Formula One coverage options

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Formula One coverage options

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1007156 17-Mar-2014 11:04

6FIEND:
Jaxson: Frankly eco and race are mutually opposed concepts.

It's ironic really that the fuel expended to get all the teams and gear and fans to the Grand Prix is several orders of magnitude greater than the amount of fuel consumed by the F1 cars throughout the weekend...

LOL very true. Add to that flights by visitors and cars to drive to the trackl

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1007209 17-Mar-2014 12:25

tdgeek: its hard to pass as you lose much downforce once you ctach the guy you are clearly faster than, then you stay behind him for 20 laps.

Yeah I read a really good article on this a few years back, that discussed the pros and cons of the aero design and it's impact on the race options.
Basically if the air coming off the back is 'dirty' you can't live behind the car in front, as you lose downforce yourself and you're in warm air from the car ahead. They've had to introduce the DRS system as the aero developments mean you don't get a slip stream bonus like you used to back in the day, which was the original DRS system.

I'm not sure about others, but I'm very able to see both sides of arguments and could write a piece backing either angle if required. Yes the DRS lets the faster car behind through, but the argument could be made just as easily about why the 'clearly faster car' can't get past of it's own accord, if it really is that much faster.

There are pros and cons to every rule change, but the attempt to make a marketable spectacle can often lose what made it special in the first place. Personally I'd suggest that if you want people to watch the sport, then you should ensure they're able to see it in the first place, which is about where I start up my Sky TV monopoly rant...

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1007217 17-Mar-2014 12:39

Here is how I see it, basically from years of watching races and hearing the expert commentary

There is a tunnel behind the car, used for slipstreaming, and in that tunnel there is low downforce, so you end up scrubbing the fronts, and as you say taking in hot air. Prior to the tunnel is the dirty air, so you do drive into a period of understeer issues as you try to mount an attack. You find that you struggle to hold station, and cannot get right behind. Seen this often, so they use a pit strategy to try to get past. I think DRS s a good idea, as long as its not just a formality for anyone to pass. Note that they have other artificials as well. Push to pass. thats turning up the engine mapping for max horsepower, they can use the last years KERS to attack and defend, so there is quite a bit to it.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1007278 17-Mar-2014 13:39

the sound issue is easy to fix. take a road car and buy a cylinder from ebay and you have a different noise.

if you want a different sound the FIA could easily make new rules about design of the tailpipe (exhaust) and you will have a different sound

(ithnk)

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1007624 17-Mar-2014 19:54

Shaking my head reading about the fuel flowrate debacle.

They give you a fixed 100kg of fuel, and then also have a flow rate sensor to cap your rate at no more than 100kg/hr. Why do you need both?!

If a team winds the wick up so it's using more fuel, then that's surely on them alone if they run out of fuel early and can't complete the race?...

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1007628 17-Mar-2014 20:00

I really have to say whoever brave person thought Mercedes was fat ahead of the competition ... based on this trace that's true.

Reminds me of button and team brawn during the last major rule change ...

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1007632 17-Mar-2014 20:06

Jaxson: Shaking my head reading about the fuel flowrate debacle.

They give you a fixed 100kg of fuel, and then also have a flow rate sensor to cap your rate at no more than 100kg/hr. Why do you need both?!

If a team winds the wick up so it's using more fuel, then that's surely on them alone if they run out of fuel early and can't complete the race?...

Amen! absolutely mental they can't go flat out (if they want)... if they run out, they run out... end of story!

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1007645 17-Mar-2014 20:12

The fuel nonsense is nonsense, it's formula 1 not an economy run.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1007647 17-Mar-2014 20:16

It's going to make for a whole lot of fake podiums during the coming year.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1007649 17-Mar-2014 20:18

Some of the reason for the changes in fuel requirements plus hybrid was to entice manufacturers back to the grid as they where complaining that F1 had no relevance to their industry and they couldn't justify the outlay... That's why companies like Audi are not in and why BMW etc. left the grid.

I would love for the restrictions to disappear, aero to be limited etc. but that would often mean the richest team won... At least this way, it makes the engines relevant to the manufacturer, saves some money for the lower down teams.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1007689 17-Mar-2014 21:09

Jaxson: Shaking my head reading about the fuel flowrate debacle.

They give you a fixed 100kg of fuel, and then also have a flow rate sensor to cap your rate at no more than 100kg/hr. Why do you need both?!

If a team winds the wick up so it's using more fuel, then that's surely on them alone if they run out of fuel early and can't complete the race?...

I agree, you got 100kg, do what you want with it. Unless the turbo allows a huge rise in horsepower to upset things, so in that case, make the flow rate high, not too close to the expected flow rate.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1007693 17-Mar-2014 21:14

joker97: I really have to say whoever brave person thought Mercedes was fat ahead of the competition ... based on this trace that's true.

Reminds me of button and team brawn during the last major rule change ...

That was me. They were ahead in testing, and in FP1,2 and 3. Pretty much a second faster. The race showed a second faster as well.

Like Jensen who had the best car they will romp away. The others will close the gap, that may take a few races. But the race between Hamilton and Rosberg will be fierce. Might save the cost of some Christmas cards by the time that shakes out. They are both good enough to outrace each other on any given day. Hamilton can run a faster one lap IMO, but Rosberg can make the car last race distance.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1007696 17-Mar-2014 21:22

Benoire: Some of the reason for the changes in fuel requirements plus hybrid was to entice manufacturers back to the grid as they where complaining that F1 had no relevance to their industry and they couldn't justify the outlay... That's why companies like Audi are not in and why BMW etc. left the grid.

I would love for the restrictions to disappear, aero to be limited etc. but that would often mean the richest team won... At least this way, it makes the engines relevant to the manufacturer, saves some money for the lower down teams.

No argument there. Small, turbo, hybrid cars are great. In fact they are 4 kph faster at the speed traps. Lap time a few seconds down, they could possibly get that back by running at 15000 rpm, but they are around 12000, due to the fuel, and probably reliability concerns.

But, too much change at once. Change the engine, leave the bulk of the chassis and aero intact, thats your stability, what you know works. Change too much and hard to know where the real performance cost lies, and you want a representative result, not an artificial one based on "phew, we built what we hoped will be good and we lucked in"

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1007707 17-Mar-2014 21:36

I agree to some extent; most of the chassis work and aero work is fine (apart from the dumb front wing height rule) but certainly they should have dropped to the v6ts with KERS this season and then rolled out the full hybrids next season once the v6ts had chance to settle... Although saying that they have been developing these for around 2 seasons already and known about for 3.

I complete agree with the flow rate issue... I think they should allow the teams unrestricted flows but be able to monitor the flow so that they can see that they are using only 100kgs fuel max.

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1007735 17-Mar-2014 22:25

Benoire: but be able to monitor the flow so that they can see that they are using only 100kgs fuel max.

Under my approach it would be pretty clear to all those who had exceeded their 100kg allocation...

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14