Forum menu
Will not be great for us the viewer if engines are the same
Dunno, that was the case for the tail end of the V8 era and there weren't too many gripes (apart from Horner as usual). Even if there's no actual mechanical development on the PU there will still be work done with fuel and lubricants which will keep adding a few more horses to the output.
Plus "reliability" upgrades, which seemed to serve Renault pretty well last time round.
Will not be great for us the viewer if engines are the same
Don't think Honda engines are gonna be the same anytime soon, that debacle looks set to keep providing entertainment for a while yet. Hopefully Red Bull will get stuck with them next year, can't wait to see how long Marko, Horner, Newey, and MV can resist throwing public tantrums.
thats probably why horner is pushing for the 3% - as i said that would mean the other engines would have to be within 3% of the honda unit next year - i cannot see how merc + ferrari would go for this whatsoever.
should be an interesting week when Liberty show the blueprint and the kind of talk we'll get from ferrari.
IIRC - Merc and pretty much all its top brass staff (totto etc) are all contracted to the 2020 season - could this cause a merc withdrawl if ferrari go to?
IIRC – Merc and pretty much all its top brass staff (totto etc) are all contracted to the 2020 season – could this cause a merc withdrawl if ferrari go to?
I'm not sure why they would?
Ferrari and Merc aren't going anywhere. Force India, Williams, Torro Rosso, and Sauber, however, I'd be less sure of.
The reason merc would consider moving - 1. under current agreements Merc , Renault and Ferrari have to supply the grid with engines should one of them pull out - thats extra cost to merc, 2. they would have the name of F1 devalued by not competing against Ferrari, Alfa Romeo etc, to the casual viewer / follower.
i agree with hols2 though - i think when it really came down to it, liberty really forced the issue, nothing will actually happen and Ferrari will remain - mainly because they dont have the balls to do it.
Ferrari won't pull out.
They pull the trick of threatening to walk every time there's a re-negotiation of anything. They need their bluff calling, and quickly, especially about their "legacy" payment demands.
If I were Legacy, I'd be wooing a few of the other super car marques, as they are with Aston. Ferrari would be guaranteed to stay and suck it up if there were Porsche, Aston, et al, teams. Those teams are less willing to join if they know that the are effectively subsidising Ferrari's marketing budget, as is the case currently.
Just read the last three pages to catch up ...... it's like reading the antics of the corridors of Westminster! FFS, the racing (that's any proper racing!) is dire, dull, it's like watching football! The first Moto GP race on the other hand (far from perfect in the politics and BS I know), The racing was fantastic! Always been a Moto GP fan but after years of optimism and hope for F1 ........ I'm out!
I've got no idea what this thread is about, but I've just got me a fish finger sandwich. **** you all!!!
So Liberty have announced their plans for F1
Power units (PU)
– The PU must be cheaper, simpler, louder, have more power and reduce the necessity of grid
penalties.– It must remain road relevant, hybrid and allow manufacturers to build unique and original PU.
– New PU rules must be attractive for new entrants and Customer teams must have access to
equivalent performance.Costs
– We believe how you spend the money must be more decisive and important than how much
money you spend– While there will be some standardised elements, car differentiation must remain a core value
– Implement a cost cap that maintains Formula 1 position as the pinnacle of motorsport with a
state-of-the-art technologyRevenues
– The new revenue distribution criteria must be more balanced, based on meritocracy of the
current performance and reward success for the teams and the Commercial Rights Holder– F1s unique, historical franchise and value must and will still be recognised
– Revenue support to both cars and engine suppliers
Sporting and technical rules & regulations
– We must make cars more raceable to increase overtaking opportunities
– Engineering technology must remain a cornerstone but driver’s skill must be the predominant
factor in the performance of the car– The cars must and will remain different from each other and maintain performance
differentiators like aerodynamics, suspensions and PU performance. However, we believe areas
not relevant to fans need to be standardisedGovernance
– A simple and streamline structure between the teams, the FIA and Formula 1.
Somehow I was expecting something that was more of a plan, less of a wish list, but I guess we'll see what reaction this gets from the teams. Reports are that this was presented as an 'are you in or out?' decision for the teams, but I can't see how you can commit to something that fluffy.
Somehow I was expecting something that was more of a plan, less of a wish list
Me too - especially on the engine front. There's not long now to design a brand new engine. Needs to be done by early 2020 for teams to design their 2021 cars around it.
This is the trouble with committees - to many meetings and not enough dictatorship! 🙂
The proposals don't really make sense: Engines, cheaper, simpler, but faster.
More raceable (whatever that means) but F1 to remain the pinnacle of motorsport.
Cars different from each other but more raceable (which I guess means closer)
Right...
Does it meet F1 standards?
It’s not yet completed. I’m sure being a modern circuit it would be easy enough to upgrade if the need arises
Would it be any improvement over Albert Park?
Could it be any worse?
Are there enough hotels nearby for 50,000 to 100,000 visitors <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">or do you think international tourists want to sleep in a rental car and wash in public toilets? How would the visitors get there, are there trains, buses, flights? </span>
Adelaide is an hour away. Try getting to Albert Park from Tulla in that time. Talk of a new airport at Murray Bridge. Train nearby. On main road between Melbourne and Adelaide.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Who would come up with the hundreds of millions of dollars to outbid Melbourne for the hosting rights for a multi-year deal?</span>
New state government.
I’ve been to Melbourne. It’s a really nice place to visit, I’d love to go back. Watching an F1 race would be a nice bonus. I have no great desire to visit some hick town 100 km from Adelaide, even if there’s an F1 race happening.
Good. I’m not sure Adelaide has any desire to host a supercilious **** either. If you wanted to go to Melbourne afterwards it’s a $40 1h flight away. And I’d much rather transit through Adl than the dump and logistical nightmare that is tulla.
The proposals don’t really make sense: Engines, cheaper, simpler, but faster.
More raceable (whatever that means) but F1 to remain the pinnacle of motorsport.
Cars different from each other but more raceable (which I guess means closer)
Cheaper simpler and more poweful is easy if you take off some of the other limitations - fuel flow, fuel allowance, capacity, reliability etc.
More raceable = able to exploit the car's potential wherever it is on the circuit, ie not losing 2s a lap in dirty air
Cars different ie still prototypes - making them closer in performance is a function of having a set of rules that can be maximised (or close) without spending zillions on CFD and the like so a small (but smart) team with lower budget has a chance of having a fight with the likes of Ferrari..
...and on that note are they really still going to keep paying the italian prima donnas just for showing up? They've not got many fans in the press at the moment so if Liberty wanted to make a change they would have a lot of support.
The proposals don’t really make sense: Engines, cheaper, simpler, but faster.
no reason cheaper engines can’t chuck out bigger HPz, just don’t expect them to last as long. The cost of a new engine can be cheaper than the engineering costs being chucked at the current 3-a-year bollocks
richmarsThe proposals don’t really make sense: Engines, cheaper, simpler, but faster.
I guess you could implement those engine changes using a larger capacity ICE and a simpler KERS-like system replacing MGUH, bring total output to slightly above what we have now. Something like the F2 pwoertrain but with a raised rev limit I suppose.
BTW someone linked this on f1tech the other day, have a watch if you get a minute, it's Burger doing a corker of a lap round suzuka and taking pole by two tenths over Senna (starts at 00:40)
bring back manual gearboxes!!
Who would come up with the hundreds of millions of dollars to outbid Melbourne for the hosting rights for a multi-year deal?</span>
New state government.
Melbourne outbid Adelaide for the hosting rights back in the 90s. If SA wanted the race back, they have had over 20 years to outbid Melbourne, but they haven't been interested enough to put in a better bid.
According to Wikidepia, The Bend Motorsport Park is located in a town called Tailem Bend with a population of 1,665 in 2016. Major industries in the area include pig farming, dairying, grain growing and hay exporting. Do you seriously think international tourists will want to go there compared with Melbourne?
Melbourne outbid Adelaide for the hosting rights back in the 90s. If SA wanted the race back, they have had over 20 years to outbid Melbourne, but they haven’t been interested enough to put in a better bid.
Melbourne is rapidly meeting resistance over the cost, and Marshall is exactly the sort of egotist who would want to piss money up the wall on such a race, especially if it showed up the previous government whilst also getting to claim credit for the circuit itself.
And whilst wikipedia may be right about Tailem, I’d bet a hefty wager that from wheels down on the runway to getting out at the circuit that it’s distinctly faster to get to Tailem from Adelaide than it is to Albert Park from Tullamarine. Now then, what does Wikipedia have to say about the international city of culture that is silverstone?
Power units (PU)
– The PU must be cheaper, simpler, louder, have more power and reduce the necessity of grid
penalties.– It must remain road relevant, hybrid and allow manufacturers to build unique and original PU.
– New PU rules must be attractive for new entrants and Customer teams must have access to
equivalent performance.
So increased capacity, single turbo with some energy recovery would work. The NA 3.0 litres were producing getting on for 900hp towards the end of their life. No reason why a larger V8 with forced induction and some electric boost couldn't produce 1000+bhp. Road cars are already doing it.
We must make cars more raceable to increase overtaking opportunities
Simplify the aero packages - limit the number of wing elements and allow bigger diffusers and more ground effect.
Or introduce a test for "turbulence". Ban aero packages that produce a 5% decrease in downforce to a "following" reference model in the wind tunnel.
Take a serious look at track design, overtaking works fine at plenty of them
I used to have doubts as to Lance Stroll's justification for being in F1, however he's responded to criticism from a certain ex-WC who also happens to be Canadian by saying "I don't really listen to Villeneuve anymore".
I believe that to be an entirely sensible view.
As for the proposed rule changes, at face value they look very welcome. Louder cars, with less complex aero will improve the spectacle. I agree to a point that circuit design is a problem - some of the characterless circuits designed in the latter 1990s and early 2000s are particularly soulless, but to redesign tracks is likely to be expensive.
They also really, really need to do something about the cameras in particular those long shots which remove any visceral sense of speed. Seeing a camera zoom into a vast expanse of tarmac occupied by a small F1 car is narcolepsy inducing, but at the same time the runoff areas are vital for driver and spectator safety alike.
A budget cap is a good idea in principle, but I can see a great many practical problems not the least of which is how this is policed.
[i]richmtb wrote:[/i]
Take a serious look at track design, overtaking works fine at plenty of them
Even tracks designed by Tilke - COTA seems to have plenty of overtaking and the drivers seem to like it. How come he can design that but make such boring ordinary circuits elsewhere?
Even tracks designed by Tilke – COTA seems to have plenty of overtaking and the drivers seem to like it. How come he can design that but make such boring ordinary circuits elsewhere?
Likewise Sepang and Istanbul but both are no longer on the calendar
Pretty sure he was also responsible for the layout of Baku which had some bonkers overtaking
If aero is reduced too much F1 won't be the fastest form of motorsport. You can't have a fairly open formula then complain when one team is faster than the others.
I know it’s harking back to a by-gone era that’s never going to return- But those late 80’s / early 90’s car were incredible to watch.
when I watch a quick lap I want to see cars on the edge, savage engines etc.
I want to watch the lap and think ‘I couldn not do that’. Like berger’s lap posted above.
I don’t get that with a modern F1 car.
(Although I’m fully aware I still couldn’t drive a modern f1 car)
Sigh
I'm hoping there are prettier angles than this:
I’d bet a hefty wager that from wheels down on the runway to getting out at the circuit that it’s distinctly faster to get to Tailem from Adelaide than it is to Albert Park from Tullamarine.
It's not how long it takes from the airport to the circuit that matters, it's how long from the hotel to the circuit. International travelers want to stay in a nice hotel in a nice city, do some sightseeing and shopping, eat at decent restaurants. A two-hour bus ride to Tailem won't be attractive to the big spending international tourists who like visiting Melbourne where the race is held in the middle of the city.
Any rule and regulation changes need to be aligned with how F1 is defined. I've yet to see a definition of and for F1, although admittedly, I haven't really looked for one.
Is F1 meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport? Is it the bleeding edge of high performance development? Or is it a series for close wheel to wheel racing? It's a kind of Bontrager 'choose any two' IMO.
If you want to watch open cockpit, open wheel racing in close quarters, then the lower formula's and Indycar are probably the better options. If instead you want to revel in the technical complexity of motorsport, where races are won and lost in the wind tunnel and super massive r&d expenditure, then exciting close racing will be infrequent and pretty much what the state of affairs currently are.
What would be your definition of F1?
F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, that's why it's called F1 (isn't it?).
I want F1 to be the best engineered cars driven by the best drivers. If it's close, fine, but that's not, for me, the most important thing. If I want close racing, there are 100's of different types of motorsport. I don't think F1 has ever had consistently close racing over a season.
This may not be a popular view, but it's why I watch it. I can see that this definition is not going to get crowds and sponsors rushing to F1,but if it changes too much, it will not be F1.
I don’t think F1 has ever had consistently close racing over a season.
Mansell versus Piquet.
Senna versus Prost.
Hill versus Villeneuve.
Alonso versus Hamilton.
Hamilton versus Rosberg.
See the pattern?
OT but anyone wondering why they can't get 4 HD or 4od on their Freesat box any more, this is the reason
https://www.freesat.co.uk/news/all4-4hd-leave-freesat/
First bit of F1 I've seen this year and bloody hell that halo thing looks awful.
Aren't those driver battles the same team? Or is that your point?
Aren’t those driver battles the same team? Or is that your point?
Yes, that's the point. You can have a great season long battle when you have two top drivers given equal equipment. Strange how Red Bull and Ferrari didn't make that list.
So F1 should be a single manufacturer to get close racing?
No because if it’s a single make series then there’s no technology push.
I would be very surprised if you couldn’t drop a load of the aero nonsense and still keep it by far the fastest show in town. Hopefully a show where the cars can get within 2 seconds of each other
For me I would go to an air restictor engine formula with a fuel restiction and much simpler aero - single element wings of restricted size and location and then let anything else go pretty much. Is a huge v twin turbo better than a h 16? etc etc
Good work by Gasly getting into Q3.
Looks like Hartley's bird strike made a mess of the FW
Max Verstappen Bahrain F1 qualifying crash caused by 150hp power surge
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/135239/150hp-power-surge-caused-verstappen-crash
But as he ran across the kerbs at Turn 2, the back end of his RB14 stepped out and he spun across the track - hitting the barriers on the outside of the circuit.
Having studied the telemetry data on his return to the garage, Verstappen uncovered a bizarre unexpected boost of power caused him to lose control.
"It was unfortunate," said Verstappen, who will start 15th. "I studied the data a bit and saw we had a 150hp increase, which is a bit odd.
"The corner isn't flat out, but it was like an off and off switch. It spun up the rear tyres quite aggressively and then I spun.
F1 needs to be cutting edge but as good as it used to be, lasers, blackjack, hookers...
Or jumps and crossing the finish line backwards with only three wheels.
On a serious note they had the car speed on screen today and as someone said the camera angle just dont show how little the cars slow down for some corners.
I got to see testing years ago and thats the lasting memory the cars just not lifting and going around a corner, i was other worldly but you just dont get it on tv.
International travelers want to stay in a nice hotel in a nice city, do some sightseeing and shopping, eat at decent restaurants.
So, Adelaide then 🤔
If you’re really saying you wouldn’t come to see the Australian F1 just because it moved from Melbourne, then that’s really your loss. It’s a major city of over 1m population, and all the amenities and attractions that go with that. If you’re prepared to spend 24 hours on a plane to get to oz for the F1, but an hour to the (much better) race circuit is too much then I’m afraid I simply don’t understand your perspective.
As I’ve said, if you really want to visit Melbourne before/after, then it’s about 50 minutes on the plane, and up to 2 hours waiting for a taxi and stuck in traffic once you’ve landed at Tullamarine. That’s if you get to land in the first place or just end up circling over Geelong for a couple of hours.
Unless you apply the “big spending international tourist test” to every other race on the calendar it’s more than a little straw man-ish. And in any case, the megabucks are in the TV audiences. Were Albert Park not the first race on the calendar it would be as instantly forgettable as e.g. Hungary. Holding it elsewhere, and Tailem seems to be a good bet, might change that. Bathurst would be ace, but unlikely from a safety perspective. The old Adelaide circuit was good, but I doubt it could easily meet current specs.
If you’re really saying you wouldn’t come to see the Australian F1 just because it moved from Melbourne, then that’s really your loss.
No, I'm saying that if it was in a hick town that was a 2 hour bus ride from decent hotels, I wouldn't bother. If it was easily accessible from downtown Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, or Gold Coast, I might be interested. The point is to have a nice holiday with good restaurants and hotels and watch an F1 race as a bonus. The Australian GP is competing with other countries to attract international tourists, so putting it in a hick town 100 km from anywhere is not going to work financially. The only thing the state government will care about is whether it can fill hotels with out of state tourists.