007 09:52 PM |
Wait, was that Capelli leading Prost, or Berger?
| sirfrankwilliams | 05-31-2007 09:58 PM |
leading Prost
| Ferg | 05-31-2007 11:21 PM |
Well the Leyton was an Adrian Newey car...:lol:
I seem to remember that after taking control of Richard, Bernie had all the grandstands removed during the make-over.
I seem to remember that after taking control of Richard, Bernie had all the grandstands removed during the make-over.
| wvallwheeldrive | 06-01-2007 10:44 AM |
[quote=cdvma;18247365]Honda has Bridgestone as their major sponsor. There are a few others but small. They all went in on the new livery scheme too.[/quote]
Bridgestone is a series sponser, every car has their B on the nose.
Bridgestone is a series sponser, every car has their B on the nose.
| artkevin | 06-01-2007 04:49 PM |
[QUOTE=cdvma;18247365]Honda has Bridgestone as their major sponsor. There are a few others but small. They all went in on the new livery scheme too.[/QUOTE]
They have butt loads of sponsors but just not on the car.
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/74978.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/70122.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/74953.jpg[/IMG]
They have butt loads of sponsors but just not on the car.
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/74978.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/70122.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://images.gpupdate.net/large/74953.jpg[/IMG]
| cdvma | 06-01-2007 07:45 PM |
[QUOTE=wvallwheeldrive;18258470]Bridgestone is a series sponser, every car has their B on the nose.[/QUOTE]
Thats correct. They are still the biggest sponsor of Honda.
Thats correct. They are still the biggest sponsor of Honda.
| parker/slc/gc8fan | 06-01-2007 07:53 PM |
AFIK They sponsor F1, not Honda.
F1 sponsors the teams (travel reimbursments, etc.). And requires the teams run the sticker. Just like that Marelli sticker (Required ECU of F1)
F1 sponsors the teams (travel reimbursments, etc.). And requires the teams run the sticker. Just like that Marelli sticker (Required ECU of F1)
| StuBeck | 06-02-2007 01:03 AM |
Some other teams run a different ECU than Marelli.
I do now remember (and feel slightly embarassed) that yes, Honda has a lot of sponsors, but I wonder how much not having them on the car has decreased their payments.
I do now remember (and feel slightly embarassed) that yes, Honda has a lot of sponsors, but I wonder how much not having them on the car has decreased their payments.
| Ferg | 06-02-2007 10:33 AM |
But they're on the car Stu...you just have to look really really really hard to see them! :lol:
<-doesn't expect the "Earth Car" to be around in '08.
<-doesn't expect the "Earth Car" to be around in '08.
| Ferg | 06-02-2007 10:34 AM |
A little Nigel (pre-Monaco) for your Saturday morning, or evening in my case.
[QUOTE]One way and another, two top teams - and their drivers - are rather dominating F1 conversation at the moment, not least because the perceived number one drivers of McLaren and Ferrari have so far fallen a little short of expectations. Lewis Hamilton may be the only member of the quartet so far without a win in 2007, but he leads the world championship, and the man with most victories and pole positions is Felipe Massa.
Although Fernando Alonso won at Sepang, and Kimi Raikkonen in Melbourne, neither has looked as convincing as might have been anticipated, and inevitably there has much speculation as to why. In Barcelona Jackie Stewart suggested that Raikkonen falls short of the level of professionalism required today.
"The way he lives his life," said Stewart, "is contrary to allowing him to put together the complete package - the kind that allowed Schumacher to win multiple championships, or Senna, Prost, Clark or even me. It's an attitude, a mentality, and a way of doing business. Our lifestyle, mind, make-up, was different from a Raikkonen."
All of which adds up to the fact that JYS doesn't believe Kimi works hard enough, and if you speak to McLaren folk they will tell you the same thing. Raikkonen may have an extraordinary natural gift, they say, but he sells it short.
The Kimster responded to Stewart's remarks in predictable fashion. "I don't care what Jackie says. It has nothing to do with me."
Meantime, Niki Lauda last week offered words of advice to Alonso. To take on Hamilton, Lauda suggested, Fernando needs to concentrate on capitalising on his experience, the strongest card in his hand for the simple reason that it is - apparently - the only card Lewis doesn't hold.
Lauda referred to the 1984 season at McLaren, when he was expecting to continue with John Watson as his team-mate, but suddenly found himself paired with Alain Prost.
Niki was ever disarmingly honest. Many drivers will trot out the line that they love to have a super-quick team-mate, because it motivates them, raises the bar on their own performance, but Gerhard Berger, another straight-talking Austrian, was probably nearer reality when asked to define his ideal team-mate: "Simple - it's a guy two seconds a lap slower than you are! Three is even better..."
There's no question that Lauda was initially shaken by the aw pace of Prost in 1984. "The year before, I had Watson, which I liked because he was slower and a known quantity. Then Prost came and, first race, he's two places ahead of me on the grid. I used my experience to lead, the car retired. I went back to the hotel, and he won the race."
Lauda was not one to make excuses and his comments were succinct: "Car, tyres, no problem." So what was the problem? "Prost - he's bloody quick!"
Through that season Niki was to outqualify Alain only once, and often the two McLarens were nowhere near each other on the grid. On sheer speed, Lauda swiftly accepted, he was not going to beat his team-mate, and therefore he put guile and stealth - experience - to work. By season's end, Prost had won seven grands prix to Lauda's five, but it was Niki who won the world championship, by just half a point, in the closest title fight of all time.
Increasingly, in 1984, Prost became McLaren's blue-eyed boy. He was new, he was dauntingly quick - and, as Lauda pointed out, "compared with me, he was incredibly cheap!" After a falling-out with Renault at the end of '83, Alain was without a drive, and his only realistic possibility was McLaren, then still involved in 'fiscal discussions' with Watson. Prost's unexpected availability put paid to Wattie's chances of keeping the drive, and the icing for Ron Dennis was that signing Alain didn't need to break the bank: where else, at that stage of the game, was he going?
Four years later, it was the turn of Prost, by now 33, to be faced with a team-mate of intimidating pace. In 1988, Alain was still the more complete of the McLaren drivers, but Ayrton Senna, five years his junior, was invariably the quicker. And Prost, like Lauda before him, put his experience to work. In the end, Ayrton took the title, but back then only the 11 best scores counted; had the system been as it is today, with every score counting, Alain would have won it comfortably.
Now Lauda is suggesting that Alonso should do as he did in 1984, and use experience to take on Hamilton. No doubt his advice is sound, but that was then, and this is now. F1 has changed out of sight in the last couple of decades, not least in terms of overtaking, which was easier in Niki's time. In the title-deciding race of '84, at Estoril, Prost won comfortably, but Lauda clinched it by finishing second - after starting 11th. It's not too easy to imagine a sixth-row starter climbing the second step of the podium today.
Reliability was far less good in those pre-gizmo days, too: the harder you pushed, the greater the chance of missing a shift and blowing the engine, of applying too much throttle out of a corner and spinning - simply, of making a mistake of the kind a driver cannot make today.
As well as that, when it came to making the most of experience, the rules in 1984 were rather more benign than today. It was the turbo era and refuelling was banned: every driver had 220 litres of fuel and it was up to him how he used it: wop up the boost and you went quicker but used more gas. 'Strategy' isn't a 21st century invention.
Another difference between what Lauda faced with Prost, and what Alonso now squares up to with Hamilton, is that Lewis is a rookie, whereas Alain already had four seasons of F1 behind him, and had almost won a world championship. The shock to Fernando's system must therefore be all the greater, and he doesn't have the same circumstances as Niki in which to 'put experience to work'.
That said, Hamilton is not quite a rookie in the old sense of the word. He is perhaps the first of the 'next generation' of F1 drivers, having been groomed by McLaren since the late 1990s. He may have driven in only four grands prix to date, but has spent countless hours in the team's 'simulator', which is light years ahead of any other. You may say this is not quite the same as the real thing, and of course you'd be right, but it's not a million miles away. When Mika Hakkinen was sampling it in times past, and playfully 'put it into the wall', he damn nearly broke his wrist.
Now comes Monaco, but if Alonso won there last year, there's little doubt as to which of the McLaren drivers will be heading for the Principality in the more positive frame of mind. As last week, let's finish with a quote from Mario Andretti, who was back in England at the weekend, for GPlive at Donington Park.
"I look at Hamilton's situation, and I salivate! He's 22 years old, in one of the very best teams, he's confident and he's quick. Plus, he's a rookie, and the great thing about that is that he's got nothing to lose. If he finishes behind Alonso, it's what's expected - but if he beats him, and keeps on doing it, Alonso's stock will go down dramatically. That's got to be grinding on Fernando. He's going to have to dig deep, and I'll really applaud if he does it..."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]One way and another, two top teams - and their drivers - are rather dominating F1 conversation at the moment, not least because the perceived number one drivers of McLaren and Ferrari have so far fallen a little short of expectations. Lewis Hamilton may be the only member of the quartet so far without a win in 2007, but he leads the world championship, and the man with most victories and pole positions is Felipe Massa.
Although Fernando Alonso won at Sepang, and Kimi Raikkonen in Melbourne, neither has looked as convincing as might have been anticipated, and inevitably there has much speculation as to why. In Barcelona Jackie Stewart suggested that Raikkonen falls short of the level of professionalism required today.
"The way he lives his life," said Stewart, "is contrary to allowing him to put together the complete package - the kind that allowed Schumacher to win multiple championships, or Senna, Prost, Clark or even me. It's an attitude, a mentality, and a way of doing business. Our lifestyle, mind, make-up, was different from a Raikkonen."
All of which adds up to the fact that JYS doesn't believe Kimi works hard enough, and if you speak to McLaren folk they will tell you the same thing. Raikkonen may have an extraordinary natural gift, they say, but he sells it short.
The Kimster responded to Stewart's remarks in predictable fashion. "I don't care what Jackie says. It has nothing to do with me."
Meantime, Niki Lauda last week offered words of advice to Alonso. To take on Hamilton, Lauda suggested, Fernando needs to concentrate on capitalising on his experience, the strongest card in his hand for the simple reason that it is - apparently - the only card Lewis doesn't hold.
Lauda referred to the 1984 season at McLaren, when he was expecting to continue with John Watson as his team-mate, but suddenly found himself paired with Alain Prost.
Niki was ever disarmingly honest. Many drivers will trot out the line that they love to have a super-quick team-mate, because it motivates them, raises the bar on their own performance, but Gerhard Berger, another straight-talking Austrian, was probably nearer reality when asked to define his ideal team-mate: "Simple - it's a guy two seconds a lap slower than you are! Three is even better..."
There's no question that Lauda was initially shaken by the aw pace of Prost in 1984. "The year before, I had Watson, which I liked because he was slower and a known quantity. Then Prost came and, first race, he's two places ahead of me on the grid. I used my experience to lead, the car retired. I went back to the hotel, and he won the race."
Lauda was not one to make excuses and his comments were succinct: "Car, tyres, no problem." So what was the problem? "Prost - he's bloody quick!"
Through that season Niki was to outqualify Alain only once, and often the two McLarens were nowhere near each other on the grid. On sheer speed, Lauda swiftly accepted, he was not going to beat his team-mate, and therefore he put guile and stealth - experience - to work. By season's end, Prost had won seven grands prix to Lauda's five, but it was Niki who won the world championship, by just half a point, in the closest title fight of all time.
Increasingly, in 1984, Prost became McLaren's blue-eyed boy. He was new, he was dauntingly quick - and, as Lauda pointed out, "compared with me, he was incredibly cheap!" After a falling-out with Renault at the end of '83, Alain was without a drive, and his only realistic possibility was McLaren, then still involved in 'fiscal discussions' with Watson. Prost's unexpected availability put paid to Wattie's chances of keeping the drive, and the icing for Ron Dennis was that signing Alain didn't need to break the bank: where else, at that stage of the game, was he going?
Four years later, it was the turn of Prost, by now 33, to be faced with a team-mate of intimidating pace. In 1988, Alain was still the more complete of the McLaren drivers, but Ayrton Senna, five years his junior, was invariably the quicker. And Prost, like Lauda before him, put his experience to work. In the end, Ayrton took the title, but back then only the 11 best scores counted; had the system been as it is today, with every score counting, Alain would have won it comfortably.
Now Lauda is suggesting that Alonso should do as he did in 1984, and use experience to take on Hamilton. No doubt his advice is sound, but that was then, and this is now. F1 has changed out of sight in the last couple of decades, not least in terms of overtaking, which was easier in Niki's time. In the title-deciding race of '84, at Estoril, Prost won comfortably, but Lauda clinched it by finishing second - after starting 11th. It's not too easy to imagine a sixth-row starter climbing the second step of the podium today.
Reliability was far less good in those pre-gizmo days, too: the harder you pushed, the greater the chance of missing a shift and blowing the engine, of applying too much throttle out of a corner and spinning - simply, of making a mistake of the kind a driver cannot make today.
As well as that, when it came to making the most of experience, the rules in 1984 were rather more benign than today. It was the turbo era and refuelling was banned: every driver had 220 litres of fuel and it was up to him how he used it: wop up the boost and you went quicker but used more gas. 'Strategy' isn't a 21st century invention.
Another difference between what Lauda faced with Prost, and what Alonso now squares up to with Hamilton, is that Lewis is a rookie, whereas Alain already had four seasons of F1 behind him, and had almost won a world championship. The shock to Fernando's system must therefore be all the greater, and he doesn't have the same circumstances as Niki in which to 'put experience to work'.
That said, Hamilton is not quite a rookie in the old sense of the word. He is perhaps the first of the 'next generation' of F1 drivers, having been groomed by McLaren since the late 1990s. He may have driven in only four grands prix to date, but has spent countless hours in the team's 'simulator', which is light years ahead of any other. You may say this is not quite the same as the real thing, and of course you'd be right, but it's not a million miles away. When Mika Hakkinen was sampling it in times past, and playfully 'put it into the wall', he damn nearly broke his wrist.
Now comes Monaco, but if Alonso won there last year, there's little doubt as to which of the McLaren drivers will be heading for the Principality in the more positive frame of mind. As last week, let's finish with a quote from Mario Andretti, who was back in England at the weekend, for GPlive at Donington Park.
"I look at Hamilton's situation, and I salivate! He's 22 years old, in one of the very best teams, he's confident and he's quick. Plus, he's a rookie, and the great thing about that is that he's got nothing to lose. If he finishes behind Alonso, it's what's expected - but if he beats him, and keeps on doing it, Alonso's stock will go down dramatically. That's got to be grinding on Fernando. He's going to have to dig deep, and I'll really applaud if he does it..."[/QUOTE]
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét