| Ferg | 02-24-2005 10:31 PM |
More...
[QUOTE]Engines
The teams now have to make their engines last two race weekends, rather than one in 2004 - this moves engine life from 800 km to nearly 1500 km (932 miles). It was the FIA's aim to use this rule to reduce costs and limit power, but as it is the last year for V10 engines before the V8 rules the teams have probably spent more money developing these units for just one year of competition. Power reduction is also a target missed by the rules; most teams aim to have the same power and rev limits as at the end of 2004.
The horsepower of the first engines raced this year will simply be a plateau on the ever-rising curve of power outputs from the V10 units. The engines used in Australia will also be used at Malaysia before being replaced for Bahrain. At the end of the first race, the engines will be sealed - this comprises lock wires and seals, as well as a blanking plate over the exhaust ports, which will only be removed by the FIA at the start of the next race weekend.
The team will keep the engines in their possession between races, with internal inspection only allowed through the normal apertures in the engine, i.e. with endoscopes through the inlet ports, oil ways and exhaust port (through a hole created in the blanking plate). The team cannot fire the engine up in between races, but can turn it over - the hole in the exhaust blanking plate allows the compression to be released through the exhaust ports.
Making the engines last twice the distance has been a three part process - detail design made sure parts are as light as possible and still as strong as their use demands, ahead of quality issues to make sure every component is as well made as its design dictates, and lastly the oil system has been revised with new oils and circulation to ensure bearings are cooled and lubricated, to minimise wear. As a result the majority of teams have evolved their 2004 engines, rather than going for a new design.
Gearboxes
Although engines now have to last 1500 km, gearboxes are under no such restriction. Development of gearboxes has been focused on size, weight and shift speeds. Last year BAR ran a full carbon fibre case with no reliability issues for the full season - the weight saving and stiffness gains were said to be significant. Others teams tended to centre on cast titanium, maintaining a very short casting and light overall weight, and citing advantages of greater repeatability of the casting and the ability to farm the work out to specialists, resulting in composite department production schedules not being bogged down with complex gear cases.
Shift speed has been getting shorter annually as a result of detail development to otherwise conventional gearboxes. Formula One gearboxes use longitudinally mounted gear clusters with two shafts, while a motorcycle-style selector drum operates the gear change forks, with the gears engaged using dog rings (unlike road cars, which now often use synchromesh). The actual process of a shift is more than the selection of a gear; the gearbox needs to sequence the throttle and clutch to unload the gears, then deselect the old ratio and select the new one, then release the clutch and throttle to match road speed to engine revs.
This whole process takes around 40 milliseconds - the reduction in shift speed is not directly related to lap time, as the car is not accelerating during the shift but is still moving, hence lopping 10 milliseconds off the shift will not result in a 10 millisecond lap time improvement. Lap time simulations predict around 0.2 of a second could be gained by maintaining drive when shifting gear, i.e. a zero shift speed - this is a significant gain if the technology to create it does not offset too much of the theoretical gain.
There are some technologies that would allow a continuous drive during shifts, such as CVT (constantly variable transmission) or double clutch arrangements, but these are effectively banned by the rules demanding no more than seven forward speeds.
The current sequential shift and dog engagement can be made to shift quicker - the problems occur when the shift is faster than the engine's ability to slow down enough to match road speed with revs. When this occurs the driver feels a jolt as the slower moving gearbox suddenly decelerates the engine. This upsets the car's balance, sending unwanted loads and oscillations through the engine and gearbox, potentially leading to failures. Currently, despite the V10 engines very low inertia, the gear engagement speed is often faster than the engine can handle.
BAR have admitted to running a new shift mechanism, termed �seamless shift' by the media albeit refuted by BAR. They have not released any information about the system other than that the FIA have accepted its legality and confirmed that at least two other teams will use similar technology in 2005. One of the guiding principles of the FIA's gearshift rules is that the car must see some break in power transmission during shifting; otherwise the seven forward speed rule is not upheld, as the car is effectively seeing one long shift formed of seven seamless individual shifts.
I would imagine the new shift technology uses some variation on the dog engagement rings, possibly discarding dog rings for clutches that allow a gear to be engaged and wait for the engine revs to rise once road speed is matched. This would mean the gearbox consists of seven gear clutches, with one conventional clutch for starts but thereafter unused in shifting. Hopefully more information on this exciting technology will be made public during the year.
Winter Testing
Winter testing was focused on Valencia, Spain, a small, tight track in comparison to other frequently used test tracks. Barcelona has also been used, but it was closed and resurfaced to rid the track of some of the worst bumps - it has subsequently been a virgin surface that has provided little real data in preparation for the GP or against other test tracks.
Additionally a cold, bitter winter in Europe has seen very low temperatures and even snow - in contrast the opening, hot races will challenge the teams preparations. Some teams with tighter sidepod shapes have already shown scorch marks where exhausts touch the bodywork - adaptations to cooling arrangements will probably be seen in Malaysia. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Engines
The teams now have to make their engines last two race weekends, rather than one in 2004 - this moves engine life from 800 km to nearly 1500 km (932 miles). It was the FIA's aim to use this rule to reduce costs and limit power, but as it is the last year for V10 engines before the V8 rules the teams have probably spent more money developing these units for just one year of competition. Power reduction is also a target missed by the rules; most teams aim to have the same power and rev limits as at the end of 2004.
The horsepower of the first engines raced this year will simply be a plateau on the ever-rising curve of power outputs from the V10 units. The engines used in Australia will also be used at Malaysia before being replaced for Bahrain. At the end of the first race, the engines will be sealed - this comprises lock wires and seals, as well as a blanking plate over the exhaust ports, which will only be removed by the FIA at the start of the next race weekend.
The team will keep the engines in their possession between races, with internal inspection only allowed through the normal apertures in the engine, i.e. with endoscopes through the inlet ports, oil ways and exhaust port (through a hole created in the blanking plate). The team cannot fire the engine up in between races, but can turn it over - the hole in the exhaust blanking plate allows the compression to be released through the exhaust ports.
Making the engines last twice the distance has been a three part process - detail design made sure parts are as light as possible and still as strong as their use demands, ahead of quality issues to make sure every component is as well made as its design dictates, and lastly the oil system has been revised with new oils and circulation to ensure bearings are cooled and lubricated, to minimise wear. As a result the majority of teams have evolved their 2004 engines, rather than going for a new design.
Gearboxes
Although engines now have to last 1500 km, gearboxes are under no such restriction. Development of gearboxes has been focused on size, weight and shift speeds. Last year BAR ran a full carbon fibre case with no reliability issues for the full season - the weight saving and stiffness gains were said to be significant. Others teams tended to centre on cast titanium, maintaining a very short casting and light overall weight, and citing advantages of greater repeatability of the casting and the ability to farm the work out to specialists, resulting in composite department production schedules not being bogged down with complex gear cases.
Shift speed has been getting shorter annually as a result of detail development to otherwise conventional gearboxes. Formula One gearboxes use longitudinally mounted gear clusters with two shafts, while a motorcycle-style selector drum operates the gear change forks, with the gears engaged using dog rings (unlike road cars, which now often use synchromesh). The actual process of a shift is more than the selection of a gear; the gearbox needs to sequence the throttle and clutch to unload the gears, then deselect the old ratio and select the new one, then release the clutch and throttle to match road speed to engine revs.
This whole process takes around 40 milliseconds - the reduction in shift speed is not directly related to lap time, as the car is not accelerating during the shift but is still moving, hence lopping 10 milliseconds off the shift will not result in a 10 millisecond lap time improvement. Lap time simulations predict around 0.2 of a second could be gained by maintaining drive when shifting gear, i.e. a zero shift speed - this is a significant gain if the technology to create it does not offset too much of the theoretical gain.
There are some technologies that would allow a continuous drive during shifts, such as CVT (constantly variable transmission) or double clutch arrangements, but these are effectively banned by the rules demanding no more than seven forward speeds.
The current sequential shift and dog engagement can be made to shift quicker - the problems occur when the shift is faster than the engine's ability to slow down enough to match road speed with revs. When this occurs the driver feels a jolt as the slower moving gearbox suddenly decelerates the engine. This upsets the car's balance, sending unwanted loads and oscillations through the engine and gearbox, potentially leading to failures. Currently, despite the V10 engines very low inertia, the gear engagement speed is often faster than the engine can handle.
BAR have admitted to running a new shift mechanism, termed �seamless shift' by the media albeit refuted by BAR. They have not released any information about the system other than that the FIA have accepted its legality and confirmed that at least two other teams will use similar technology in 2005. One of the guiding principles of the FIA's gearshift rules is that the car must see some break in power transmission during shifting; otherwise the seven forward speed rule is not upheld, as the car is effectively seeing one long shift formed of seven seamless individual shifts.
I would imagine the new shift technology uses some variation on the dog engagement rings, possibly discarding dog rings for clutches that allow a gear to be engaged and wait for the engine revs to rise once road speed is matched. This would mean the gearbox consists of seven gear clutches, with one conventional clutch for starts but thereafter unused in shifting. Hopefully more information on this exciting technology will be made public during the year.
Winter Testing
Winter testing was focused on Valencia, Spain, a small, tight track in comparison to other frequently used test tracks. Barcelona has also been used, but it was closed and resurfaced to rid the track of some of the worst bumps - it has subsequently been a virgin surface that has provided little real data in preparation for the GP or against other test tracks.
Additionally a cold, bitter winter in Europe has seen very low temperatures and even snow - in contrast the opening, hot races will challenge the teams preparations. Some teams with tighter sidepod shapes have already shown scorch marks where exhausts touch the bodywork - adaptations to cooling arrangements will probably be seen in Malaysia. [/QUOTE]
| Ferg | 02-24-2005 10:32 PM |
Still more....
[QUOTE]Team by Team
Ferrari
Running with the aim of racing their revised car until the opening races of the European season the car has, by the team's own admission, reached the limit of its potential. Simplistically the F2004M is a F2004 revised with new wings, floor and electronics - as a result the team have a lot of testing under their belt with the interim car, as well as the full experience of it racing last year.
In concept the car is little different from its predecessor, aside from Ferrari's novel chin wing, which acts much like pre-conditioner wings for the rear wing. During testing the team have been able to focus more fully on tyre testing, as the rest of the car is such a known package. The interim car's pace appears to be at least competitive with the fastest of the new cars, but should it start to fall behind on pace over the opening races the team have no fall back position, with the new car yet to launch and the F2004M developed to its maximum. It appears Ferrari is gambling on a risky hand this year.
BAR
After a successful 2004 and the early release of the 007, the team's testing performances have been disappointing. Engine reliability and pace have been the key issues; this despite the team running the interim concept car since December to prove the engine and gearbox combination. Honda now suggests the engine is at a level where it will last the double race weekend, but it has to be presumed the RPM limit and power output have been affected by the problems.
Additionally the drivers are not happy with the car's handling - the car has seen some new developments to combat this, including a revision to the aggressive front wing seen at the car's launch. The team has been running a 2004 spec front wing in testing, and has now also produced a three element front wing without the very long chord central section. These problems will probably hamper the team's first races, but not their potential performance over the balance of the season, as updates progress at the launch of the European season.
Renault
Sensitive handling, and a lack of power, stymied Renault's 2004 season - this year in testing Renault has shown they have reduced both deficits to their rivals. Outwardly the R25 is little different from its predecessor, but small details like the tidier sidepod cooling arrangement and the V keel suggest there wasn't much else wrong with the concept of the R24. Both drivers commented that the R25 was good for high-speed grip and low speed balance, while setting strong lap times in the process. The team seems to have overcome the lack of downforce and lack of grip from the new harder tyres, producing a well-balanced car.
Renault is still running the 72-degree engine, unlike the otherwise universal 90-degree layout of the engine suppliers. The layout doesn't appear to create the same problems as the wide-angle unit used up to 2003. Their use of a six-speed gearbox appears to suggest they are still lacking in power, albeit with a broader rev range. This power delivery worked well for the team in 2004; the advantages in traction, with the flatter torque curve, overcame the other teams' peakier response.
For the early season, while their rivals get up to speed, Renault should be a strong contender for podiums and even race wins.
Williams
Despite both conservative and radical approaches to design, several new Williams have disappointed the team with their pace over the last few years. This year's Williams appears outwardly to have all the right shapes and elements, yet it has now been made clear that, even by the time the car was launched, it was flawed. The team has disclosed that the car lacks downforce - this was not a result of failing to set the right targets, as per last year, but rather the accuracy of their measurements.
Over the last year Williams have been commissioning their second wind tunnel - heading this project was Loic Bigois, who is now the team's head of aerodynamics. The new tunnel runs a larger scale model than the older version (60% against 50%). The new car's development was completed in both tunnels, working with different scale models, and without the new tunnel having produced parts for the 2004 car program. As a result, when the full-sized car was run in the tunnel, it didn't correlate to the figures expected.
Assuming the car doesn't have any other faults in the mechanicals or engine, the team again need to ramp up their aero program. It takes time to design new parts on CAD, run the CFD code on them and prove them in the wind tunnel or on track. Once again we will see Williams playing a catch up game with their rivals as the season unfolds.
Williams have already been trying quick fixes to recoup the lost downforce and lap times. Bigger gurneys on the rear wing, as well as the untidy mini-wing mounted to the rear light (highlighted in yellow). This little wing works simply to add downforce at the rear, and being in the wing's shadow produces little drag. It sits within a small free zone in the bodywork rules, exploited by Renault last year with the un-raced winglet used at Monaco, albeit mounted above the rear wing.
The team has also run a new diffuser tunnel shape from the launch version, with the lower half of the centre tunnel being curved in. Other detail developments include a small strut to reinforce the flip up and direct flow away from the floor opening around the rear wheels.
McLaren
Launched with little fanfare, the MP4-20 is McLaren's closest design concept to its rivals. Many of the solutions have moved towards the design trends described above, although Adrian Newey and his team still retain a strong sense of individualism - for example the car eschews the single keel format of all of its rivals, yet moves a step away from the twin keel designs started with the MP4-17 - the front lower wishbone picks up on the lower edge of the monocoque, with the forward mounting to a vestigial keel in the form of a bump on the monocoque to make the mounting low enough for the desired suspension geometry.
This improves the load path from wishbone to chassis, whereas the keel passed the load through an offset path, requiring a lot of weight in carbon fibre reinforcement for the requisite stiffness. Theoretically McLaren now have the underside of their nose with the clean aerodynamics of a twin keel and the light weight and stiffness of a single keel.
Since the car started testing it has proven quick and reliable and, with progress being made, some of the team's new aerodynamic tweaks have emerged. These include the so-called horn wings - these act in the manner of mid wings as used by most teams, but the format of the device is a right-angled fin. The inner edges of these surfaces wear small gurneys - the effect of the fin and gurney combination would be to turn the flow inwards over the engine cover, producing a higher pressure over the centre of the wing. The McLaren design team has found an alternative approach to the same issue affecting other teams.
Other detail development seen on the car in testing has been the reinstatement of the sidepod winglets (not on the launch version of the car) and a wide vane between the floor and flip up - this should both reinforce the flip up and turn the general airflow away from the opening around the rear wheels. On the strength of their testing performance, and the inherent design of the MP4-20, McLaren will be a leading challenger amongst the Michelin runners this year.
Sauber
With the huge resources of their wind tunnel and super-computer powered CFD program, both united to Ferrari engines and Michelin tyres, Sauber were looking to be in a strong position this year. But by the teams own admission the car has a flaw - this hasn't been elaborated on, and could be mechanical or aerodynamic, but the car hasn't met their expectations.
In testing the car has dropped the bi-plane front wing arrangement, seen at its first tests, and the 2004 spec front wing has been replaced with a new triple element front wing, following the fashion for deep central curvature. Hopefully the problems are easy to overcome with new parts and not major redesign, but the team's early season will no doubt be compromised by deficiencies leaving them trailing what could otherwise have been a strong position among the Michelin runners.
Red Bull
While we now have to say Red Bull when we used to mean Jaguar, the newly re-christened team have been solidly working on their 2005 program. The new for 2005 RB1 has been setting good testing times, and comments from Cosworth claim the new engine is their best yet and a step forward over their recent line of engines.
It's too early to be sure if these signs are proof of a competitive 2005, but a positive start to their campaign is a welcome change from pre-season bad news in years past. Externally the car has differed little from the launch specification.
Toyota
There have been mixed signals emanating from the Toyota team - some testing times have eclipsed other runners, but there have also been tales of poor handling from the drivers. With two professional and experienced drivers I would take their comments quite seriously - the car has proven to lack rear downforce, and as a result it wears it rear tyres too quickly.
Fortunately these comments were made before the new aero package was released, and there are yet more updates due for Melbourne, which is typical of Mike Gascoyne development methodology.
First run in poor weather, the new aero package consists of a new front wing, nose fins and shoulder wings. Taking something from many other teams, the new package looks a bit disjointed. The front wing uses an unusually wide U-shaped central section, with almost horizontal outer spans and now common flicked up outer edges. The wings' unusual profiles create distinct junctions between each different shape, but these also align with the turning vanes, which efficiently split the very different flows of each section.
The small nose fins are akin to the versions Williams ran last year while trying to get the walrus nose to work. Moreover, the shoulder wings mimic Jordan's 2004 mid-season rework - these changes suggest the team is trying to redirect the up wash off the front wing from going over the sidepod tops. At this early stage such a proliferation of devices look bad for the team's aerodynamic efficiency.
Jordan
With the EJ15 being a lightly modified EJ14 with a Toyota engine, the team has been able to focus their testing on electronics integration, trying launches, traction control and checking the anti-stall and pit stop exit systems. This has also been practice for the team's two new drivers, inexperienced in Formula One and with little track time before their first race.
Notwithstanding the mountain they have to climb in the time available, new developments have appeared over the car's first tests - the floor has been revised to a full 2005 specification, with the in-filled tunnels of the first EJ15 being replaced by proper low tunnels, and the floor has also been given a turning vane to deflect flow from the opening around the rear wheels.
Testing has shown the car to be far off the pace - this could be a reflection of the car's inherent pace, but also of the testing program undertaken as well as driver pace. Whichever, the team have only Minardi as realistic opponents
Minardi
Minardi announced a radical concept for their definitive 2005 car, although this won't be released until the eve of the European season. Rumours suggest that Minardi have found a new sidepod treatment which will be very different from their opposition, and the team have also boasted the new car is the first clean sheet chassis design since the PS02.
In the mean time the 2004 car will be used instead - this has not yet appeared with a full 2005 aero package, although a raised front wing and revised rear wing have been run, but I have not yet seen a new diffuser to meet the new regulations. Apparently Minardi have requested permission to run their old car for the opening races - this has rightly been met with opposition from Ferrari.
Yet again we will see a team writing off the opening races to race a new car at the start of the European season - should the new car be a success the team may be able to beat Jordan, but most likely they will remain consigned to the back of the grid.[/QUOTE]
..okay, that's all of it...should help pas the time until Melbourne when Fisichella runs away with it.
Enjoy! :D
[QUOTE]Team by Team
Ferrari
Running with the aim of racing their revised car until the opening races of the European season the car has, by the team's own admission, reached the limit of its potential. Simplistically the F2004M is a F2004 revised with new wings, floor and electronics - as a result the team have a lot of testing under their belt with the interim car, as well as the full experience of it racing last year.
In concept the car is little different from its predecessor, aside from Ferrari's novel chin wing, which acts much like pre-conditioner wings for the rear wing. During testing the team have been able to focus more fully on tyre testing, as the rest of the car is such a known package. The interim car's pace appears to be at least competitive with the fastest of the new cars, but should it start to fall behind on pace over the opening races the team have no fall back position, with the new car yet to launch and the F2004M developed to its maximum. It appears Ferrari is gambling on a risky hand this year.
BAR
After a successful 2004 and the early release of the 007, the team's testing performances have been disappointing. Engine reliability and pace have been the key issues; this despite the team running the interim concept car since December to prove the engine and gearbox combination. Honda now suggests the engine is at a level where it will last the double race weekend, but it has to be presumed the RPM limit and power output have been affected by the problems.
Additionally the drivers are not happy with the car's handling - the car has seen some new developments to combat this, including a revision to the aggressive front wing seen at the car's launch. The team has been running a 2004 spec front wing in testing, and has now also produced a three element front wing without the very long chord central section. These problems will probably hamper the team's first races, but not their potential performance over the balance of the season, as updates progress at the launch of the European season.
Renault
Sensitive handling, and a lack of power, stymied Renault's 2004 season - this year in testing Renault has shown they have reduced both deficits to their rivals. Outwardly the R25 is little different from its predecessor, but small details like the tidier sidepod cooling arrangement and the V keel suggest there wasn't much else wrong with the concept of the R24. Both drivers commented that the R25 was good for high-speed grip and low speed balance, while setting strong lap times in the process. The team seems to have overcome the lack of downforce and lack of grip from the new harder tyres, producing a well-balanced car.
Renault is still running the 72-degree engine, unlike the otherwise universal 90-degree layout of the engine suppliers. The layout doesn't appear to create the same problems as the wide-angle unit used up to 2003. Their use of a six-speed gearbox appears to suggest they are still lacking in power, albeit with a broader rev range. This power delivery worked well for the team in 2004; the advantages in traction, with the flatter torque curve, overcame the other teams' peakier response.
For the early season, while their rivals get up to speed, Renault should be a strong contender for podiums and even race wins.
Williams
Despite both conservative and radical approaches to design, several new Williams have disappointed the team with their pace over the last few years. This year's Williams appears outwardly to have all the right shapes and elements, yet it has now been made clear that, even by the time the car was launched, it was flawed. The team has disclosed that the car lacks downforce - this was not a result of failing to set the right targets, as per last year, but rather the accuracy of their measurements.
Over the last year Williams have been commissioning their second wind tunnel - heading this project was Loic Bigois, who is now the team's head of aerodynamics. The new tunnel runs a larger scale model than the older version (60% against 50%). The new car's development was completed in both tunnels, working with different scale models, and without the new tunnel having produced parts for the 2004 car program. As a result, when the full-sized car was run in the tunnel, it didn't correlate to the figures expected.
Assuming the car doesn't have any other faults in the mechanicals or engine, the team again need to ramp up their aero program. It takes time to design new parts on CAD, run the CFD code on them and prove them in the wind tunnel or on track. Once again we will see Williams playing a catch up game with their rivals as the season unfolds.
Williams have already been trying quick fixes to recoup the lost downforce and lap times. Bigger gurneys on the rear wing, as well as the untidy mini-wing mounted to the rear light (highlighted in yellow). This little wing works simply to add downforce at the rear, and being in the wing's shadow produces little drag. It sits within a small free zone in the bodywork rules, exploited by Renault last year with the un-raced winglet used at Monaco, albeit mounted above the rear wing.
The team has also run a new diffuser tunnel shape from the launch version, with the lower half of the centre tunnel being curved in. Other detail developments include a small strut to reinforce the flip up and direct flow away from the floor opening around the rear wheels.
McLaren
Launched with little fanfare, the MP4-20 is McLaren's closest design concept to its rivals. Many of the solutions have moved towards the design trends described above, although Adrian Newey and his team still retain a strong sense of individualism - for example the car eschews the single keel format of all of its rivals, yet moves a step away from the twin keel designs started with the MP4-17 - the front lower wishbone picks up on the lower edge of the monocoque, with the forward mounting to a vestigial keel in the form of a bump on the monocoque to make the mounting low enough for the desired suspension geometry.
This improves the load path from wishbone to chassis, whereas the keel passed the load through an offset path, requiring a lot of weight in carbon fibre reinforcement for the requisite stiffness. Theoretically McLaren now have the underside of their nose with the clean aerodynamics of a twin keel and the light weight and stiffness of a single keel.
Since the car started testing it has proven quick and reliable and, with progress being made, some of the team's new aerodynamic tweaks have emerged. These include the so-called horn wings - these act in the manner of mid wings as used by most teams, but the format of the device is a right-angled fin. The inner edges of these surfaces wear small gurneys - the effect of the fin and gurney combination would be to turn the flow inwards over the engine cover, producing a higher pressure over the centre of the wing. The McLaren design team has found an alternative approach to the same issue affecting other teams.
Other detail development seen on the car in testing has been the reinstatement of the sidepod winglets (not on the launch version of the car) and a wide vane between the floor and flip up - this should both reinforce the flip up and turn the general airflow away from the opening around the rear wheels. On the strength of their testing performance, and the inherent design of the MP4-20, McLaren will be a leading challenger amongst the Michelin runners this year.
Sauber
With the huge resources of their wind tunnel and super-computer powered CFD program, both united to Ferrari engines and Michelin tyres, Sauber were looking to be in a strong position this year. But by the teams own admission the car has a flaw - this hasn't been elaborated on, and could be mechanical or aerodynamic, but the car hasn't met their expectations.
In testing the car has dropped the bi-plane front wing arrangement, seen at its first tests, and the 2004 spec front wing has been replaced with a new triple element front wing, following the fashion for deep central curvature. Hopefully the problems are easy to overcome with new parts and not major redesign, but the team's early season will no doubt be compromised by deficiencies leaving them trailing what could otherwise have been a strong position among the Michelin runners.
Red Bull
While we now have to say Red Bull when we used to mean Jaguar, the newly re-christened team have been solidly working on their 2005 program. The new for 2005 RB1 has been setting good testing times, and comments from Cosworth claim the new engine is their best yet and a step forward over their recent line of engines.
It's too early to be sure if these signs are proof of a competitive 2005, but a positive start to their campaign is a welcome change from pre-season bad news in years past. Externally the car has differed little from the launch specification.
Toyota
There have been mixed signals emanating from the Toyota team - some testing times have eclipsed other runners, but there have also been tales of poor handling from the drivers. With two professional and experienced drivers I would take their comments quite seriously - the car has proven to lack rear downforce, and as a result it wears it rear tyres too quickly.
Fortunately these comments were made before the new aero package was released, and there are yet more updates due for Melbourne, which is typical of Mike Gascoyne development methodology.
First run in poor weather, the new aero package consists of a new front wing, nose fins and shoulder wings. Taking something from many other teams, the new package looks a bit disjointed. The front wing uses an unusually wide U-shaped central section, with almost horizontal outer spans and now common flicked up outer edges. The wings' unusual profiles create distinct junctions between each different shape, but these also align with the turning vanes, which efficiently split the very different flows of each section.
The small nose fins are akin to the versions Williams ran last year while trying to get the walrus nose to work. Moreover, the shoulder wings mimic Jordan's 2004 mid-season rework - these changes suggest the team is trying to redirect the up wash off the front wing from going over the sidepod tops. At this early stage such a proliferation of devices look bad for the team's aerodynamic efficiency.
Jordan
With the EJ15 being a lightly modified EJ14 with a Toyota engine, the team has been able to focus their testing on electronics integration, trying launches, traction control and checking the anti-stall and pit stop exit systems. This has also been practice for the team's two new drivers, inexperienced in Formula One and with little track time before their first race.
Notwithstanding the mountain they have to climb in the time available, new developments have appeared over the car's first tests - the floor has been revised to a full 2005 specification, with the in-filled tunnels of the first EJ15 being replaced by proper low tunnels, and the floor has also been given a turning vane to deflect flow from the opening around the rear wheels.
Testing has shown the car to be far off the pace - this could be a reflection of the car's inherent pace, but also of the testing program undertaken as well as driver pace. Whichever, the team have only Minardi as realistic opponents
Minardi
Minardi announced a radical concept for their definitive 2005 car, although this won't be released until the eve of the European season. Rumours suggest that Minardi have found a new sidepod treatment which will be very different from their opposition, and the team have also boasted the new car is the first clean sheet chassis design since the PS02.
In the mean time the 2004 car will be used instead - this has not yet appeared with a full 2005 aero package, although a raised front wing and revised rear wing have been run, but I have not yet seen a new diffuser to meet the new regulations. Apparently Minardi have requested permission to run their old car for the opening races - this has rightly been met with opposition from Ferrari.
Yet again we will see a team writing off the opening races to race a new car at the start of the European season - should the new car be a success the team may be able to beat Jordan, but most likely they will remain consigned to the back of the grid.[/QUOTE]
..okay, that's all of it...should help pas the time until Melbourne when Fisichella runs away with it.
Enjoy! :D
| WRSport | 02-24-2005 10:35 PM |
You rock, thanks for posting the preview.
| gargleblaster | 02-24-2005 10:47 PM |
zzzzz zzzzzz
j/k... now I have something to do when bored with work tomorrow. :D
j/k... now I have something to do when bored with work tomorrow. :D
| sbomm | 02-25-2005 12:17 AM |
[QUOTE=gargleblaster]zzzzz zzzzzz
j/k... now I have something to do when bored with work tomorrow. :D[/QUOTE]
It worked for me tonight. And it is quite interesting
j/k... now I have something to do when bored with work tomorrow. :D[/QUOTE]
It worked for me tonight. And it is quite interesting
| gtguy | 02-25-2005 10:51 AM |
New Ferrari unveiled
�
�
[25/02/05 - 12:20]
Ferrari unveil the F2005
Characteristics and technical specifications
Ferrari launched the F2005 today in Maranello
Ferrari today unveiled its 2005 challenger the F2005 at the team�s base at Maranello. The F2005 is the 51st single-seater built by Ferrari specifically to compete in the Formula One World Championship.
The design, which bears the internal code number 656, represents Ferrari�s more exhaustive interpretation of the 2005 technical regulations. The main elements, relating to aerodynamics are more advanced than on the F2004 M.
The chassis is lighter, despite the need to strengthen the lateral anti-intrusion panels within the monocoque to increase its ability to meet the requirements of the crash-test, which is stricter than in the past. The shape has been revised, with modifications to the opening of the side pods and the area around the turning vanes. The side pods have been adapted to accommodate the new cooling system.
The engine cover has been redesigned, as have the aerodynamic devices on the side pods, with a secondary winglet introduced in the area of the roll-hoop. The layout of the exhausts is fundamentally different to that of the previous car, eliminating the aerodynamic profile which characterised the rear section, which is now almost entirely integrated within the bodywork.
While retaining the longitudinal architecture for the transmission, the entire rear end has been changed in an attempt to get the most out of the size of the gearbox, which is smaller than its predecessor and made from titanium and carbon fibre. Naturally, the limitations introduced by the new regulations were taken into account during the design stage.
The rear suspension has been revised, with the twin aims of improving the car�s dynamics in order to optimise the efficiency of operation for the Bridgestone tyres, while also improving the aerodynamic efficiency of the rear. The floor of the car has also been substantially redesigned to fit in with the new dimensions of the gearbox and comply with the new regulations. Two areas that benefited from a major effort during the design stage were the braking and electronics systems, this work carried out in conjunction with technical partners.
The 055 engine is load-bearing and mounted longitudinally. The internal components derive from the last version of the 053, currently fitted to the F2004 M. The main changes centre on the mounting points to chassis and gearbox. Its designers aimed to come up with an engine able to maintain a sufficient level of performance, doubling its life given that the sporting regulations introduced this year require the use of the same engine for two consecutive race weekends. As always, Shell�s help has been invaluable in the definition of fuel and lubricants to best meet the set targets.
The F2005 represents the final evolution in a line of Ferrari Formula 1 cars fitted with a ten cylinder engine. As usual, right from the design stage, much attention was paid to performance and optimisation of the materials used as well as quality control, in order to increase performance levels with maximum safety, all within the framework of the new rules introduced this year.
Will this car take Schumacher to his eighth
World Championship?
Chassis
Carbon-fibre and honeycomb composite structure
Ferrari longitudinal gearbox limited-slip differential
Semiautomatic sequential electronically controlled gearbox
Number of gears 7 + reverse
Ventilated carbon-fibre disc brakes
Independent suspension, push-rod activated torsion springs front and rear
Length 4545 mm
Width 1796 mm
Height 959 mm
Wheelbase 3050 mm
Front track 1470 mm
Rear track 1405 mm
Weight with water, lubricant and driver 605 kg
Wheels (front and rear) 13�
Engine Type 055
Number of cylinders V10
Cylinder block in cast aluminium
Number of valves 40
Pneumatic distribution
Total displacement 2997 cm3
Magneti Marelli digital electronic injection
Magneti Marelli static electronic ignition
E.A.
Source Ferrari
Ferrari unveil the F2005
Characteristics and technical specifications
Ferrari launched the F2005 today in Maranello
Ferrari today unveiled its 2005 challenger the F2005 at the team�s base at Maranello. The F2005 is the 51st single-seater built by Ferrari specifically to compete in the Formula One World Championship.
The design, which bears the internal code number 656, represents Ferrari�s more exhaustive interpretation of the 2005 technical regulations. The main elements, relating to aerodynamics are more advanced than on the F2004 M.
The chassis is lighter, despite the need to strengthen the lateral anti-intrusion panels within the monocoque to increase its ability to meet the requirements of the crash-test, which is stricter than in the past. The shape has been revised, with modifications to the opening of the side pods and the area around the turning vanes. The side pods have been adapted to accommodate the new cooling system.
The engine cover has been redesigned, as have the aerodynamic devices on the side pods, with a secondary winglet introduced in the area of the roll-hoop. The layout of the exhausts is fundamentally different to that of the previous car, eliminating the aerodynamic profile which characterised the rear section, which is now almost entirely integrated within the bodywork.
While retaining the longitudinal architecture for the transmission, the entire rear end has been changed in an attempt to get the most out of the size of the gearbox, which is smaller than its predecessor and made from titanium and carbon fibre. Naturally, the limitations introduced by the new regulations were taken into account during the design stage.
The rear suspension has been revised, with the twin aims of improving the car�s dynamics in order to optimise the efficiency of operation for the Bridgestone tyres, while also improving the aerodynamic efficiency of the rear. The floor of the car has also been substantially redesigned to fit in with the new dimensions of the gearbox and comply with the new regulations. Two areas that benefited from a major effort during the design stage were the braking and electronics systems, this work carried out in conjunction with technical partners.
The 055 engine is load-bearing and mounted longitudinally. The internal components derive from the last version of the 053, currently fitted to the F2004 M. The main changes centre on the mounting points to chassis and gearbox. Its designers aimed to come up with an engine able to maintain a sufficient level of performance, doubling its life given that the sporting regulations introduced this year require the use of the same engine for two consecutive race weekends. As always, Shell�s help has been invaluable in the definition of fuel and lubricants to best meet the set targets.
The F2005 represents the final evolution in a line of Ferrari Formula 1 cars fitted with a ten cylinder engine. As usual, right from the design stage, much attention was paid to performance and optimisation of the materials used as well as quality control, in order to increase performance levels with maximum safety, all within the framework of the new rules introduced this year.
Will this car take Schumacher to his eighth
World Championship?
Chassis
Carbon-fibre and honeycomb composite structure
Ferrari longitudinal gearbox limited-slip differential
Semiautomatic sequential electronically controlled gearbox
Number of gears 7 + reverse
Ventilated carbon-fibre disc brakes
Independent suspension, push-rod activated torsion springs front and rear
Length 4545 mm
Width 1796 mm
Height 959 mm
Wheelbase 3050 mm
Front track 1470 mm
Rear track 1405 mm
Weight with water, lubricant and driver 605 kg
Wheels (front and rear) 13�
Engine Type 055
Number of cylinders V10
Cylinder block in cast aluminium
Number of valves 40
Pneumatic distribution
Total displacement 2997 cm3
Magneti Marelli digital electronic injection
Magneti Marelli static electronic ignition
E.A.
Source Ferrari
| Dussander | 02-25-2005 11:15 AM |
They are making a Villeneuve movie...
[url]http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050225f.php[/url]
[url]http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050225f.php[/url]
| artkevin | 02-25-2005 12:21 PM |
[QUOTE=Dussander]They are making a Villeneuve movie...
[url]http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050225f.php[/url][/QUOTE]
I just read the write up on F1-live.com and it sounds like it won't be another "Driven". It will be fact based and have Jacques in the story and as supervisor. If they do it right it should be a great film.
[url]http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050225f.php[/url][/QUOTE]
I just read the write up on F1-live.com and it sounds like it won't be another "Driven". It will be fact based and have Jacques in the story and as supervisor. If they do it right it should be a great film.
| Ferg | 02-25-2005 09:20 PM |
Looks like Ferrari are thinking of bringing the F2005 out one race early in Bahrain if the F2004M proves to be on the slow side...
[QUOTE]Ferrari are considering changing their early season plans and bringing the new F2005 into action much earlier than originally anticipated because of concerns that the interim F2004M may be too slow at the start of the year.
Ferrari had planned to use the F2004M for the first four races of the year, before switching to the F2005 from May's Spanish Grand Prix, but that was before they became clear about just how fast some of their rivals' new cars were.
And amid suggestions that the F2004M is not quick enough to currently match the Renault and McLarens on a single lap - as well as suffer from balance issues that make it difficult to preserve its tyres for consistent race-long pace - Ferrari said they may choose to bring in their new car early. That could mean a debut as soon as the Bahrain Grand Prix - the third race of the 2005 Championship.
"If the 2004M is not competitive then we can bring [the F2005] forward," Ferrari's technical director Ross Brawn said in the team's launch today. "We plan to introduce the car in Barcelona but depending how it tests, [an early introduction] could be anticipated.
"The logical race to do it is Bahrain, because of the engine regulations. It would not be easy to do it in Bahrain and it would be a very tough decision, but technically it is possible but it depends on how the interim car is going.
"If we are competitive with [the F2004M] I would much rather do it in Barcelona. In Bahrain, we would not have the spares and infrastructure to support it as well as we would like." [/QUOTE]
And something else to ponder about the first race ffrom the head of Michelin..
[QUOTE]The new tyre rules, restricting each car to one set of tyres per race, will see less rubber laid down on the Albert Park track and therefore less grip throughout the weekened, according to Michelin's motorsport director Pierre Dupasquier.
"Traditionally, the grip level picks up quite quickly as F1 rubber is laid down, but that process might take rather longer this year," the Frenchman said in a company press release, ahead of the Australian Grand Prix.
"With drivers restricted to one set of tyres per race, we are using harder compounds that will leave less rubber on the track. As a result, it is likely that conditions will change less than we are used to between Friday and Sunday."
Dupasquier said the French tyre maker, still chasing their first World Championship title since making a return to the sport in 2001, have made progress in testing over the past few weeks, but he would not be drawn into making predictions for the upcoming season opening race.
"We made very encouraging progress during our final pre-season tests in Spain, where we achieved some excellent lap times, but we don't yet know how that will translate to Melbourne," he said.[/QUOTE]
Only 8 frick'n days to go...next week is going to go by painfully slow...
Does anyone else buy Autocourse at the end of each season?
[QUOTE]Ferrari are considering changing their early season plans and bringing the new F2005 into action much earlier than originally anticipated because of concerns that the interim F2004M may be too slow at the start of the year.
Ferrari had planned to use the F2004M for the first four races of the year, before switching to the F2005 from May's Spanish Grand Prix, but that was before they became clear about just how fast some of their rivals' new cars were.
And amid suggestions that the F2004M is not quick enough to currently match the Renault and McLarens on a single lap - as well as suffer from balance issues that make it difficult to preserve its tyres for consistent race-long pace - Ferrari said they may choose to bring in their new car early. That could mean a debut as soon as the Bahrain Grand Prix - the third race of the 2005 Championship.
"If the 2004M is not competitive then we can bring [the F2005] forward," Ferrari's technical director Ross Brawn said in the team's launch today. "We plan to introduce the car in Barcelona but depending how it tests, [an early introduction] could be anticipated.
"The logical race to do it is Bahrain, because of the engine regulations. It would not be easy to do it in Bahrain and it would be a very tough decision, but technically it is possible but it depends on how the interim car is going.
"If we are competitive with [the F2004M] I would much rather do it in Barcelona. In Bahrain, we would not have the spares and infrastructure to support it as well as we would like." [/QUOTE]
And something else to ponder about the first race ffrom the head of Michelin..
[QUOTE]The new tyre rules, restricting each car to one set of tyres per race, will see less rubber laid down on the Albert Park track and therefore less grip throughout the weekened, according to Michelin's motorsport director Pierre Dupasquier.
"Traditionally, the grip level picks up quite quickly as F1 rubber is laid down, but that process might take rather longer this year," the Frenchman said in a company press release, ahead of the Australian Grand Prix.
"With drivers restricted to one set of tyres per race, we are using harder compounds that will leave less rubber on the track. As a result, it is likely that conditions will change less than we are used to between Friday and Sunday."
Dupasquier said the French tyre maker, still chasing their first World Championship title since making a return to the sport in 2001, have made progress in testing over the past few weeks, but he would not be drawn into making predictions for the upcoming season opening race.
"We made very encouraging progress during our final pre-season tests in Spain, where we achieved some excellent lap times, but we don't yet know how that will translate to Melbourne," he said.[/QUOTE]
Only 8 frick'n days to go...next week is going to go by painfully slow...
Does anyone else buy Autocourse at the end of each season?
| Ferg | 02-25-2005 09:35 PM |
Nice...here's a great interview with William's Patrick Head! Enjoy :)
[QUOTE]Williams' former technical director Patrick Head has never been a man to hold back at coming forwards. His outspoken attitude has helped shape the Grove-based team for more than 20 years and, despite predicting a tough start to 2005, he is expecting a big recovery later in the season.
Head's decision to step aside and make way for Sam Michael last May came after the disappointing start to 2004, when the team realised that only a mammoth effort and a fresh push from above would help it recapture its race-winning form. Michael did all that was required of him as Juan Pablo Montoya took a win in the season-closing Brazilian Grand Prix.
A few months on, however, and Williams readily acknowledges that it is not going to start the new season as strongly as it ended the last one. Problems with the calibration of the team's new state-of-the-art wind-tunnel have cost it valuable pre-season development time but, even so, the outfit is confident that it can ultimately challenge for glory.
Autosport.com's Jonathan Noble was at Williams' pre-season preview lunch earlier this week to catch up with the team's predictions for the year ahead. Here are the highlights of Head's pre-season thoughts on the competition, Williams' new FW27, the drivers and the job Sam Michael is doing.
[B]How much competition do you see at the front of grid this year?[/B]
Patrick Head: I think it will be very strong from what I see. I am sure Ferrari are going to need their new car and it is going to be very interesting to see how much that car will be a step forwards over their interim car. The Renault certainly looks very strong, the McLaren looks pretty strong. The BAR is difficult to judge � I am sure it will be a good car and they are certainly a good team, but you get the impression that they have been running the engine well below where they want to be running it. Their long run lap times have looked pretty poor and their speed trap figures have looked low, as if part of their problem is that they haven't been pushing their engine very hard. But with Honda, you never know. I am sure the BAR will be good, but it doesn't look in the same league as the Renault and the McLaren.
[B]There seems to have been a Williams cycle over recent years of starting each season on the backfoot and then trying to recover from there�[/B]
PH: Yes, it is actually a bit longer than recent seasons. If you look at the progress since 1997 it has been starting not very strongly and then working like hell. (Autosport's technical editor) Giorgio Piola said that we provided him with a large percentage of his income from doing his drawings. He was going around last year saying how incredibly impressed he was with the amount of work we did. Well, we had, but it has been a characteristic ever since 1997 and we had hoped this winter to break it. In fact, we hoped between 2003 and 2004 to break it! Obviously we want to start the season competitive, but if you look at our progress since 1997 we have almost always been there or nearly there at the end of the year but not so strong at the beginning.
[B]Is it a case that because you are playing catch up you cannot develop the following year's car?[/B]
PH: That certainly is a major factor and I think Renault have been pretty open to say they sacrificed the second half of last year to be strong this year. It could well pay off for them. You really want to be ahead of the game all the time and that is the sort of ideal. Ideally you should launch a car that has a performance advantage in it and run with that performance advantage for half a year and then give it a big 10 percent hike halfway through the year. That is the best way to run it and actually the most cost-effective. To actually come out with a car that is behind and have to develop it race-by-race, making five new sets of wing endplates and then the race after that five new rear wings, and then sets for testing, costs an absolute fortune and works people incredibly hard. So it is not the way to do it.
[B]Is there a particular reason it has happened, or are there a number of factors?[/B]
PH: I think previous to this year there has been some misplaced complacency, particularly in our aerodynamics department. When you make contact with your opposition once every two weeks then you get a pretty good reality check of where you are. When you then disconnect at the last race of the year and then only do testing, then no-one knows where everyone else is, how much fuel they are running, what the different things are. Then in the aero department if they make an eight percent improvement, the difficulty is in not making people think, �we are doing bloody well then.' The aim is to keep the competitive element going through the winter and I think that was certainly a factor until 2004. I don't think it has been a factor over the last winter because they have been working like hell. It has been very well structured and Sam Michael has been driving them very hard. I think there have been some technical problems, which shouldn't happen, but have happened, and it is partly the problem with new wind-tunnels. The main thing with new wind-tunnels is that there is always massive pressure to bring it online very quickly, whereas in truth you want three or four months where you are doing nothing but calibrating and flow checks. That part was pushed to be conducted within a short period of time�but meanwhile I am very confident that the new wind-tunnel is a very good one and the old one is very strong as well.
[B]How has the reshuffle gone over the last 12 months. You and Sam Michael have changed roles. You have lost John Davis. You have lost Antonia Terzi, you employed Loic Bigois and now have Mark and Nick in the car. There is a large shift in a lot of areas. Has it been productive to have all this new opinion?[/B]
PH: Obviously there have been some big changes and in the case of John Davis, we had a fixed term two-year agreement with him that was associated around the new tunnel and upgrade of the existing tunnel. With Antonia, she is certainly a very capable aerodynamicist, but there were difficulties in that she seemed to have a confrontational approach and it was quite difficult for Sam to get the openness. We have our wind-tunnel in a separate building to the factory, it is a 15-yard walk between the two, so for a long time it has been difficult to stop there being a �them-and-us' approach between the wind-tunnel and the factory. And if there were problems in the wind-tunnel, like with repeatability, or if they took the model out and put it back in and suddenly 50-pounds of downforce wasn't there, then there seemed to be this attitude of, �we mustn't tell them.' Well you cannot have that and Sam tried very hard with Antonia to get her to be more included in the whole design process, but ultimately it didn't work. We concluded that we had to make a change.
[B]And what about the drivers?[/B]
PH: On the drivers, I think a lot has been said, but in truth we could not afford to continue to have Ralf Schumacher and Juan Pablo Montoya. That was as plain as it is. We entered a new deal with BMW, which starts this year. It was a very, very much less beneficial deal financially and we were in a position where we could not afford those two drivers. We came to the conclusion that we needed to make a change and I am very happy with the two we have got. I know everybody talks about the new situation, but only the season will show. To me they look like a very well-matched pair. With Nick (Heidfeld), we were very much of the view that we were going to run Antonio (Pizzonia). We had discussed running other drivers and BMW said to us, certainly, that they would like us to give Nick a run � but they did not say, �we want you to have Nick as the race driver'. They certainly thought that we should give him a run and we did that at the end of November and we were very impressed with him. Not really just his speed but the good way he managed himself and all the engineers, particularly the BMW engineers. He was actually able to point out some things with the engine management that, when they were changed, immediately gave lap time. We had been carrying these things on the car, in the way the engine was managed, for two years without anyone pointing it out. In terms of pure speed between him and Antonio there was nothing. You would do one test, one would be a tenth quicker, and the next day another would be a tenth quicker. In long runs they would lie right over the top of each other, but I think Nick's four or five years experience in F1, not much of it easy, gave him a jump start in terms of the way he worked with the team.
[B]You mentioned BMW's financial cutback. Do you think this is a way of them putting pressure on you?[/B]
PH: That has been the case for some time. I think in 2001 and 2002 undoubtedly the BMW engine was the class of the field and we didn't have a good enough car even though we won races. Our car was not as good as the engine, albeit with the engine in 2001 and 2002 I think we had five or six engine failures in races, so maybe it wasn't championship standard from a reliability point of view, but certainly it was the most powerful. Certainly now and last year it was not the class of the field as it has been previously, it is a still a very good engine and a nice design, but the engine in 2005 is entering its third season of running. It is a developed engine and almost every bit of the engine has had to have been developed in some form and, slightly changing the subject a bit, that is one of the annoyances for the manufacturers, particularly at the moment, in that the FIA wanted to take engines in the direction of 2.4-litre V8s. It is fairly understandable that BMW was not supportive of that and they had been told by Max (Mosley) that there would no changes to the engine specification until the end of 2007 and there they are, they produced the new M5 with a V10 engine and a lot of it is based around the imagery of F1, so you can image they were not going to say, �Goody, goody Max we support your 2.4-litre V8.' But in the process of the FIA pushing for a 2.4-litre V8 and two races per engine, which if you have got to design an engine knowing it has got to do two races that is okay, but in the process of this whole push they have also been forced to take engines that were designed to do one race, including the new Renault and Honda engine, and for one year develop them to be capable of doing two races. It is not just doing a slightly different pistons. All the cylinder heads, the cylinder blocks, everything, they have all had to be redesigned to thicken them up and the cost of it has been absolutely enormous.
[B]Isn't it a fact that the things sometimes aimed at reducing costs actually increase them?[/B]
PH: That is not unusual. Most of the things that have been put forwards as cost reducers and have been championed as wonderful have done exactly the opposite, and it is the main driver of the disagreement at the moment. Particular with the FIA and Bernie's championships � it is not so much the distribution of money, which is a factor, the biggest driver that is upsetting the manufacturers is the governance of the technical rules of F1 and the way in which change comes about. That is the biggest thing that is causing problems.
[B]Do you think the new regulations will help spice the racing up this year?[/B]
PH: I think the tyre side is going to be very interesting and it will have an enormous affect on the racing. I don't think in itself it will make the racing more interesting, but we may well see that at one track one tyre company may do a better job than the other. There is going to be some fantastically difficult decisions to make about tyres. Whereas previously it hardly came up that we couldn't choose the option tyre because the wear rate was too high, because we have been doing three and two-stop races, sometimes the option tyre has been marginal but there has hardly been an occasion, I think once last year, where the option tyre was not run able because the wear rate was too high. But now, before a race meeting, because every team can choose their own tyres out of Michelin's range of tyres, out of that range of compounds and constructions we can choose tyres peculiar to our team, as can the others, so we have got to make the choice before we go to a race meeting. And here we are running around in the cold temperatures of Barcelona and Valencia, saying �okay no problem we can do 350km', but what the hell is going to happen in the stinking hot temperatures of Malaysia, which is a highly abrasive track�
[B]Will that mean, therefore, that there will be more of an onus on driving skill and smoothness than before?[/B]
PH: Yes, but every driver knows that. I know somebody like Jenson has got a reputation for being very smooth and maybe Juan Pablo's style sometimes can be a bit more dramatic, but Juan Pablo knows damn well that if he has got to use the same tyre he is clever enough to know he has got to drive smoothly and he is good enough to adjust his driving style accordingly.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Williams' former technical director Patrick Head has never been a man to hold back at coming forwards. His outspoken attitude has helped shape the Grove-based team for more than 20 years and, despite predicting a tough start to 2005, he is expecting a big recovery later in the season.
Head's decision to step aside and make way for Sam Michael last May came after the disappointing start to 2004, when the team realised that only a mammoth effort and a fresh push from above would help it recapture its race-winning form. Michael did all that was required of him as Juan Pablo Montoya took a win in the season-closing Brazilian Grand Prix.
A few months on, however, and Williams readily acknowledges that it is not going to start the new season as strongly as it ended the last one. Problems with the calibration of the team's new state-of-the-art wind-tunnel have cost it valuable pre-season development time but, even so, the outfit is confident that it can ultimately challenge for glory.
Autosport.com's Jonathan Noble was at Williams' pre-season preview lunch earlier this week to catch up with the team's predictions for the year ahead. Here are the highlights of Head's pre-season thoughts on the competition, Williams' new FW27, the drivers and the job Sam Michael is doing.
[B]How much competition do you see at the front of grid this year?[/B]
Patrick Head: I think it will be very strong from what I see. I am sure Ferrari are going to need their new car and it is going to be very interesting to see how much that car will be a step forwards over their interim car. The Renault certainly looks very strong, the McLaren looks pretty strong. The BAR is difficult to judge � I am sure it will be a good car and they are certainly a good team, but you get the impression that they have been running the engine well below where they want to be running it. Their long run lap times have looked pretty poor and their speed trap figures have looked low, as if part of their problem is that they haven't been pushing their engine very hard. But with Honda, you never know. I am sure the BAR will be good, but it doesn't look in the same league as the Renault and the McLaren.
[B]There seems to have been a Williams cycle over recent years of starting each season on the backfoot and then trying to recover from there�[/B]
PH: Yes, it is actually a bit longer than recent seasons. If you look at the progress since 1997 it has been starting not very strongly and then working like hell. (Autosport's technical editor) Giorgio Piola said that we provided him with a large percentage of his income from doing his drawings. He was going around last year saying how incredibly impressed he was with the amount of work we did. Well, we had, but it has been a characteristic ever since 1997 and we had hoped this winter to break it. In fact, we hoped between 2003 and 2004 to break it! Obviously we want to start the season competitive, but if you look at our progress since 1997 we have almost always been there or nearly there at the end of the year but not so strong at the beginning.
[B]Is it a case that because you are playing catch up you cannot develop the following year's car?[/B]
PH: That certainly is a major factor and I think Renault have been pretty open to say they sacrificed the second half of last year to be strong this year. It could well pay off for them. You really want to be ahead of the game all the time and that is the sort of ideal. Ideally you should launch a car that has a performance advantage in it and run with that performance advantage for half a year and then give it a big 10 percent hike halfway through the year. That is the best way to run it and actually the most cost-effective. To actually come out with a car that is behind and have to develop it race-by-race, making five new sets of wing endplates and then the race after that five new rear wings, and then sets for testing, costs an absolute fortune and works people incredibly hard. So it is not the way to do it.
[B]Is there a particular reason it has happened, or are there a number of factors?[/B]
PH: I think previous to this year there has been some misplaced complacency, particularly in our aerodynamics department. When you make contact with your opposition once every two weeks then you get a pretty good reality check of where you are. When you then disconnect at the last race of the year and then only do testing, then no-one knows where everyone else is, how much fuel they are running, what the different things are. Then in the aero department if they make an eight percent improvement, the difficulty is in not making people think, �we are doing bloody well then.' The aim is to keep the competitive element going through the winter and I think that was certainly a factor until 2004. I don't think it has been a factor over the last winter because they have been working like hell. It has been very well structured and Sam Michael has been driving them very hard. I think there have been some technical problems, which shouldn't happen, but have happened, and it is partly the problem with new wind-tunnels. The main thing with new wind-tunnels is that there is always massive pressure to bring it online very quickly, whereas in truth you want three or four months where you are doing nothing but calibrating and flow checks. That part was pushed to be conducted within a short period of time�but meanwhile I am very confident that the new wind-tunnel is a very good one and the old one is very strong as well.
[B]How has the reshuffle gone over the last 12 months. You and Sam Michael have changed roles. You have lost John Davis. You have lost Antonia Terzi, you employed Loic Bigois and now have Mark and Nick in the car. There is a large shift in a lot of areas. Has it been productive to have all this new opinion?[/B]
PH: Obviously there have been some big changes and in the case of John Davis, we had a fixed term two-year agreement with him that was associated around the new tunnel and upgrade of the existing tunnel. With Antonia, she is certainly a very capable aerodynamicist, but there were difficulties in that she seemed to have a confrontational approach and it was quite difficult for Sam to get the openness. We have our wind-tunnel in a separate building to the factory, it is a 15-yard walk between the two, so for a long time it has been difficult to stop there being a �them-and-us' approach between the wind-tunnel and the factory. And if there were problems in the wind-tunnel, like with repeatability, or if they took the model out and put it back in and suddenly 50-pounds of downforce wasn't there, then there seemed to be this attitude of, �we mustn't tell them.' Well you cannot have that and Sam tried very hard with Antonia to get her to be more included in the whole design process, but ultimately it didn't work. We concluded that we had to make a change.
[B]And what about the drivers?[/B]
PH: On the drivers, I think a lot has been said, but in truth we could not afford to continue to have Ralf Schumacher and Juan Pablo Montoya. That was as plain as it is. We entered a new deal with BMW, which starts this year. It was a very, very much less beneficial deal financially and we were in a position where we could not afford those two drivers. We came to the conclusion that we needed to make a change and I am very happy with the two we have got. I know everybody talks about the new situation, but only the season will show. To me they look like a very well-matched pair. With Nick (Heidfeld), we were very much of the view that we were going to run Antonio (Pizzonia). We had discussed running other drivers and BMW said to us, certainly, that they would like us to give Nick a run � but they did not say, �we want you to have Nick as the race driver'. They certainly thought that we should give him a run and we did that at the end of November and we were very impressed with him. Not really just his speed but the good way he managed himself and all the engineers, particularly the BMW engineers. He was actually able to point out some things with the engine management that, when they were changed, immediately gave lap time. We had been carrying these things on the car, in the way the engine was managed, for two years without anyone pointing it out. In terms of pure speed between him and Antonio there was nothing. You would do one test, one would be a tenth quicker, and the next day another would be a tenth quicker. In long runs they would lie right over the top of each other, but I think Nick's four or five years experience in F1, not much of it easy, gave him a jump start in terms of the way he worked with the team.
[B]You mentioned BMW's financial cutback. Do you think this is a way of them putting pressure on you?[/B]
PH: That has been the case for some time. I think in 2001 and 2002 undoubtedly the BMW engine was the class of the field and we didn't have a good enough car even though we won races. Our car was not as good as the engine, albeit with the engine in 2001 and 2002 I think we had five or six engine failures in races, so maybe it wasn't championship standard from a reliability point of view, but certainly it was the most powerful. Certainly now and last year it was not the class of the field as it has been previously, it is a still a very good engine and a nice design, but the engine in 2005 is entering its third season of running. It is a developed engine and almost every bit of the engine has had to have been developed in some form and, slightly changing the subject a bit, that is one of the annoyances for the manufacturers, particularly at the moment, in that the FIA wanted to take engines in the direction of 2.4-litre V8s. It is fairly understandable that BMW was not supportive of that and they had been told by Max (Mosley) that there would no changes to the engine specification until the end of 2007 and there they are, they produced the new M5 with a V10 engine and a lot of it is based around the imagery of F1, so you can image they were not going to say, �Goody, goody Max we support your 2.4-litre V8.' But in the process of the FIA pushing for a 2.4-litre V8 and two races per engine, which if you have got to design an engine knowing it has got to do two races that is okay, but in the process of this whole push they have also been forced to take engines that were designed to do one race, including the new Renault and Honda engine, and for one year develop them to be capable of doing two races. It is not just doing a slightly different pistons. All the cylinder heads, the cylinder blocks, everything, they have all had to be redesigned to thicken them up and the cost of it has been absolutely enormous.
[B]Isn't it a fact that the things sometimes aimed at reducing costs actually increase them?[/B]
PH: That is not unusual. Most of the things that have been put forwards as cost reducers and have been championed as wonderful have done exactly the opposite, and it is the main driver of the disagreement at the moment. Particular with the FIA and Bernie's championships � it is not so much the distribution of money, which is a factor, the biggest driver that is upsetting the manufacturers is the governance of the technical rules of F1 and the way in which change comes about. That is the biggest thing that is causing problems.
[B]Do you think the new regulations will help spice the racing up this year?[/B]
PH: I think the tyre side is going to be very interesting and it will have an enormous affect on the racing. I don't think in itself it will make the racing more interesting, but we may well see that at one track one tyre company may do a better job than the other. There is going to be some fantastically difficult decisions to make about tyres. Whereas previously it hardly came up that we couldn't choose the option tyre because the wear rate was too high, because we have been doing three and two-stop races, sometimes the option tyre has been marginal but there has hardly been an occasion, I think once last year, where the option tyre was not run able because the wear rate was too high. But now, before a race meeting, because every team can choose their own tyres out of Michelin's range of tyres, out of that range of compounds and constructions we can choose tyres peculiar to our team, as can the others, so we have got to make the choice before we go to a race meeting. And here we are running around in the cold temperatures of Barcelona and Valencia, saying �okay no problem we can do 350km', but what the hell is going to happen in the stinking hot temperatures of Malaysia, which is a highly abrasive track�
[B]Will that mean, therefore, that there will be more of an onus on driving skill and smoothness than before?[/B]
PH: Yes, but every driver knows that. I know somebody like Jenson has got a reputation for being very smooth and maybe Juan Pablo's style sometimes can be a bit more dramatic, but Juan Pablo knows damn well that if he has got to use the same tyre he is clever enough to know he has got to drive smoothly and he is good enough to adjust his driving style accordingly.[/QUOTE]
| Ferg | 02-25-2005 09:36 PM |
..and the rest of it.
[QUOTE][B]With Sam Michael, was there a long crossover when you moved aside? Have you been holding his hand for the past year or have you just left him to it?[/B]
PH: I think Sam would be rather offended with the holding hands analogy! I think that I had already, and I have spoken to Frank Williams about it, I made the decision well before, two years before, that at the end of 2004 I would step down as technical director. We talked for some time about who the replacement should be. I think once I had seen our car performance in the early part of 2004 I came to the conclusion that, quite apart from one's actual intellectual capability, because of my living in London and having two young children, I probably do 50-55 hours a week. Ten years ago I was doing 80 hours a week, or maybe more, rushing off to a test or going to a race, doing everything. Probably later than I should have done, I concluded that in that senior position you needed to have somebody who was not only up to date with all the technologies and had all the knowledge to make a decision, but someone who was prepared to put in a large amount of time. Sam not only has the technical capability but he also has the commitment.
[B]How have you found the adjustment?[/B]
PH: My biggest interest is that Williams should be successful. I have no interest in being at the pinnacle of an unsuccessful team and if that required me to take one step down or sideways to get the right energies and input, there is still an enormous amount for me to do and I am still well involved. There is a lot for me to do at the facility and I have become much more involved since John Davis departed at the end of last year in developing our facilities. Every now and then Sam will say to me and ask me, �what do you think of this?' and every now and then I will see something that I think can be better and I will always make a point of going straight to Sam and telling him. I will never go straight to the designer, or whatever. If I want to see something that I think is not good and should be changed then I will talk to Sam. We have clearly defined responsibilities and authorities and Sam hasn't had to growl at me too often and I haven't had to growl at him, so we are both perfectly capable of having a straight-forward open relationship. Sam, I get on well with him, because he is not a person who had hidden agendas. If he wants to go in a certain direction you know exactly what direction he is going in. He lets everyone know what he wants to have done and I hope always to operate in that way as well. Every now and then, if we have some difficulties, we close the door and talk it through, but it doesn't happen very often.
[B]Do you see some of your personal characteristics in him?[/B]
PH: I think for anybody who is going to be successful in the technical side of F1, you have got to have determination, a certain level of stubbornness, and a reasonable degree of directness. Otherwise we are different people from a different time.
[B]What have you made of Mark Webber so far?[/B]
PH: Mark is very well aware of the level of involvement he needs to have with the team if he is going to be successful. He is clearly disappointed with the performance of the car, he realises that the basic car is potentially good but he realises that aerodynamically it is in need of some more downforce. He is obviously disappointed with that and knocked back a bit, and I have had a few telephone calls from him that he is not disguising his disappointment. But in truth for me to say to him, �don't worry, it will be alright on the day', is not my style and not where we have been. I have told him exactly what we are doing, but I am not going to predict that by Malaysia we will be front row because I think it will take a little bit longer than that. He is a very determined driver, very capable, we see very good speed, very good speed over long runs so he looks very good from a fitness point of view.
[B]The fact that Mark has not finished higher than fifth yet, is it important for him to get that monkey off his back?[/B]
PH: It is remarkable, isn't it actually? When he came to us someone said to us, actually one of the other drivers who was keen to drive alongside him, that do you realise that his highest finishing position is fifth in a Minardi. It must be a monkey on his back. It will be frustrating, but what do you do about it? The only thing you can do is keep your head down and work hard.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]With Sam Michael, was there a long crossover when you moved aside? Have you been holding his hand for the past year or have you just left him to it?[/B]
PH: I think Sam would be rather offended with the holding hands analogy! I think that I had already, and I have spoken to Frank Williams about it, I made the decision well before, two years before, that at the end of 2004 I would step down as technical director. We talked for some time about who the replacement should be. I think once I had seen our car performance in the early part of 2004 I came to the conclusion that, quite apart from one's actual intellectual capability, because of my living in London and having two young children, I probably do 50-55 hours a week. Ten years ago I was doing 80 hours a week, or maybe more, rushing off to a test or going to a race, doing everything. Probably later than I should have done, I concluded that in that senior position you needed to have somebody who was not only up to date with all the technologies and had all the knowledge to make a decision, but someone who was prepared to put in a large amount of time. Sam not only has the technical capability but he also has the commitment.
[B]How have you found the adjustment?[/B]
PH: My biggest interest is that Williams should be successful. I have no interest in being at the pinnacle of an unsuccessful team and if that required me to take one step down or sideways to get the right energies and input, there is still an enormous amount for me to do and I am still well involved. There is a lot for me to do at the facility and I have become much more involved since John Davis departed at the end of last year in developing our facilities. Every now and then Sam will say to me and ask me, �what do you think of this?' and every now and then I will see something that I think can be better and I will always make a point of going straight to Sam and telling him. I will never go straight to the designer, or whatever. If I want to see something that I think is not good and should be changed then I will talk to Sam. We have clearly defined responsibilities and authorities and Sam hasn't had to growl at me too often and I haven't had to growl at him, so we are both perfectly capable of having a straight-forward open relationship. Sam, I get on well with him, because he is not a person who had hidden agendas. If he wants to go in a certain direction you know exactly what direction he is going in. He lets everyone know what he wants to have done and I hope always to operate in that way as well. Every now and then, if we have some difficulties, we close the door and talk it through, but it doesn't happen very often.
[B]Do you see some of your personal characteristics in him?[/B]
PH: I think for anybody who is going to be successful in the technical side of F1, you have got to have determination, a certain level of stubbornness, and a reasonable degree of directness. Otherwise we are different people from a different time.
[B]What have you made of Mark Webber so far?[/B]
PH: Mark is very well aware of the level of involvement he needs to have with the team if he is going to be successful. He is clearly disappointed with the performance of the car, he realises that the basic car is potentially good but he realises that aerodynamically it is in need of some more downforce. He is obviously disappointed with that and knocked back a bit, and I have had a few telephone calls from him that he is not disguising his disappointment. But in truth for me to say to him, �don't worry, it will be alright on the day', is not my style and not where we have been. I have told him exactly what we are doing, but I am not going to predict that by Malaysia we will be front row because I think it will take a little bit longer than that. He is a very determined driver, very capable, we see very good speed, very good speed over long runs so he looks very good from a fitness point of view.
[B]The fact that Mark has not finished higher than fifth yet, is it important for him to get that monkey off his back?[/B]
PH: It is remarkable, isn't it actually? When he came to us someone said to us, actually one of the other drivers who was keen to drive alongside him, that do you realise that his highest finishing position is fifth in a Minardi. It must be a monkey on his back. It will be frustrating, but what do you do about it? The only thing you can do is keep your head down and work hard.[/QUOTE]
| Ferg | 02-26-2005 10:17 PM |
Here's a brilliant idea for F1. They should look at the IRL's new qualifying system for road courses...
[QUOTE]The IRL IndyCar Series will adopt a unique qualifying format for its three road and street course events this year.
Most of the grid positions will be allocated using a single-lap system as is traditionally used on the ovals and as adopted by Formula 1 in recent years, but the top six places will be decided in a ten-minute �showdown' at the end of the session.
Two Friday practice sessions will sort the order for qualifying, with the driver who sets the practice pace allowed to choose whether to run first or last in Saturday's single lap qualifying.
Once all the cars have completed their one-lap runs the positions from seventh downwards will be set, but the six fastest drivers will proceed to a shoot-out for the top six places. The sextet will be released onto the track together and given ten minutes to fight it out for the front three rows of the grid.
�We wanted to do something a little different and we tried to stage something where each aspect of the weekend builds on and feeds on the next,� said IRL president and CEO Brian Barnhart.[/QUOTE]
This would work wonders for Formula One, certainly much better then the mess we're currently stuck with.
[QUOTE]The IRL IndyCar Series will adopt a unique qualifying format for its three road and street course events this year.
Most of the grid positions will be allocated using a single-lap system as is traditionally used on the ovals and as adopted by Formula 1 in recent years, but the top six places will be decided in a ten-minute �showdown' at the end of the session.
Two Friday practice sessions will sort the order for qualifying, with the driver who sets the practice pace allowed to choose whether to run first or last in Saturday's single lap qualifying.
Once all the cars have completed their one-lap runs the positions from seventh downwards will be set, but the six fastest drivers will proceed to a shoot-out for the top six places. The sextet will be released onto the track together and given ten minutes to fight it out for the front three rows of the grid.
�We wanted to do something a little different and we tried to stage something where each aspect of the weekend builds on and feeds on the next,� said IRL president and CEO Brian Barnhart.[/QUOTE]
This would work wonders for Formula One, certainly much better then the mess we're currently stuck with.
| Ferg | 03-02-2005 09:41 AM |
For those of you that are still wondering if Ferrari is evil...
[QUOTE]Minardi boss Paul Stoddart may now have to resort to legal action if his team is to take part in the season opening Australian Grand Prix, after Ferrari indicated on Tuesday night that it would not support plans to allow its rival to runs it 2004 cars.
After weeks of speculation about Stoddart's plans, because he claims he could not afford to get his 2005 car ready before the San Marino Grand Prix, there is now the distinct possibility that the team boss could be forced to sit on the sidelines for his home grand prix.
Eight of his rivals teams have supported the move to allow Stoddart to race his 2004 cars, which do not comply to the 2005 aerodynamic regulations but are modified to fall in line with safety requirements, but Ferrari has stood firm in rejecting its approval.
Stoddart said: �I spoke to (Ferrari sporting director Jean) Todt during the night, but he wasn't supportive at all. Todt kept saying it's an FIA problem although Max Mosley has gone on the record and said if we could got Ferrari's signature then we can race. I tried to explain that to him rationally.
�I asked him to delegate the powers to some other member of Ferrari who was actually in Melbourne so we could at least have the discussion. He refused, and the phone call came to an end without a conclusion."
Minardi now has less than 24 hours to resolve the situation, before the end of pre-event scrutineering on Thursday. If the team does not get approval to race by then, it may not be allowed to compete at all in Australia.[/QUOTE]
Comeon, let Minardi in there! :mad:
[QUOTE]Minardi boss Paul Stoddart may now have to resort to legal action if his team is to take part in the season opening Australian Grand Prix, after Ferrari indicated on Tuesday night that it would not support plans to allow its rival to runs it 2004 cars.
After weeks of speculation about Stoddart's plans, because he claims he could not afford to get his 2005 car ready before the San Marino Grand Prix, there is now the distinct possibility that the team boss could be forced to sit on the sidelines for his home grand prix.
Eight of his rivals teams have supported the move to allow Stoddart to race his 2004 cars, which do not comply to the 2005 aerodynamic regulations but are modified to fall in line with safety requirements, but Ferrari has stood firm in rejecting its approval.
Stoddart said: �I spoke to (Ferrari sporting director Jean) Todt during the night, but he wasn't supportive at all. Todt kept saying it's an FIA problem although Max Mosley has gone on the record and said if we could got Ferrari's signature then we can race. I tried to explain that to him rationally.
�I asked him to delegate the powers to some other member of Ferrari who was actually in Melbourne so we could at least have the discussion. He refused, and the phone call came to an end without a conclusion."
Minardi now has less than 24 hours to resolve the situation, before the end of pre-event scrutineering on Thursday. If the team does not get approval to race by then, it may not be allowed to compete at all in Australia.[/QUOTE]
Comeon, let Minardi in there! :mad:
| artkevin | 03-02-2005 09:49 AM |
If Minardi doesn't race, what does that do to the Concorde agreement? Don't they have to have 10 teams and 20 cars lined up for the race unless there is a saftey problem? This does kind of disgust me about Ferrari, or Todt more directly. Minardi pose nearly zero threat to them but they won't even come to the table. Its probably becuase Stoddart rocks the boat so much and aires all of F1 dirty laundry.
| Dussander | 03-02-2005 10:48 AM |
Slightly off topic... how in the hell do goofy F1 guys guys get such attractive women? John Todt with Michelle Yeow. And Flavio with various models... crazy world.
| artkevin | 03-02-2005 11:28 AM |
Flavio is basically an Itlian pimp, he was with Hdei Klum for God sakes. I might do him for the type of money he has. Jean Todt is an extremely powerful man but he's built like a troll. It is actually strange to me how many of the F1 guys wives are not that hot. Mark Webber's girl friend/manager is a British reporter that is extremely nice but she looks 15 years older then she is. Alex Wurz's wife is homely and so is Perdo De la Rosa. Ralph's wife looks like an out of work porn star.
One the other hand JB's, Kimi's, Juan's, Micheal's and even Alex Yoong's girls are all unbelievably hot.
One the other hand JB's, Kimi's, Juan's, Micheal's and even Alex Yoong's girls are all unbelievably hot.
| PaulC | 03-02-2005 11:37 AM |
[QUOTE=Dussander]Slightly off topic... how in the hell do goofy F1 guys guys get such attractive women?[/QUOTE]
Come on do you really have to ask? :lol:
Lets see, obscenely rich guys playing with extremely expensive toys on a world stage? Hmm..
Come on do you really have to ask? :lol:
Lets see, obscenely rich guys playing with extremely expensive toys on a world stage? Hmm..
| BriDrive | 03-02-2005 11:44 AM |
[QUOTE=Ferg]For those of you that are still wondering if Ferrari is evil...
Comeon, let Minardi in there! :mad:[/QUOTE]
Well....a formula is a formula is a formula. If you can't build to the formula you can't race. Its pretty simple.
How's that Ferrari just being evil? Do you not see their side of it?
I'm frankly surprised ANY other team would support the idea. Talk about introducing uncertainty into the system....
Give an inch, take a yard....where does it end and to whom does the "concession" apply.
If I was Toyota, Sauber, RedBull, Jordan/Midland....I'm sure I would be against letting anyone run a 2004 spec and potentially compete for "my" points scraps.............
Comeon, let Minardi in there! :mad:[/QUOTE]
Well....a formula is a formula is a formula. If you can't build to the formula you can't race. Its pretty simple.
How's that Ferrari just being evil? Do you not see their side of it?
I'm frankly surprised ANY other team would support the idea. Talk about introducing uncertainty into the system....
Give an inch, take a yard....where does it end and to whom does the "concession" apply.
If I was Toyota, Sauber, RedBull, Jordan/Midland....I'm sure I would be against letting anyone run a 2004 spec and potentially compete for "my" points scraps.............
| johnfelstead | 03-02-2005 12:12 PM |
I agree with the basis of your argument Bri, but......
The end of 2004 was a mess for a team as small as Minardi, the technical regulations for 2005 were very late in their finalisation plus you had the seriously damaging late withdrawal of Ford from the sport taking away their engine deal. There was then weeks of speculation as to whether Cosworth would fold, or be bought and develop a new engine, supply a B spec for Minardi to be resolved, this left Stodart with some very serious problems to overcome.
If we were talking one of the well funded teams i would go along with you on what you say, but Minardi are a special case here IMHO. If its OK for Ferrari to recieve a higher payout than the other teams for competing, getting consesions there (they frankly dont deserve anymore), it should work the other way too where the minows get a bit of help when they need it, when it is justified due to force majour, which i believe is the case with Minardi this time.
There is no level playing field in F1, based on that there should be some room for flexibility in special circumstances, not having Minardi race in Melbourne could lead to them going under due to breach of sponsorship contracts etc. which is going to damage the sport longer term and cost the teams more by having to run 3 cars, that is why the other teams are trying to help Minardi out this time.
Also dont forget, Minardi's technical Director died of a heart attack at a race meeting last year, that too would have put a big strain on such a small team during such a turbulent and changing time technically.
The end of 2004 was a mess for a team as small as Minardi, the technical regulations for 2005 were very late in their finalisation plus you had the seriously damaging late withdrawal of Ford from the sport taking away their engine deal. There was then weeks of speculation as to whether Cosworth would fold, or be bought and develop a new engine, supply a B spec for Minardi to be resolved, this left Stodart with some very serious problems to overcome.
If we were talking one of the well funded teams i would go along with you on what you say, but Minardi are a special case here IMHO. If its OK for Ferrari to recieve a higher payout than the other teams for competing, getting consesions there (they frankly dont deserve anymore), it should work the other way too where the minows get a bit of help when they need it, when it is justified due to force majour, which i believe is the case with Minardi this time.
There is no level playing field in F1, based on that there should be some room for flexibility in special circumstances, not having Minardi race in Melbourne could lead to them going under due to breach of sponsorship contracts etc. which is going to damage the sport longer term and cost the teams more by having to run 3 cars, that is why the other teams are trying to help Minardi out this time.
Also dont forget, Minardi's technical Director died of a heart attack at a race meeting last year, that too would have put a big strain on such a small team during such a turbulent and changing time technically.
| artkevin | 03-02-2005 12:19 PM |
[QUOTE=BriDrive]Well....a formula is a formula is a formula. If you can't build to the formula you can't race. Its pretty simple.
How's that Ferrari just being evil? Do you not see their side of it?
I'm frankly surprised ANY other team would support the idea. Talk about introducing uncertainty into the system....
Give an inch, take a yard....where does it end and to whom does the "concession" apply.
If I was Toyota, Sauber, RedBull, Jordan/Midland....I'm sure I would be against letting anyone run a 2004 spec and potentially compete for "my" points scraps.............[/QUOTE]
In a perfect world I would agree with you. I actually think that Jordan or Red Bull would have given them a harder time giving them the go ahead seeing that if 2002 repeats it self in Melbourne then Minardi could steal points from them in an older car. Ferrari on the other hand, are 2-5 seconds faster a lap. How in the world could they pose a threat to them. Minardi are actually trying to race last years cars fitted to this years areo regulations. Not just the car they raced in Brazil out of the box. I got to agree with Ferg. Let them race unless they are trying to destroy the team for some reason.
How's that Ferrari just being evil? Do you not see their side of it?
I'm frankly surprised ANY other team would support the idea. Talk about introducing uncertainty into the system....
Give an inch, take a yard....where does it end and to whom does the "concession" apply.
If I was Toyota, Sauber, RedBull, Jordan/Midland....I'm sure I would be against letting anyone run a 2004 spec and potentially compete for "my" points scraps.............[/QUOTE]
In a perfect world I would agree with you. I actually think that Jordan or Red Bull would have given them a harder time giving them the go ahead seeing that if 2002 repeats it self in Melbourne then Minardi could steal points from them in an older car. Ferrari on the other hand, are 2-5 seconds faster a lap. How in the world could they pose a threat to them. Minardi are actually trying to race last years cars fitted to this years areo regulations. Not just the car they raced in Brazil out of the box. I got to agree with Ferg. Let them race unless they are trying to destroy the team for some reason.
| BriDrive | 03-02-2005 12:33 PM |
Of course you are right....AND....I have always admired Minardi for their resilience and commitment to a "failing cause"...although commercially it still makes sense for them if not competitively.
Your points are all good ones and they certainly have been known since August/September of last year by all parties involved....
Perhaps most teams have just looked at the reality of the situation and said "...yeah..put the bandaid on the wound...." whereas perhaps Ferrari's line of reasoning is..."...well folks...what we can't go on treating symptoms forever...you Bernie and FIA and everyone else...need & should treat the cause..."
I dunno........F1, in general seems to be folding quickly into oblivion....maybe the season's rules shakedown will last more than a few races and inject the sport with new solidarity, equity and sportsmanship........... :lol:
Doh...sorry...I have just awoken from a good dream......
(Response to John...but it fits for Kevin also)
Brian
Your points are all good ones and they certainly have been known since August/September of last year by all parties involved....
Perhaps most teams have just looked at the reality of the situation and said "...yeah..put the bandaid on the wound...." whereas perhaps Ferrari's line of reasoning is..."...well folks...what we can't go on treating symptoms forever...you Bernie and FIA and everyone else...need & should treat the cause..."
I dunno........F1, in general seems to be folding quickly into oblivion....maybe the season's rules shakedown will last more than a few races and inject the sport with new solidarity, equity and sportsmanship........... :lol:
Doh...sorry...I have just awoken from a good dream......
(Response to John...but it fits for Kevin also)
Brian
| BriDrive | 03-02-2005 12:40 PM |
Oh and to expound on Kevin's point a little bit, Minardi are actually racing chassis's (actual monocoques) that are as old as 2002/2003. They are at a huge competitive disadvantage....(FIA will fight the safety issue if noone else complains of aero)
Its truly stunning to see Minardi even competing at all.
Brian
Its truly stunning to see Minardi even competing at all.
Brian
| gtguy | 03-02-2005 02:34 PM |
I think that some of Ferrari's decision is political. Don't forget that Paul Stoddart is the unofficial "spokesman" for the other teams. I'm sure that his capacity in that regard is some of what is behind Todt's intransigence.
Further, BriDrive makes some good points. What IF something stranger than strange happens? What IF there is a huge crash that takes out, say, 14 cars on the grid and leaves others damaged, with the Minardis coming out whole and suddenly, faster than the remainders. Is that in the realm of the probable? Nope. Possible? Anything is possible.
If you want to be in the sport, you should be able to be in the sport. Yes, they are an underdog, yes they're underfunded and pretty much under-everythinged. But more cynical types wonder, if someone is allowed to run 2004-spec stuff, if other, more well-funded teams' lawyers get involved and start finding holes in the formula, what would happen.
Yes, prima facie, Todt is being a prick, and I don't understand it, either.
Kevin
Further, BriDrive makes some good points. What IF something stranger than strange happens? What IF there is a huge crash that takes out, say, 14 cars on the grid and leaves others damaged, with the Minardis coming out whole and suddenly, faster than the remainders. Is that in the realm of the probable? Nope. Possible? Anything is possible.
If you want to be in the sport, you should be able to be in the sport. Yes, they are an underdog, yes they're underfunded and pretty much under-everythinged. But more cynical types wonder, if someone is allowed to run 2004-spec stuff, if other, more well-funded teams' lawyers get involved and start finding holes in the formula, what would happen.
Yes, prima facie, Todt is being a prick, and I don't understand it, either.
Kevin
| BillT | 03-03-2005 12:31 PM |
Red Bull isn't going to back Minardi either and I can agree with their stance - rules are rules and they would be pissed if they came in 9th and Minardi in 8th thus missing out on a point.
| Dr. WOT | 03-03-2005 01:41 PM |
I don't blame Todt for turning a cold shoulder to Minardi, Stoddard asked for it with months of slander. Red Bull's objection is much more creditable, which is bad news for Stoddard if it is really true that they have no 05 spec (which I serious doubt).
Too bad becasue I agree F1 needs Minardi more than many people may realize. I expect to see PS pull a surprise 05 solution out of a magical hat in the 11th hour.
Too bad becasue I agree F1 needs Minardi more than many people may realize. I expect to see PS pull a surprise 05 solution out of a magical hat in the 11th hour.
| asquaredrex | 03-03-2005 02:15 PM |
What about the ability to race but with no opportunity to score championship points?
Assuming the vehicles pass a safety inspection, the drivers and some new parts get some testing, PS gets his team out in front of his home crowd, and he can get some implict bragging points if they should happen to finish in front of anyone.
I mean, isn't this basically what's happening with the illegal Maserati (= Ferrari) GT cars? They're racing, but not for points.
If Minardi just trekked all their stuff from Italy (where they're based, yes?) to Australia for no reason, they can kiss any cost savings from the new rules (the ones meant to level the playing field for teams like them) goodbye.
Assuming the vehicles pass a safety inspection, the drivers and some new parts get some testing, PS gets his team out in front of his home crowd, and he can get some implict bragging points if they should happen to finish in front of anyone.
I mean, isn't this basically what's happening with the illegal Maserati (= Ferrari) GT cars? They're racing, but not for points.
If Minardi just trekked all their stuff from Italy (where they're based, yes?) to Australia for no reason, they can kiss any cost savings from the new rules (the ones meant to level the playing field for teams like them) goodbye.
| Ferg | 03-09-2005 09:32 AM |
This just in! Still unconfirmed but rarely does Autosport get something wrong.
[QUOTE]Red Bull Racing are close to securing the supply of Honda V8 engines for next year's Formula One World Championship, according to sources close to the team.
Dieter Mateschitz's team were the surprise star of this year's inaugural event, the Australian Grand Prix, but the success on the track didn't divert the Austrian's millionaire's attention from the building of an even better team and his negotiations with Honda have now reached the crucial and final moments.
Although money doesn't seem to be a problem for Red Bull Racing at the moment � the team spent 1.2 million Euros on a party for 3,000 guests in Melbourne � paying Cosworth in excess of 20 million dollars per year will sap the team's resources and that's why Mateschitz has been shopping around, trying to secure a deal with an engine manufacturer.
Although he was close to a deal with Toyota last September, the Austrian failed to agree terms with the Japanese manufacturer and had to pay Cosworth a very heavy bill to have the British V10 engines in the back of his cars this season. But now he's close to cutting his engine bill for 2006 by half, if the deal with Honda comes off.
For Honda, supplying a second team with engines would come as part of the manufacturers' strategy to secure the future of the four independent teams in the field, trying to attract them to the new series the GPWC is putting together for 2008.
Low cost supply of engines � rumored to be of around 10 million euro per year � has been part of the proposals put forward by Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Renault - but so far only Honda and Toyota, who support GPWC's plans, have complied with this promises. Toyota are already supplying engines at a running cost to Jordan and Honda are getting ready to do the same with Red Bull from 2006.
[img]http://www.autosport.com/images/shim.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.autosport.com/images/shim.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.autosport.com/images/shim.gif[/img]
Although he denied any deal had been done, Honda's F1 Project Leader, Takeo Kiuchi, admitted "some teams are interested in having our engines for next year and I know they have approached our president on that mater.
"Personally I would prefer to concentrate all our efforts into the relationship with BAR, but I'm not the one who decides on these matters and I can see us supplying a second team next year, in the best interests of the sport and as a mean to support the independent teams."
From Red Bull's side there was also no official confirmation of the deal, although Christian Horner, the 31-year old Sporting Director, said that, "there are two or three manufacturers that have shown interest in supplying engines to a team like ours, but we're also very happy with the work Cosworth has done so far.
"We're considering our options but I expect a decision to be reached soon. We are trying to secure the best possible future for Red Bull Racing and forging a partnership with an engine manufacturer is definitively the way to go to move closer to the front of the field."
Much as the Jordan-Toyota deal, the contract between Red Bull Racing and Honda will provide only for the supply of the Japanese engines to the Milton Keynes-based team, with no other transfer of technology between the two companies.
That special status is reserved for BAR, a team Honda have been working with for the past six years and now owns 45% of their shares, since a deal was struck in July of 2004.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Red Bull Racing are close to securing the supply of Honda V8 engines for next year's Formula One World Championship, according to sources close to the team.
Dieter Mateschitz's team were the surprise star of this year's inaugural event, the Australian Grand Prix, but the success on the track didn't divert the Austrian's millionaire's attention from the building of an even better team and his negotiations with Honda have now reached the crucial and final moments.
Although money doesn't seem to be a problem for Red Bull Racing at the moment � the team spent 1.2 million Euros on a party for 3,000 guests in Melbourne � paying Cosworth in excess of 20 million dollars per year will sap the team's resources and that's why Mateschitz has been shopping around, trying to secure a deal with an engine manufacturer.
Although he was close to a deal with Toyota last September, the Austrian failed to agree terms with the Japanese manufacturer and had to pay Cosworth a very heavy bill to have the British V10 engines in the back of his cars this season. But now he's close to cutting his engine bill for 2006 by half, if the deal with Honda comes off.
For Honda, supplying a second team with engines would come as part of the manufacturers' strategy to secure the future of the four independent teams in the field, trying to attract them to the new series the GPWC is putting together for 2008.
Low cost supply of engines � rumored to be of around 10 million euro per year � has been part of the proposals put forward by Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Renault - but so far only Honda and Toyota, who support GPWC's plans, have complied with this promises. Toyota are already supplying engines at a running cost to Jordan and Honda are getting ready to do the same with Red Bull from 2006.
[img]http://www.autosport.com/images/shim.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.autosport.com/images/shim.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.autosport.com/images/shim.gif[/img]
Although he denied any deal had been done, Honda's F1 Project Leader, Takeo Kiuchi, admitted "some teams are interested in having our engines for next year and I know they have approached our president on that mater.
"Personally I would prefer to concentrate all our efforts into the relationship with BAR, but I'm not the one who decides on these matters and I can see us supplying a second team next year, in the best interests of the sport and as a mean to support the independent teams."
From Red Bull's side there was also no official confirmation of the deal, although Christian Horner, the 31-year old Sporting Director, said that, "there are two or three manufacturers that have shown interest in supplying engines to a team like ours, but we're also very happy with the work Cosworth has done so far.
"We're considering our options but I expect a decision to be reached soon. We are trying to secure the best possible future for Red Bull Racing and forging a partnership with an engine manufacturer is definitively the way to go to move closer to the front of the field."
Much as the Jordan-Toyota deal, the contract between Red Bull Racing and Honda will provide only for the supply of the Japanese engines to the Milton Keynes-based team, with no other transfer of technology between the two companies.
That special status is reserved for BAR, a team Honda have been working with for the past six years and now owns 45% of their shares, since a deal was struck in July of 2004.[/QUOTE]
| Ferg | 03-10-2005 09:06 PM |
Ferrari hits the track with new car...
[QUOTE][font=Times New Roman][size=3]Ricardo Zonta set the quickest time on the third day of testing at the Jerez circuit, where Ferrari's new car was measured for the first time against its rivals. [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Toyota's test driver Zonta set a fastest time of 1:15.708, finishing the day less than a tenth of a second off the unofficial track record held by Michael Schumacher. Zonta drove Toyota's TF104B car to outpace McLaren's test driver Alexander Wurz by over half a second. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Wurz was at the wheel of the MP4-19B. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Ralf Schumacher was the only racing driver at Jerez today, the German having returned to Europe following the season opening race in Melbourne. Schumacher, driving the TF105, finished as fourth quickest after only 58 laps. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Frenchman Franck Montagny and Finn Heikki Kovalainen began Renault's preparations for the Malaysian Grand Prix after their victory in Australia. Montagny drove the R25, the Frenchman finishing as third quickest while Kovalainen was eighth after 86 laps in the R24. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"We made a good start to our test in Jerez," said Renault's chief test engineer Christian Silk. "As soon as the circuit conditions had improved, our priority was to complete as much running as possible concentrating on tyre evaluation. Both drivers completed their programmes, and gained positive results which we will pursue tomorrow." [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]World Champions Ferrari took to the track with their F2005 car, testing alongside their rivals for the first time since the new machine was launched. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Italian Luca Badoer was the man in charge of testing duties in the team's latest challenger, the test driver managing 74 laps on his way to the fifth quickest time, over two seconds off Zonta's pace. Marc Gene drove the F2004M and finished ninth on the timesheets. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]BAR's Enrique Bernoldi and Anthony Davidson continued with the Honda-powered squad's programme, with the Brazilian driving the hybrid 006 car while Davidson took to the track in the 007. Both men had a productive day, covering over 240 laps between them. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Williams test driver Antonio Pizzonia, in the FW27, was slowest on the team's first day of work of the week at Jerez. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Today's times: [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][font=courier new][size=3][font='Courier New'][b]Pos Driver Team-Engine Tyres Time Laps[/b]
1. Zonta Toyota (M) 1:15.708 112
2. Wurz McLaren-Mercedes (M) 1:16.324 149
3. Montagny Renault (M) 1:17.324 109
4. R.Schumacher Toyota (M) 1:17.418 58
5. Badoer Ferrari (B) 1:18.155 74
6. Bernoldi BAR-Honda (M) 1:18.250 121
7. Davidson BAR-Honda (M) 1:18.324 123
8. Kovalainen Renault (M) 1:18.327 86
9. Gene Ferrari (B) 1:18.378 63
10. Pizzonia Williams-BMW (M) 1:18.592 76
[i]All Timing Unofficial[/QUOTE]
[/i]
[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[QUOTE][font=Times New Roman][size=3]Ricardo Zonta set the quickest time on the third day of testing at the Jerez circuit, where Ferrari's new car was measured for the first time against its rivals. [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Toyota's test driver Zonta set a fastest time of 1:15.708, finishing the day less than a tenth of a second off the unofficial track record held by Michael Schumacher. Zonta drove Toyota's TF104B car to outpace McLaren's test driver Alexander Wurz by over half a second. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Wurz was at the wheel of the MP4-19B. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Ralf Schumacher was the only racing driver at Jerez today, the German having returned to Europe following the season opening race in Melbourne. Schumacher, driving the TF105, finished as fourth quickest after only 58 laps. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Frenchman Franck Montagny and Finn Heikki Kovalainen began Renault's preparations for the Malaysian Grand Prix after their victory in Australia. Montagny drove the R25, the Frenchman finishing as third quickest while Kovalainen was eighth after 86 laps in the R24. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"We made a good start to our test in Jerez," said Renault's chief test engineer Christian Silk. "As soon as the circuit conditions had improved, our priority was to complete as much running as possible concentrating on tyre evaluation. Both drivers completed their programmes, and gained positive results which we will pursue tomorrow." [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]World Champions Ferrari took to the track with their F2005 car, testing alongside their rivals for the first time since the new machine was launched. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Italian Luca Badoer was the man in charge of testing duties in the team's latest challenger, the test driver managing 74 laps on his way to the fifth quickest time, over two seconds off Zonta's pace. Marc Gene drove the F2004M and finished ninth on the timesheets. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]BAR's Enrique Bernoldi and Anthony Davidson continued with the Honda-powered squad's programme, with the Brazilian driving the hybrid 006 car while Davidson took to the track in the 007. Both men had a productive day, covering over 240 laps between them. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Williams test driver Antonio Pizzonia, in the FW27, was slowest on the team's first day of work of the week at Jerez. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Today's times: [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3][font=courier new][size=3][font='Courier New'][b]Pos Driver Team-Engine Tyres Time Laps[/b]
1. Zonta Toyota (M) 1:15.708 112
2. Wurz McLaren-Mercedes (M) 1:16.324 149
3. Montagny Renault (M) 1:17.324 109
4. R.Schumacher Toyota (M) 1:17.418 58
5. Badoer Ferrari (B) 1:18.155 74
6. Bernoldi BAR-Honda (M) 1:18.250 121
7. Davidson BAR-Honda (M) 1:18.324 123
8. Kovalainen Renault (M) 1:18.327 86
9. Gene Ferrari (B) 1:18.378 63
10. Pizzonia Williams-BMW (M) 1:18.592 76
[i]All Timing Unofficial[/QUOTE]
[/i]
[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
| Ferg | 03-10-2005 09:19 PM |
Looks like some trouble on the horizon for JV...
[QUOTE] [font=Times New Roman][size=5][b]Sauber Baffled by Villeneuve's Slow Pace[/b][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3][b]Thursday March 10th, 2005[/b] [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Jacques Villeneuve's disappointing debut for Sauber in last weekend's Australian Grand Prix has baffled the Formula One team. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]The 1997 World Champion started fourth on the grid and finished 13th while Brazilian teammate Felipe Massa went from last to 10th after rain in qualifying scuppered his chances. The Canadian lost five places on the first lap alone. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]To make matters worse, Massa was on a one-stop strategy and driving with a fuller fuel load. Yet his fastest lap was almost a second quicker than Canadian Villeneuve in a lighter car. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"I can't explain the difference, which is a big one," Peter Sauber told the website of sponsor [i]Credit Suisse[/i]. "Really it was bigger than it looks. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"Felipe Massa, at the start and the pitstop, drove with a heavier car. In contrast to the other drivers who made two pitstops, he only had a one-stop strategy in mind." [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Sauber said that Villeneuve, who made a low-key race comeback with Renault for the last three races of 2004 after being dropped by BAR in 2003, had said little about his difficulties. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"We still have to analyse it," he said. "Villeneuve himself is not saying much at the moment. He had problems in certain phases of the race but he hasn't revealed anything more than that." [/size][/font]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [font=Times New Roman][size=5][b]Sauber Baffled by Villeneuve's Slow Pace[/b][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3][b]Thursday March 10th, 2005[/b] [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Jacques Villeneuve's disappointing debut for Sauber in last weekend's Australian Grand Prix has baffled the Formula One team. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]The 1997 World Champion started fourth on the grid and finished 13th while Brazilian teammate Felipe Massa went from last to 10th after rain in qualifying scuppered his chances. The Canadian lost five places on the first lap alone. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]To make matters worse, Massa was on a one-stop strategy and driving with a fuller fuel load. Yet his fastest lap was almost a second quicker than Canadian Villeneuve in a lighter car. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"I can't explain the difference, which is a big one," Peter Sauber told the website of sponsor [i]Credit Suisse[/i]. "Really it was bigger than it looks. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"Felipe Massa, at the start and the pitstop, drove with a heavier car. In contrast to the other drivers who made two pitstops, he only had a one-stop strategy in mind." [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Sauber said that Villeneuve, who made a low-key race comeback with Renault for the last three races of 2004 after being dropped by BAR in 2003, had said little about his difficulties. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"We still have to analyse it," he said. "Villeneuve himself is not saying much at the moment. He had problems in certain phases of the race but he hasn't revealed anything more than that." [/size][/font]
[/QUOTE]
| finnRex | 03-10-2005 10:54 PM |
Glad to see a fellow Finn get a test ride with Renault. Kovalainen put up a good fight in the Race Of Champions, until the Ferrari battery died(teh weak).
JV=past his prime...
Mika
JV=past his prime...
Mika
| Ferg | 03-11-2005 09:53 AM |
JV speaks out, blames the tires...
[QUOTE]
[font=Times New Roman][size=5][b]Villeneuve Blames Tyre Choice for Poor Form[/b][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3][b]Friday March 11th, 2005[/b] [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Canadian Jacques Villeneuve has blamed a poor tyre choice for his disappointing Sauber debut in last Sunday's season-opening Australian Grand Prix. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"I did not get any front grip in the first few laps and I lost many positions," the 1997 World Champion said on his personal website on Friday. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"After this, my car did not have enough downforce and I struggled to keep the pace with the rest of the field. I had soft tyres on and I think it clearly wasn't the right choice. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"The car was moving a lot and after the first pitstop it was just too slow. It was a very bad race for me and I felt pretty bad for my fans and the people who are supporting me," said Villeneuve. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]The Canadian went from fourth place on the starting grid to 13th at the finish while Brazilian teammate Felipe Massa, on a full fuel load, raced from last position to 10th. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Team boss Peter Sauber said he was baffled by Villeneuve's lack of pace and added that the Canadian had offered little in the way of an explanation. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"I can't explain the difference, which is a big one," the cigar-chomping Swiss said. "Really, it was bigger than it looks." [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Villeneuve, who made his comeback last year when he raced the last three races of the season for Renault after being dropped by BAR in 2003, said he remained optimistic about the future. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"I could get some valuable information that I will be able to use for the following races," he said. "It will take longer than expected but things should get better with a few races in the bag. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"The good thing is that I really did not feel tired after the race, meaning that I am fit and the training that I did this winter is paying off. In fact, I was ready for another race." [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]The Malaysian Grand Prix, one of the hottest and most physically demanding races of the year with expected ambient temperatures of around 36 degrees Celsius, is next on March 20.[/QUOTE][/size][/font]
[QUOTE]
[font=Times New Roman][size=5][b]Villeneuve Blames Tyre Choice for Poor Form[/b][/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3] [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3][b]Friday March 11th, 2005[/b] [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Canadian Jacques Villeneuve has blamed a poor tyre choice for his disappointing Sauber debut in last Sunday's season-opening Australian Grand Prix. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"I did not get any front grip in the first few laps and I lost many positions," the 1997 World Champion said on his personal website on Friday. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"After this, my car did not have enough downforce and I struggled to keep the pace with the rest of the field. I had soft tyres on and I think it clearly wasn't the right choice. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"The car was moving a lot and after the first pitstop it was just too slow. It was a very bad race for me and I felt pretty bad for my fans and the people who are supporting me," said Villeneuve. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]The Canadian went from fourth place on the starting grid to 13th at the finish while Brazilian teammate Felipe Massa, on a full fuel load, raced from last position to 10th. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Team boss Peter Sauber said he was baffled by Villeneuve's lack of pace and added that the Canadian had offered little in the way of an explanation. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"I can't explain the difference, which is a big one," the cigar-chomping Swiss said. "Really, it was bigger than it looks." [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Villeneuve, who made his comeback last year when he raced the last three races of the season for Renault after being dropped by BAR in 2003, said he remained optimistic about the future. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"I could get some valuable information that I will be able to use for the following races," he said. "It will take longer than expected but things should get better with a few races in the bag. [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]"The good thing is that I really did not feel tired after the race, meaning that I am fit and the training that I did this winter is paying off. In fact, I was ready for another race." [/size][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]The Malaysian Grand Prix, one of the hottest and most physically demanding races of the year with expected ambient temperatures of around 36 degrees Celsius, is next on March 20.[/QUOTE][/size][/font]
| artkevin | 03-11-2005 10:10 AM |
I hope JV can get on the pace. I am not a huge fan of his but I think he's got talent and it sounds like he wants to be here this time. I remeber his drive at the A1 Ring a couple of years back for BAR where he pushed his car into 3rd. That dud of acar had no buisness being that high but you could tell he just had the fire (a la Ralph Schumacher).
| BriDrive | 03-11-2005 10:26 AM |
I (my opinion of course) think JV's problem is/will be in setup and communication with his chassis mechanics...he has been fast when he's been able to trust a car that's setup for his style...when the car is not, well...he looks just awful. Hopefully someone over there can begin reading his mind....SOON.
Not an excuse, BUT, I can understand how difficult it may be for him....he takes almost a year off...missing that much F1 evolution, then jumping in an altogether different team/car for a couple last year enders, and then being thrust striaght into the 2005 regs.....Its almost as if he needs to start from square one and work back up to speed....
He is colorful, talented and good for F1...at least for another couple years...I hope he and the team can piece it altogether for him.........
BriDrive
Not an excuse, BUT, I can understand how difficult it may be for him....he takes almost a year off...missing that much F1 evolution, then jumping in an altogether different team/car for a couple last year enders, and then being thrust striaght into the 2005 regs.....Its almost as if he needs to start from square one and work back up to speed....
He is colorful, talented and good for F1...at least for another couple years...I hope he and the team can piece it altogether for him.........
BriDrive
| Lafora | 03-12-2005 01:02 AM |
edit: bah n/m
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét