• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
Official Formula 1 Thread (Part 8)
<<
<
165 of 390
>>
>
dansus
11-04-2014
Originally Posted by callmediva:
“that;s something I've been banging on about for ages, it seems to be the only way to do it, though I'd suggest using the weight of the heaviest driver (weighed before practice 1 at each GP) and bringing the rest up to that”

That would cause issues of drivers carb loading and drinking litres of water beforehand, then not eating for 2 days to burn it off.
Si_Crewe
12-04-2014
Originally Posted by dansus:
“That would cause issues of drivers carb loading and drinking litres of water beforehand, then not eating for 2 days to burn it off.”

I guess that's the only problem.
If it was up to me I'd weigh them right before the race and then weigh them again afterwards, compare the two and, if there's any unusual differences, further action might be taken.

Must say, I don't think it's fair to ballast them so every driver has the same race weight.
If you compare, say, Massa and Coulthard, Massa obviously doesn't have the same muscle-mass as Coulthard and if they were handicapped so they were the same race-weight then Coulthard would have an overall advantage cos they'd be, effectively, the "same" weight but Coulthard would have greater physical ability.

What you want is a system that still gives a lighter driver an advantage, in weight, but reduces the difference so there's not as much incentive for heavier drivers to go on crazy diets.

That's why I reckon a system that applies ballast of half any differential would be better.
You weigh all the drivers and the lightest is, say, 65kg and the heaviest is 80kg so there's a 15kg differential.
a 65kg driver is 15kg lighter than the heaviest so he gets a 7.5kg handicap for an all-up weight of 72.5kg.
a 70kg driver is 10kg lighter so he gets a 5kg handicap for an all-up weight of 75kg.
75kg driver gets a 2.5kg handicap for an all up weight of 77.5kg and an 80kg driver gets no handicap.

That way you still grant an advantage to lighter drivers but you make the difference smaller to, hopefully, make it less attractive for heavier drivers to lose unhealthy amounts of weight.
dansus
12-04-2014
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“
That's why I reckon a system that applies ballast of half any differential would be better.”

Cars are relatively easy to drive now physically, so a strength advantage isnt an issue.
Smiley433
14-04-2014
Domenicali quits.

Quote:
“ Stefano Domenicali has resigned as the team principal of Ferrari with immediate effect.

The Italian team have struggled at the start of the current season and have failed to register a podium finish in the opening three races.

Domenicali had been in charge since taking over from Jean Todt in 2008 but the 48-year-old will now be replaced by Marco Mattiacci.”

soulboy77
14-04-2014
Shame about Stefano Domenicali but I guess the bucks stops at him for Ferrari's poor start to the season.
dansus
14-04-2014
Shame, liked Stefano. Room for Ross now?
Tadpole
14-04-2014
Re Dominicali, I am wondering if Alonso had threatened to leave Ferrari unless things improved. 2014 seems to be showing a step backwards for them in terms of performance compared to the recent progress made by Mercedes.
jmclaugh
14-04-2014
Not surprised Domenicali has gone though their problems go far deeper. Alonso imo would have gone to Red Bull but Vettel blocked that.

Meanwhile this is an interesting article which uses the modern points scoring system and applies it historically. It has some interesting tables and leaving aside the total points scored which is skewed by the far higher number of races drivers in the modern era compete in Fangio remains the best ever F1 driver with Clark the best British driver and Britain is the most successful producer of GP drivers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26464195
Si_Crewe
14-04-2014
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“Not surprised Domenicali has gone though their problems go far deeper. Alonso imo would have gone to Red Bull but Vettel blocked that.

Meanwhile this is an interesting article which uses the modern points scoring system and applies it historically. It has some interesting tables and leaving aside the total points scored which is skewed by the far higher number of races drivers in the modern era compete in Fangio remains the best ever F1 driver with Clark the best British driver and Britain is the most successful producer of GP drivers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26464195”

Sorry to hear about SD. Like Eric Boullier, I think SD was one of F1's more straightforward team bosses.
I doubt that, regardless of who was in charge, Ferrari would have fared any differently.
After all, it's the people in the factory who've spent a year or more thinking they were building a world-beating car when, in fact, they were building a bit of a dog.

Looking at those stat's, the one thing that strikes me is that there isn't a lot of difference between Vettel and Hamilton's points-average and yet Vettel has 4 WDC's to Hamilton's 1.
Kind of illustrates how, if it wasn't for RBR's recent dominance, Lewis really should have had at least one more WDC.
ACU
14-04-2014
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“Not surprised Domenicali has gone though their problems go far deeper. Alonso imo would have gone to Red Bull but Vettel blocked that.”

Not heard that Vettel blocked Alonsos move. He did say at the time, that he had very little if any say in the matter. Where did you get that from?


Not really surprised to see Stefano go. Agree with others, he was a likeable chap. The guy replacing him is Marco Mattiacci. This is his first job in F1, surely for such a position, you would get someone with F1 experience

His current experience to date...

Quote:
“Former Ferrari car sales chief Marco Mattiacci has been named as the replacement for Stefano Domenicali as team principal.

Mattiacci's experience with Ferrari is limited entirely to the company's road car sales since joining from Jaguar in 2000, and has been president and CEO of the North American division since January 2010. Before that he headed up the company's Asia Pacific Operation for four years, and has also worked for Ferrari in South America, the Middle East, Finland and Russia.

Under his leadership Mattiacci won the car industry's prize for Executive of the Year in 2012. Mattiacci, 42, replaces Domenicali as head of the Gestione Sportiva with immediate effect.9”

Si_Crewe
14-04-2014
Originally Posted by ACU:
“Not really surprised to see Stefano go. Agree with others, he was a likeable chap. The guy replacing him is Marco Mattiacci. This is his first job in F1, surely for such a position, you would get someone with F1 experience

His current experience to date...”

Kinda related to my previous post, I don't think the race-team, itself, has really done much wrong over the last couple of years.
About the only thing you could accuse them of is not running enough in FP and, possibly, not getting on top of the pullrod front suspension quickly enough in 2012.
That said, with regard to not running enough in FP, if the factory aren't supplying them with parts and options then perhaps there was no point in doing extra running?

With that in mind, although it's rarely the case, perhaps SD did, genuinely, decide he's had enough of working for a halfarsed outfit and he's chosen to go so it's this Marco Mattiacco fella who's being prepared to be Montezuma's ritual sacrifice at the end of this year?
TheToonArmy
14-04-2014
Listening to the radio tonight and they were saying Marko is just a temporary role, Ferrari cannot make an offer on Ross at the moment as he's still under some kind of garden leave with Mercedes.

dont know how true this is but i can see Ross at Ferrari sometime this year.
Si_Crewe
15-04-2014
Originally Posted by TheToonArmy:
“Listening to the radio tonight and they were saying Marko is just a temporary role, Ferrari cannot make an offer on Ross at the moment as he's still under some kind of garden leave with Mercedes.

dont know how true this is but i can see Ross at Ferrari sometime this year.”

Seems like that'd be a bit weird IMO.

I mean, I know that RB's time at Ferrari must've been one of the highlights of his career but Merc' is, effectively, his team and it makes you wonder what might make him abandon it and then go and work for somebody else instead.
Wonder if there's somebody at Merc' that he just can't get on with?
dansus
15-04-2014
Originally Posted by TheToonArmy:
“Listening to the radio tonight and they were saying Marko is just a temporary role, Ferrari cannot make an offer on Ross at the moment as he's still under some kind of garden leave with Mercedes.

dont know how true this is but i can see Ross at Ferrari sometime this year.”

Likely be similar to the current trend of having 2 heads at the top, one for business, one for racing.

ie Marco and Ross.

Which reminds me, think Rory Byrne is working for Ferrari again.
jmclaugh
15-04-2014
Originally Posted by dansus:
“Likely be similar to the current trend of having 2 heads at the top, one for business, one for racing.

ie Marco and Ross.”

Yet it was reported the main reason Brawn left Merc was he wanted to be the sole boss there and not one of two.
JSemple3
15-04-2014
The Red Bull appeal has been rejected according to SSN
Assa2
15-04-2014
It'll be interesting to see how RB take this. I suspect they'll make some conciliatory comments and move on. Their conduct over the last couple of races and they way they've worked with the FIA makes me think they realised early on they weren't going to win the appeal.

Brawn left Mercedes because he didn't want to just be one of 2 or 3 'managers', he wanted to be be in complete control of the team. I suspect Ferrari will buck the trend and offer that to him to entice him back into racing. Like RD at Mclaren, I very much doubt he'll be able to stay away for long.
dansus
15-04-2014
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“Yet it was reported the main reason Brawn left Merc was he wanted to be the sole boss there and not one of two.”

Sole boss of the racing side, he said he doesnt like the business end of things.
Si_Crewe
15-04-2014
Originally Posted by JSemple3:
“The Red Bull appeal has been rejected according to SSN”

Seems like this was always going to be the result.
Hardly surprising that the FIA wouldn't do anything to cast doubt on their own measuring equipment.

Still be interested to see whether RBR were actually proven to have been using more than 100kg/hr of fuel or whether their crime was simply ignoring the stewards' recommendations.
Smiley433
15-04-2014
Wonder if Martin Whitmarsh has sent his CV to di Montezemolo.
Si_Crewe
15-04-2014
Originally Posted by Smiley433:
“Wonder if Martin Whitmarsh has sent his CV to di Montezemolo. ”

Right, cos Montezuma is certain to be sat in his office, thinking "What we really need is F1's own Stan Laurel to help sort things out".

BinaryDad
16-04-2014
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“Seems like this was always going to be the result.
Hardly surprising that the FIA wouldn't do anything to cast doubt on their own measuring equipment.

Still be interested to see whether RBR were actually proven to have been using more than 100kg/hr of fuel or whether their crime was simply ignoring the stewards' recommendations.”

Wasn't the actual official punishment for ignoring instructions from the FIA? I'm pretty sure it was, and because of this, I've been completely baffled about Horner and co. banging their drum about having definitive proof about not violating the fuel flow regs, when they were never punished under that specific rule.


Some interesting stuff from the appeal hearing;

RBR claimed that their fuel flow model was more accurate than the sensors, but then the FIA and RBR demonstrated that it an error of +1/-1 compared to the sensor error of +0.25/-0.25.

RBR admitted that they didn't turn down the fuel flow when requested because it would cost them 0.4 seconds a lap and their place on the podium.

RBR's faulty sensors were faulty because RBR had damaged the seal on the sensors, rather than them being "inherently" faulty.

I'm rather disappointed that RBR haven't been given additional punishment (yet) given that they constantly criticized the FIA and the fuel sensors in the run up to the appeal, as well as the blatant disregard show to the FIA's instructions during the race. It's almost as if RBR ignored the FIA's repeated instructions to gain a performance advantage over the other teams.
Assa2
16-04-2014
Pretty damming stuff for RB there and I'm also surprised they haven't faced further sanctions for wasting everyone's time.
dansus
16-04-2014
Yasuhisa Arai from Honda is scheduled to be at the Team Principles press conference on Friday.

Along with Charlie Whiting of all people, very odd.

Quote:
“Yasuhisa Arai (Honda)
Andrew Cowell (Mercedes)
Pat Fry (Ferrari)
Rob White (Renault)
Charlie Whiting (FIA)”

Si_Crewe
16-04-2014
Originally Posted by BinaryDad:
“Wasn't the actual official punishment for ignoring instructions from the FIA? I'm pretty sure it was, and because of this, I've been completely baffled about Horner and co. banging their drum about having definitive proof about not violating the fuel flow regs, when they were never punished under that specific rule.


Some interesting stuff from the appeal hearing;

RBR claimed that their fuel flow model was more accurate than the sensors, but then the FIA and RBR demonstrated that it an error of +1/-1 compared to the sensor error of +0.25/-0.25.

RBR admitted that they didn't turn down the fuel flow when requested because it would cost them 0.4 seconds a lap and their place on the podium.

RBR's faulty sensors were faulty because RBR had damaged the seal on the sensors, rather than them being "inherently" faulty.

I'm rather disappointed that RBR haven't been given additional punishment (yet) given that they constantly criticized the FIA and the fuel sensors in the run up to the appeal, as well as the blatant disregard show to the FIA's instructions during the race. It's almost as if RBR ignored the FIA's repeated instructions to gain a performance advantage over the other teams.”

See, a lot of that strikes me as being rather hard-headed.

I mean, as I said before, if an FIA steward used a faulty tape-measure to instruct a team that their car was too wide, should a team be forced to comply with that instruction, regardless of whether it was correct or not?
And then, should a team be penalised for refusing to obey the instruction, itself, regardless of whether or not the instruction was erroneous?

I'm pretty sure that one of the key issues here was that the FIA, themselves, decreed that their technical memo's were not legally (in the sporting sense) binding and should only be considered advisory so, that being the case, it seems rather unfair to then use the fact that a team elected to ignore one as the basis for punitive action.

In short, you can't say "We're offering you advice but you don't have to take it" and then punish a team for not following that advice.

Secondly, the information about the relative accuracy of the flowmeters vs the EM systems is rather disingenuous because it relates to fully-functional equipment and the whole point, here, is that several teams have found the flowmeters not to be fully-functional.

It's kinda like timing somebody using a broken stopwatch and then insisting that the timing is accurate because the stopwatch has a stated accuracy of 0.001 of a second.

The fact that the FIA were advising people to apply offsets to the f/m readings suggests they aren't accurate, and certainly not to 0.25%, but it was always inevitable that the FIA would refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure RBR are trying to manipulate the situation and that if, say, a f/m was reading 10% low they'd be quite happy to comply with it and increase fuel-flow by 10% rather than abiding by their EM data but the fact remains that if the FIA f/ms aren't actually robust enough to provide consistent, reliable, data then they shouldn't be used as the tool for policing a rule.
<<
<
165 of 390
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map