19th!! I bet heavy on Haas and Verstappen lol 🙂
Watched the highlights package on Ch4, it didn't go un-noticed that all the adverts were for Pensions, River cruises, Meals on wheels, Window replacement....I guess it's now afternoon telly for oldies to fall asleep in front of after Sunday lunch.
It's a little bit embarrassing now really
Indeed, adverts are telling when it comes to demographics ...
Not a good idea sign
"Halo – It’s shit. I know it’s been done and done – but if MotoGP riders can travel at speeds of 200mph with hardly any safety features then F1 drivers should be able cope with some risk. This FIA ‘threat of being sued’ should be dealt with when drivers sign up to race in F1. No waiver, no racing."
The problem you've got there is that you're talking balls. Death is never an acceptable risk - nack-all to do with being sued, just let's not needlessly kill people. What's shit about halo? How it looks? You'll get used to it, like you did every other change they made that had folks frothing about how they don't look like racing cars any more, then forgot about a fortnight later.
This is all true, there are many more shit things in F1 than the halo
BTW, the Youtube highlights are 6mins, still feels like a stretch
I can’t find them now, but on Sky they had last years Melbourne race stats. The number of on track overtakes was something obscene like three.
Melbourne has always been a bit of a damp squib so I’m praying the rest of the season will be better.
there is nothing wrong with VSC, it’s a valuable safety tool
As are waved yellows and the full safety car, one of which allows racing on most of the lap and the other of which creates entertainment. The VSC does neither.
The problem you’ve got there is that you’re talking balls. Death is never an acceptable risk – nack-all to do with being sued, just let’s not needlessly kill people. What’s shit about halo? How it looks? You’ll get used to it, like you did every other change they made that had folks frothing about how they don’t look like racing cars any more, then forgot about a fortnight later.
As they would say in Parliament - with greatest respect dear fellow, you are talking balls too. Death hasn't been regular part of F1 for decades. Even serious injury is very rare. A jockey takes more risks every day of the week.
Yes it is looks of the Halo - it looks bloody awful. And no amount of tweaking it will make it look better. I've been trying to get used to it since they started testing it last year. And when was the last safety improvement that had such a radical effect on the look of the cars? I can only think of the headrests after Senna's death.
And frankly the Halo scares me too. I can see a time when a driver is trapped upside down with the car on fire and there will be no way to extract him quickly. It may have partially solved one problem, but to me it creates others.
And yes I'll admit it - to me danger should be part of the sport.
Well said TMM
The other thing that concerns me about the halo, is what if there's an incident like Massa's and the loose object deflects off of the halo, away from the crash helmet and into the drivers unprotected chest - law of unintended consequences and all that. Or like the crash with Alonso where Grosjean (iirc) went over him, what if another car gets entangled in the halo, how do you extract the driver then.
As far as I can tell it was introduced due to there being a series of accidents with loose wheels/large debris striking drivers in lower formulas/indycar - what's telling for me is that indycar has gone in a different direction.
TMM - fire hasn't been a factor in F1 crashes for years either, so the whole "trapped under a burning car" argument is spurious. Doesn't make a jot of difference to the halo looking rubbish, though I'm more bothered about it making driver id almost impossible.
Anyhow we're judging the season on one event that's rarely delivered good racing - shame there's more like it in the calendar but we can look forward to Canada and Spa.
Identifying the driver is easily fixed. Paint the halo in his helmet colours or put his number on it. Next!
thepurist
Subscriber
TMM – fire hasn’t been a factor in F1 crashes for years either, so the whole “trapped under a burning car” argument is spurious. Doesn’t make a jot of difference to the halo looking rubbish, though I’m more bothered about it making driver id almost impossible.Anyhow we’re judging the season on one event that’s rarely delivered good racing – shame there’s more like it in the calendar but we can look forward to Canada and Spa.
chinny reckon, there have been plenty of fires in recent years e.g.
[url= https://s7.postimg.org/uhx0ttt5j/f1-german-gp-2014-daniil-kvyat-toro-rosso-str9-renault-his-car-c.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= https://s7.postimg.org/u55mnnilj/f1-malaysian-gp-2016-the-burning-car-of-kevin-magnussen-renault-.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= https://s7.postimg.org/gbh9yl2uv/Nick-_Heidfeld-2_2629555.jp g" target="_blank">
there is no reason at all to think a ruptured hydraulic line cannot drip on the exhaust when the car is upside down, in fact it's even worse now as we also have a very hot electrical system, turbo and a lithium battery to deal with.
Also it is not just when the car is upside down, the allowed max extraction time has been increased for when the car is right side up. That's right - halo means they had to relax a previous safety limit.
Does anyone else find the new font on the infographics or whatever they call them as well as the infographics themselves a bit shit?
Yup! Really struggled with it. Seemed simultaneously have too much going on whilst showing less information lol
Accidentally recorded it in SD and it's a bit tricky to read, must say I quite liked it though, vaguely reminiscent of wipEout
Also it is not just when the car is upside down, the allowed max extraction time has been increased for when the car is right side up. That’s right – halo means they had to relax a previous safety limit.
I didn't know that - that is beyond crap. Problem with the Halo is that it will deflect large object but small (more likely) stuff will get through the same.
A small windscreen that would deflect stuff to the top of the helmet (where it would be most likely to be deflected again rather than piercing) would have been much better.
any one think they should change the Australian venue?
Phillip Island?Adelaide? Bathurst?!
will never happen but nice to think it may.
3 free months of Motorsport.com prime membership, no CC required courtesy of Alonso
www.motorsport.com/prime change the code from FREE30 to ALONSO2018
[img] 
[/img]
Has to be Bathurst - would be great to see F1 cars on the mountain and whilst I doubt there would be a single overtake on that section there are surely good overtaking spots in a couple of other places on the circuit? The setup would be interesting - you'd want lots of downforce for the mountain section, but it has long, long flat out straights.
"As they would say in Parliament – with greatest respect dear fellow, you are talking balls too. "
I do apologise - as you may have gathered from the lateness of the hour, I may have had one sherbert dip too many, I wouldn't normally post so rudely!
"Death hasn’t been regular part of F1 for decades. Even serious injury is very rare. A jockey takes more risks every day of the week."
There's truth to that, but I wouldn't say that it justifies not taking steps to mitigate a genuine threat. Drivers have been injured or killed by loose wheels in the past, and tethers do not fully prevent the wheels of F1 cars coming off in accidents, so it's entirely feasible that one could come bouncing back on track following an accident, a la poor Henry Surtees. Halo's designed to mitigate that risk, and other randoms like what happened to Jules Bianchi and Maria de Villota.
"And frankly the Halo scares me too. I can see a time when a driver is trapped upside down with the car on fire and there will be no way to extract him quickly. It may have partially solved one problem, but to me it creates others."
I guess it's all about priorities - I'm not saying fire isn't a risk, but I'm trying to remember the last time I saw a car burst into flames after an accident (I'm sure there have been more recent but last one that springs to mind is Berger at Tamburello in about '89). I know Retro83 has posted pictures of cars brewing up, but I note that none of them look accident damaged.
"And yes I’ll admit it – to me danger should be part of the sport."
Nah, brings nothing to the game.
Thank you Fernando! 184 points and a free Motorsport sub 🙂
Nah, brings nothing to the game
yes it does, look at the Verstappen overtake that was disallowed last year. Danger has taken away grass/gravel areas. If there was danger of a crash/damage from going that far off track he would’ve thought twice about it. Killing that element of danger means the risk of going off track is basically naff-all. Even the drivers have said so.
yes it does, look at the Verstappen overtake that was disallowed last year. Danger has taken away grass/gravel areas. If there was danger of a crash/damage from going that far off track he would’ve thought twice about it. Killing that element of danger means the risk of going off track is basically naff-all. Even the drivers have said so.
That's a different argument, for my money. Do you think we should have less safe tracks that discourage overtaking?
any one think they should change the Australian venue?
Phillip Island?Adelaide? Bathurst?!
Who would pay to bring them up to F1 safety standards? Who would come up with enough money to outbid Melbourne for the rights to host the race? Let's face it, you're stuck with Melbourne. The most likely alternative is no Australian race at all.
As far as the halo goes, it was designed by people with serious engineering backgrounds. You might not like how it looks, but it's safer than before and it won't be going away anytime soon so you just need to get used to it.
but it’s safer than before and it won’t be going away anytime soon so you just need to get used to it.
Until, as has be said repeatedly elsewhere, that there's a fire and the driver can't get out. Horrible thing to say, but a human burning to death on TV would maybe change things.
I'm not against the aesthetics of the halo. It's not great, but we'll be used to it in no time. I think it's a real issue that the drivers can struggle to get out.
Truth be told, if the racing were any good, we'd be talking about that instead.
As it is, the racing is bad, the cars look bad, the cars sound bad. Drivers are already backing off from overtaking to preserve their engines.
Something needs to be done, pronto. Hopefully Ross Brawn and Liberty can sort it out.
Until, as has be said repeatedly elsewhere, that there’s a fire and the driver can’t get out. Horrible thing to say, but a human burning to death on TV would maybe change things.
When was the last time an F1 burst into flames after crashing (not being argumentative, I just can't remember anything recent). Plenty of drivers back in the day got badly burned pre-halo (fire fighting has fortunately moved on somewhat since, say, Zandvoort in '73), so I don't know if you can definitively say "no halo = driver escaping from an upturned burning car". You can fairly confidently say "no halo = serious injury if a driver cops a loose wheel", so I think halo is the lesser of the two evils.
Regards engine management, I wonder if the teams regularly fighting at the bottom of the mid pack for the last few points, positions 9th to 12th, will strategically write off the next race and try to secure points in the current race by turning the engine up to 110%. The engine may go bust in the next race but at least you bagged some points by finishing 9th or 10th, that might be better than consistently finishing 11th/12th with the engine only turned up to 80%. Could cause some good mid pack overtakes and racing?
No idea if that theory actually works in practice? Certainly not a strategy for people at the front or regularly scoring points but something to think about for the tail enders? Its a bit like the undercut strategy in pit stops but with engines and not tyres.
pondoWhen was the last time an F1 burst into flames after crashing (not being argumentative, I just can’t remember anything recent). Plenty of drivers back in the day got badly burned pre-halo (fire fighting has fortunately moved on somewhat since, say, Zandvoort in ’73), so I don’t know if you can definitively say “no halo = driver escaping from an upturned burning car”. You can fairly confidently say “no halo = serious injury if a driver cops a loose wheel”, so I think halo is the lesser of the two evils.
Okay, and how many drivers in f1 have been hit on the head by loose wheels?
Look at the Berger crash at Imola and tell me you'd be happy to see a driver stuck in there for an extra 5-10 seconds. Look at the Alonso crash from Aus 16 and tell me the halo is not in the way of him being able to get out.
[i]pondo wrote:[/i]
Halo’s designed to mitigate that risk, and other randoms like what happened to Jules Bianchi and Maria de Villota.
Point of fact, it doesn't seem to be considered that Halo would have helped Bianchi - I don't know about de Villota's crash, but it's possible it wouldn't have helped there either.
Okay, and how many drivers in f1 have been hit on the head by loose wheels?
There's a few - Ayrton Senna, Piers Courage and Vittorio Brambilla, off the top of me head, I would imagine something halo-like would also helped the likes of Tom Pryce, Helmuth Koenigg, Patrick Depailler, Alan Stacey and Francois Cevert, although I accept that for Cevert there were more than just head injuries, so the whole rest of his car would have needed to be substantially stronger for him to have stood a chance. Halo [i]may[/i] also have saved Justin Wilson, amongst others (like the aforementioned Henry Surtees).
Look at the Berger crash at Imola and tell me you’d be happy to see a driver stuck in there for an extra 5-10 seconds.
I can't tell you that - I can tell that, of course, it wouldn't happen now because Tamburello is somewhat different to what it was then. As a matter of interest, can you think of any more recent crashes that have resulted in a big fire?
Look at the Alonso crash from Aus 16 and tell me the halo is not in the way of him being able to get out.
Honest answer? I don't think you could say either way.
Point of fact, it doesn’t seem to be considered that Halo would have helped Bianchi – I don’t know about de Villota’s crash, but it’s possible it wouldn’t have helped there either.
I'd argue we're away from fact and in the realm of conjecture, but I'm a long way from being a scientist that could actually argue the point. What I would say is that both clearly add to the body of evidence that suggests that by far the biggest danger to an open cockpit racing car driver is head trauma.
Yep the FIA specifically looked at Alonso's 2016 crash and the difference the halo would make :
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/127751/fia-simulated-alonso-crash-with-halo
I don't like it, I think it's ugly, but I reckon some sort of head protection is here to stay. The halo might last until 2020 but my money is on a better solution being in place for Ross Brawns new F1
The genie is out of the bottle with the halo and the regulators are too risk adverse to allow them to be removed, just in case there is another accident involving a head injury. I'm surprised that they have not migrated down to the lower formula's.
Personally I'd do away with them, but then I'm not the one on superstar wages so what do I know.
my money was on the halos being removed on safety grounds some time mid season
when there's a first corner pile up, with a back marker coming hurtling thru with no wheels, and the halo directs a front wing or something IN to the driver who's already turned in (or been spun by someone) and is at 90 degrees to the start straight.
it's going to be a big name near the front, probably in a coma
I hope I'm wrong.
pondo Member-- Okay, and how many drivers in f1 have been hit on the head by loose wheels?
There’s a few – Ayrton Senna, Piers Courage and Vittorio Brambilla, off the top of me head, I would imagine something halo-like would also helped the likes of Tom Pryce, Helmuth Koenigg, Patrick Depailler, Alan Stacey and Francois Cevert, although I accept that for Cevert there were more than just head injuries, so the whole rest of his car would have needed to be substantially stronger for him to have stood a chance. Halo may also have saved Justin Wilson, amongst others (like the aforementioned Henry Surtees).
Senna AFAIK was not hit on the head by a wheel but by a piece of the suspension upright which pierced his helmet, so I think it unlikely halo would have helped. Windscreen may have.
Courage was 1970, prior to wheel tethers
Brambilla was 1978, prior to wheel tethers
Tom Pryce - yes maybe , i'll give you that. However if (below) you're ruling out Berger's crash on the basis the track has changed, I'm ruling this out on the basis marshelling procedures have changed
I don't know enough about the others to comment.
-- Look at the Berger crash at Imola and tell me you’d be happy to see a driver stuck in there for an extra 5-10 seconds.I can’t tell you that – I can tell that, of course, it wouldn’t happen now because Tamburello is somewhat different to what it was then. As a matter of interest, can you think of any more recent crashes that have resulted in a big fire?
No I can't to be honest but that is just luck, like I said: there is no reason whatsoever why it cannot happen now. Fuel or hydraulic lines can still be ruptured, lithium batteries can explode, etc. In the alonso crash you can see fluid spraying out, Seb's subsequent crash after hitting Raikonnen last year was as a result of fluids leaking.
It happens.
-- Look at the Alonso crash from Aus 16 and tell me the halo is not in the way of him being able to get out.Honest answer? I don’t think you could say either way.
Well the test the FIA carried out did not impress the drivers who saw the results...
-- Point of fact, it doesn’t seem to be considered that Halo would have helped Bianchi – I don’t know about de Villota’s crash, but it’s possible it wouldn’t have helped there either.I’d argue we’re away from fact and in the realm of conjecture, but I’m a long way from being a scientist that could actually argue the point. What I would say is that both clearly add to the body of evidence that suggests that by far the biggest danger to an open cockpit racing car driver is head trauma.
Well an impact 250G is not normally survivable, so I don't think that one is conjecture.
Maria, okay, well again I suppose I'll have give you that, but it wasn't in race conditions and quite obviously the tail lift should not have been left in that position.
But in any case, this is open cockpit racing, it is inherently dangerous. If you want to eliminate the danger completely, fine, but it's not F1 any more.
What we have now is IMHO the worst of both worlds. Minimal protection from debris, extraction times longer, majority of drivers don't want it, majority of fans don't want it. Not ideal at a time when we are losing fans.
And let's be honest, this is just the latest in a series of cock ups from the fans POV.
We've got cars that can't follow or overtake even with triple DRS zones, look crap, sound crap, can't see the driver, they have stupidly expensive engines which have stupidly long required lifespan most likely resulting in many penalties later in the season, idiotically complicated aero which can be ruined by a stray piece of tyre debris, I'm sure there's more I can't remember too.
Anyway let's agree to disagree on halo, I know I'm an argumentative arse and don't want to bore everyone else any more with this! 🙂
Senna AFAIK was not hit on the head by a wheel but by a piece of the suspension upright which pierced his helmet, so I think it unlikely halo would have helped. Windscreen may have.
Courage was 1970, prior to wheel tethers
Brambilla was 1978, prior to wheel tethers
Tom Pryce – yes maybe , i’ll give you that. However if (below) you’re ruling out Berger’s crash on the basis the track has changed, I’m ruling this out on the basis marshelling procedures have changed
I don’t know enough about the others to comment.
Senna I understand was hit in three different ways, two you're absolutely right were penetrative injuries from bits of suspension arm, one was blunt trauma from the right front wheel - halo most likely would have made no difference to the penetrative injuries (although the high cockpit sides may have) but could have protected him from the wheel.
No I can’t to be honest but that is just luck, like I said: there is no reason whatsoever why it cannot happen now. Fuel or hydraulic lines can still be ruptured, lithium batteries can explode, etc. In the alonso crash you can see fluid spraying out, Seb’s subsequent crash after hitting Raikonnen last year was as a result of fluids leaking.
It happens.
I'd say luck has maybe paid a small part, but design and materials have played by far the bigger part. It's something not to be complacent about (1994 taught us the dangers of complacency) but the risk of fire seems to have been adequately addressed for the meantime.
Well the test the FIA carried out did not impress the drivers who saw the results…
Regardless, the consultant dude managed to get out, and the drivers are sufficiently untroubled by it that they're racing the cars.
Well an impact 250G is not normally survivable, so I don’t think that one is conjecture.
Sorry, I'll give you that - I don't think the Bianchi accident was realistically survivable given current technologies, even with halo. But I do think it could be of some benefit in a similar crash with lower energies.
But in any case, this is open cockpit racing, it is inherently dangerous. If you want to eliminate the danger completely, fine, but it’s not F1 any more.
It IS inherently dangerous, and it always will be, but being dangerous does not make F1 what it is. Back in the day, fire was the enemy, so they changed the rules and less people were burnt to death. Then they made the tubs stronger to stop the catastrophic leg injuries and touch wood that danger has gone away. You look at the cars at the start of 94 and wonder how on earth they were allowed to go racing when they were so terrifyingly exposed - the higher cockpit sides have mitigated that risk, but the head is (or was) still out, still exposed, and halo mitigates that risk. F1 has a nigh-on forty year history of trying to minimise risk to the drivers and spectators, and long may it continue IMHO.
And let’s be honest, this is just the latest in a series of cock ups from the fans POV.
We’ve got cars that can’t follow or overtake even with triple DRS zones, look crap, sound crap, can’t see the driver, they have stupidly expensive engines which have stupidly long required lifespan most likely resulting in many penalties later in the season, idiotically complicated aero which can be ruined by a stray piece of tyre debris, I’m sure there’s more I can’t remember too.
To be fair, people have been complaining about aero spoiling the racing since the eighties, and both looks and sound are subjective, I couldn't say I've seen a prettier car since the Jordan F191 - more brutally efficient, maybe, and I appreciate that, but not prettier, and who watches F1 because the cars are pretty? Soundwise I think the criticism has been way overboard but that's probably because, whilst I have vague memories of the end of the DFV era, the V6 turbos of the eighties were part of my formative years. Costs have always been an issue in F1 - I don't think the engine lifespan rules bring much to the party but I suppose it's better than throwing a new motor in the back of the chassis every session.
Anyway let’s agree to disagree on halo, I know I’m an argumentative arse and don’t want to bore everyone else any more with this!
I'm down with that - however, as a similarly argumentative arse, I'm quite enjoying the debate! Happy to agree to disagree, but also a pleasure to chat about it with you, and who cares what anyone else thinks. 🙂
The halo won't be going away anytime soon. I much preferred the windscreen idea, but the halo is what we have so you just need to get used to it and move on.
Playing devil's advocate, if you look at the indy car screen then that makes it just as hard for the driver to get out, possibly worse as there's no "handle" for them to grab (as they are doing with the halo), it'd make extraction harder as the marshals can't reach through the sides of the screen (they can with the halo) , and if the car were upside down on fire it's just as bad for the driver.
So the screen may look a bit better and has different protection characteristics to the halo, but the downsides remain.
Back to alternative venues for the Oz GP, how about The Bend Motorsport Park? Brand new circuit, only 100km from Adelaide, the GT configuration will be the second longest racetrack in the world when it's finished!
It looks like Hamilton lost the Australian Grand Prix because Mercedes had their maths wrong. Very embarrassing! Specifically they thought that a lap under VSC would take 1.8 seconds longer than it did, so they told Hamilton not to push when he could have and therefore be able to stay ahead of Vettel after the pit stops. Aaargh!
how about The Bend Motorsport Park? Brand new circuit, only 100km from Adelaide,
Does it meet F1 standards? Would it be any improvement over Albert Park? Are there enough hotels nearby for 50,000 to 100,000 visitors 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? Who would come up with the hundreds of millions of dollars to outbid Melbourne for the hosting rights for a multi-year deal?
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.
I'm still on the fence about the halo device. I'll admit that I hate the aesthetics, they do look dreadful but I accept that safety should be paramount. It's too easy for armchair commentators to demand risk and danger when we're not the ones putting it on the line, I can only echo the fifty year old sentiments of Jackie Stewart.
Whether or not the halo is an effective solution is not for me to say, it should be down to the drivers to decide.
I also believe that the accidents of Maria De Villota and Jules Bianchi were due to other factors - in the case of De Villota, unintended acceleration coupled with impact with a trailer loading ramp left at head height and in the case of Bianchi, he hit a crane tending to a stricken car despite the double yellow flag warning. In the case of Bianchi, it's difficult to comprehend what could've been done in terms of passive safety to mitigate such an impact. Both of these accidents were different to the type of event that caused the deaths of Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson, who were respectively hit by debris.
Truth be told, if the racing were any good, we’d be talking about that instead.
This. The only bit of the race we are discussing is a pit stop.
Ooooh - that sense of tension when you look into a drivers eyes just before they go out on a qualifying lap...
Hols, with regard to The Bend:
- It is currently graded as grade 2, but this is due to the cost of getting the circuit graded rather than the quality of the circuit. It could receive grade 1 if it wanted it.
- Some more hotels would need to be built, but bear in mind that the full circuit is not yet complete, so it's not like the race would be tomorrow! Also, being just over an hour from the centre of Adelaide means people would probably just stay there.
- It is situated on the main road connection between Adelaide and Melbourne, so very easy road access, also the nearest station is less than 10km, so a shuttle bus would easily get people to the circuit.
- The city of Adelaide has been interested in F1 ever since they lost the race in the 90's. Their circuit isn't up to hosting F1 these days, but with The Bend being so close it could be an alternative for them to fund.
- You wouldn't be visiting some hick town, you'd be going to a race circuit to watch a race. Similarly, if you make the (125km!!!!) journey from London to Silverstone, you don't spend the day in Towcester! From a major city, it's a lot easier to get to than say the French GP or Japanese GP!
Now I'm not saying that the race will or should move away from Melbourne, the point of the suggestion was for a better race, i.e. more overtaking, more enjoyable for the TV audience, and The Bend would definitely provide this. But also, it's not as infeasible as you seem to think it is!
Not looking good for Force India, might struggle to finish the season.
https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/237293/next-four-weeks-decisive-for-force-india-survival
hols2
Member
Not looking good for Force India, might struggle to finish the season.https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/237293/next-four-weeks-decisive-for-force-india-survival
Bit of a shame, but given VMs ongoing legal troubles I did wonder if they'd make it to the end of the season.
Bit of dick move from Williams nonetheless to veto the advance.
There must be some huge holes in their accounts though. There have been so many potential buyers over the last few years that have pulled out at the last minute.
I think they are waiting for them to go under so they can pick the team up for a bargain price.
As for Williams - I can sort of see their side of things. If they allow Force India a chunk of money now it will allow them to develop the car earlier and potentially beat them. And say what you want about their pay drivers - Williams as a group are financially sound.
Perhaps Force India should have taken a pay-driver instead of sticking with the journeyman Perez.
And Liberty will not want see 18 car grids.
Not sure how much, but Checo brings cash/sponsors. Telmex is one.
Not sure how much, but Checo brings cash/sponsors. Telmex is one.
And not exactly a journeyman either, I'd say he was one of the most talented drivers on the grid
Bit of dick move from Williams nonetheless to veto the advance.
Quite. I'd always prefer to see them beat their rivals through their prowess on the track rather than shafting them financially behind the scenes.
With the emphasis on [i]was[/i] - more of a Webber than a Vettel though! 🙂
He's had his chances and no top team has come knocking on his door which says it all really.
Interesting to hear Renault talking about engine development freezes next year and 2020 for the new engine regs in 2021 so they dont have to develop 2 engines on the run up to 2021 season.
seems Horner agrees and has suggested a 3% difference rule across all F1 engines
i understand where they are coming from - especially if the 2021 engine is drastically different to the current ones, and of course, if a new manufacturer decides to enter they can develop freely outside of current F1 regs/rules over development.
Will not be great for us the viewer if engines are the same (and you can bet there will be a whole load of arguments and accusations ,potential penalties about what is and what is not a "development" )
Also if Honda is so down on power and performance and the above takes place with the 3% rule, does that mean everyone else has to detune their engine to witin 3% of honda!
tricky situation.
hmm dunno I'm on the fence about Williams' veto. The article suggests this isn't the first time Force India have had to ask for the advance. I think FI have had finance problems for a few years now, so plenty time to try and get finances in order and spending within their means. Budget control is just as part as running a team as is technical advances. For a mid/low budget team they've had some great results, I'll be sad to see them leave F1, hopefully it won't come to that.
He’s had his chances and no top team has come knocking on his door which says it all really.
True he had that year at McLaren and...stuffed it. To be fair though there was also the hand of Ron at work there, and it would have been good to have seen him get a chance beyond his rookie year at McLaren or a drive at one of the other teams but sometimes the timing just isn't right, a bit like Hulkenberg or even Alonso post Renault. Destined to be one of F1's many (many!) what ifs!! 🙂
Don't get me wrong - I like Checo and his fighting driving style. Just that it might have paid to take a so-so driver with many more $$$$ than Checo. Especially as they already have a decent driver in the other seat who presumably bringing a good financial package from Merc.
Hmm... I wonder if Aston Martin would pick up Force India for 2019 if they did go bust... Given Red Bull could be swapping to Honda engines next year (Renault seem to have had enough of supplying them) and I cannot imagine Aston wanting to share advertising space with another car manufacturer. (The current Renault engine in the Red Bull being hidden behind Tag Heure branding).
Could be a good route in for an Aston Martin works team. Where to Aston get their engines for their road cars?
I still think Honda should've bought Manor when they went under, and run them as a wholly owned, independent subsidiary team...
I think the speculation was that Red Bull want out of F1, but have to stay until 2021 or face big financial penalties. Apparently Christian Horner and Adrian Newey were hoping to put together a deal to take over the team with backing from Aston Martin and an Aston Martin badged Cosworth engine (which would also be used by McLaren). Taking over Red Bull would be much more attractive than FI. FI would need years of serious investment to become a front-runner. Red Bull are already at the front, they just need a slightly better engine.
Where to Aston get their engines for their road cars?
They have signed a deal with AMG for engines
I just don't see how Aston Martin have the financial clout to finance a front-running F1 team.
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?