[Closed] The F1 Thread...

jfletch - I was an F1 race engineer in a previous life. They are very prone to aquaplaning when there is standing water around as explained very well by andyl above. Yes they can be driven extremely fast in the wet IF there is little or no standing water and hence low risk of aquaplaning. One time we were at Silverstone there was a sudden heavy downpour that caused standing water (actually more like a small stream) flowing across Becketts. The cars just spun off one after the other even when backing off massively.

Basically when it is wet enough to cause standing water on the track, the SC is out and the cars really have to concentrate on not falling off behind it. Wide tyres, low weight, low ride heights and massive power does not make for great aquaplaning protection!

So hamilton and alonso teammates at mclaren again? Or does it leave a seat for Alonso at Merc. Both options I'd like to see

LH to McLaren? Sorry I don't believe it full stop. Based on their management/structure at the moment? That'd be a gamble of epic proportions. Would the Honda engine be better than a Merc. Yes Mclaren are customers of Merc but still- they aren't exactly doing well with the rest of the car and.....the management turmoil.

So hamilton and alonso teammates at mclaren again?

Rosberg looking like another decent driver being flattered by a very good car - but when it's not going his way he reverts to [dirty] tactics.

I had the misfortune of working with Rosberg for a couple of seasons (thankfully not as his race engineer). Arrogant little shit he was too. Not massively talented compared to some, but to be fair he does seem to have progressed and earned some respect from his peers.

Hamilton may be tempted by the prospect of being a certain No.1 driver (if they kept Magnussen). No hope of that in Mercedes.

And being in at the start of something again may be rewarding to him - he's shown he has the patience to have an off year or two if the rewards are there.

Can't see it happening though!

LH to McLaren? Sorry I don't believe it full stop.

Me either. Its not called silly season for nothing though

Try driving a 2 tonne car round a corner at 120mph in the wet. Good luck.

You didn't read what I wrote about cornering did you?

Just because a road is wet it doesnt mean you are going to aquaplane. As I already said the F1 car will corner faster than anything else due to a favourable grip V centrifugal force. But, if it hits an area of standing water it has more chance of aquaplaning than something that has a more favourable weight to tread footprint.

F1 cars are driven right on the cusp of losing grip. Closer than pretty much anything else and the cars are more capable of being driven so than any other car. Margins of error are tiny but that is why they are driven by the best drivers in the world and they do make it look easy because they are constantly reacting and correcting things to keep that car balanced on a knife edge. Sometimes they fall off as they push too much or make a mistake, sometimes the nature of the cars means they have no chance (such as aquaplaning).

richmtb - Member
LH to McLaren? Sorry I don't believe it full stop.
Me either. Its not called silly season for nothing though

Are you American? (sigh).

Are you American? (sigh).

No. Are you Irish? (Are we just guessing nationalities or did you last post have a point?) (sigh)

I think the above is referring to 'full stop'.

I've just read the links about LH - very odd. McLaren do seem to be in a bit of a mess at the moment. Maybe LH is thinking if he can win this year and get another championship under his belt then go help McLaren build a car for 2016?

The real winner here will be Alonso if he gets the mercedes seat and i think it would a case of him having even more skills off the track than on it to be able to engineer such a situation somehow as he kicked off this whole round of swaps. He's got a career in big business if he ever wants to quit F1!

Alonso and Rosberg at mercedes next year? That is going to an interesting team to be a fly on the wall at!

I think the above is referring to 'full stop'.

Americans say "period" and besides I was quoting Hora.

Anyhoooo....

LH is going nowhere.

Realistically Alonso only has one choice and that's Mclaren. I agree they are a bit of a shambles at the minute. Even Ron Dennis returning has not be able to change Mclaren's "suboptimal" performance.

Be interesting to see what Mclaren do with JB and Magnussen. They could probably use a second experienced driver to help them develop the 2015 car, but he'll probably price himself out of any negotiations and Mclaren will drop him and just keep Magnussen.

Which is a shame but the most likely outcome.

Lewis stayed 1-2 seasons too long at Mclaren however hes made a shrewd move once already, twice if you'd class landing a seat as a rookie in a Mclaren. I doubt he'll make a backward step. He'll know how good the Merc is now and how dominant it is and how woeful McLaren are. Maybe a move to McLaren in 2016 after another year at Merc.

If he has another race like Japan where he shows his coolness I bet Nico implodes. After all the last race he kept repeating how lucky Lewis was. Really Luck?

But, neither would doing nothing result in that, seeing as it's still over 20 years since a driver was killed. They're already too trigger happy with the SC - they were practically on inters when it came in after the start.

Just to this point a little while back, Jenson has said that at Suzuka, the tarmac tends to hold water which means that the spray is a massive issue until it's almost ok for inters - which is exactly why they changed to inters not long after the SC came in.

As to LH to McL, you never know for sure but the smart money is on moving there in 2016 once you know if Honda have made a decent engine. Of course there could be some blocks if say Alonso is already there but IMO it's a qualified risk - it seems unlikely that Honda will make a fundamentally better engine than Merc and McL have hardly been setting the world on fire with their chassis in recent years.

I can't see LH going to Mclaren although Mercedes have made it clear they are looking to reduce his deal.

@moshimonster, nice job !

Sorry Rich, I was referring to 'me either' = 'me neither'. The 'mericans always seem to mangle these sayings i.e.'I could care less' etc (sigh)+(frown) 🙂

@Andyl:

Another miss-match is inertia. An F1 car is ultimately a low mass so has low interia and is thus easier to deviate than a 2 ton car. So when it hits a bump or a load of standing water there will be more of an affect in terms of movement of the car, change in speed etc. In complete opposite think of a big truck hitting a bit of standing water compared to a little hatchback.

Why is this not affected by downforce? Why does the increased effective weight of the car not make them more stable over bumps etc?

(Genuine question! I gave up science at GCSE so it might well be obvious!)

with all this moving of drivers,

has everyone forgot

3 car teams next year!

EDIT:
Alonso, Lewis & Button at McLaren Honda 😀

Hamilton to Mclaren for 2015?? Never saw that one coming! it will be interesting to see if its true

I'm not buying that for many reasons highlighted above.
Also, if it is true, do you really think they'd have him fly in to the MTC to sign up?
It would be done quietly in a lawyers office somewhere

3 car teams next year!

Well it's clearly what Bernie wants but I don't think that the FIA want it and the teams don't seem that fussed, at least not in the context of 2015. More cost and complexity for not a lot more money being the real argument IMO - if Bernie gave them more money then they'd maybe be more favourable...

Wasn't the 3 car teams idea based on having 2 experienced drivers, and a rookie? (and a sort of Rookie championship). Not for running 3 top drivers.

I've never seen that down as anything more than one idea. When it's been discussed, it's more been in the context that b2b suggested.

Why is this not affected by downforce? Why does the increased effective weight of the car not make them more stable over bumps etc?

Downforce only acts in the downwards direction 🙂 so yes it helps keep the car stuck to the ground over bumps, but if you lose grip momentarily and then get kicked sideways there's only the car's natural inertia to resist that.

Alonso, Lewis & Button at McLaren Honda

😆

I reckon the LH Mclaren story is just about plausible enough (because he's previously jumped to a seemingly inferior team) to seem worth making up as a rumour.

Why is this not affected by downforce? Why does the increased effective weight of the car not make them more stable over bumps etc?

Because the increase in down force doesn't increase the inertia of the car. Inertia is a measure of how much force it takes to move something - hence when acted on by a certain amount of force from a bump the lighter car will move a lot more.

The 3 car thing will only come into effect if a few teams disappear over the winter. Caterham are most likely, followed possibly by Sauber as they haven't had the most stellar season. I can't see any others going anywhere.

although Mercedes have made it clear they are looking to reduce his deal.

Sauce?

Why is this not affected by downforce? Why does the increased effective weight of the car not make them more stable over bumps etc?

(Genuine question! I gave up science at GCSE so it might well be obvious!)

Inertia is a resistance to change of velocity (acceleration). To put it simply if you kick a stone it moves, if you kick a boulder your foot hurts. It doesnt matter if you kick it left or kick it right, inertia acts in all directions. F = m x a so for the same force a higher 'm' gives a lower 'a'.

If we think of a bump as an impulse then this can be broken down as a force integrated over a time period and is the change in momentum (momentum is mass x velocity). So a lower mass has a higher change in velocity for the same impulse.

Downforce (a force) and gravity (an acceleration which is combined with the mass to give us weight, remember kg are not a unit of weight) act in one direction (down). Think about when you hit a stone or root on your bike. You don't simply bounce up and over it, your bike slows down (and you lurch forward), unless you hit it square one you get deviated sideways and have to correct etc etc. Same with a lightweight vehicle. In there vertical sense you have extra force pushing down so there is more to resist a force upwards but in every other direction no help so the car can slow slightly, change pitch, yaw slightly. Inertia acts in x, y, z and rotationally about each of those axes.

If we assume x is forwards, y is left right and z up down then aerodynamics predominantly act [b]in the direction of[/b] z and [b]about[/b] y (but do act in the other directions as everything is coupled just to lesser degree).

It's all complicated and makes your head hurt which is why we have computers that do matrix calculations for us.

saucy?

regarding 3 cars per team: Claire Williams made her thoughts very clear when asked on a TV interview. It's not going to work well.

I missed that - what did she say?

"Three car grid" = Bernie trying to hide teams leaving/going to the wall. Impliment a three car grid and the next tier of strugglers will start to hit losses. Either that or the third car will become the fulltime bought in rich kid trundling at the back in all teams bar the top 3.

I missed that - what did she say?

she wasnt very complimentary of the idea. Based on financials really. If it comes in they will have no choice but they really don't want to.

I don't think it's trying to hide that actually. I think it's more that teams trundling round the back of the grid don't do anything for him. He'd rather more drivers in competitive cars I reckon.

Claire Williams is proving to be a real chip off the old block. She says what she thinks, refreshing these days. I reckon she's got a bright future in front of her.

+1 on that. Given that no doubt people suspect nepotism, I think she's doing a great job of changing perceptions.

agreed.

Wasn't the 3 car teams idea based on having 2 experienced drivers, and a rookie?

So Alonso, LH and Rosberg at Merc then? 😈

3 car teams, its actually part of the new Concorde agreement (copied over from the old Concorde agreement that ran out) , basically it states that if the number of cars on the grid drops below a certain amount (is it 20... 18?) then teams must field 3 cars - its not an option, its to prevent empty grids and circuit promoters and tv companies suing the Commercial Rights holder (CVC , bernie whoever) for not fulfilling their part of the F1 deal of min no. of cars.

force india is supposed to be tricky due to the owner getting sued for not paying the other part of his business which is an airline,

caterham dodgy

some also say Sauber are on the way out.

the person in the know of these things usually *IS* bernie, and if he's talkin about 3 cars teams, it could certainly come about....

Have Lotus addressed all their financial troubles yet? Could be another team to add to the list.

I don't think any of the teams have really addressed ALL of their financial issues (eg McL still don't have a title sponsor) with the possible exceptions of RB and Ferrari and even they may not be doing so well given Fiat's closer involvement and lack of success meaning less likely sponsorship.

To the Concorde agreement, if two current teams fold then we'll get three car teams. It'll be interesting to see how that would work - I would guess it'd be Ferrari, McL as two off the oldest and most successful then RedBull as the current faves with Bernie (well earned obv) and who else? Williams? obv they have the history but until this year, pretty poor results so how solid a base is that? Lotus - significant issues already documented despite a solid engineering base.

i think there is a "list" in the Agreement of which teams start 3 cars first to fill the grid, i think Ferrari are at the top as they get the "special" payout...

On the team numbers/ 3 car thing, aren't Haas coming to F1 next year?

2016 for [s]Redneck[/s] Haas F1

Sorry just checked, I think its 2016.

If it comes to 3 cars/team - I guess the F1 strategy group will decide and agree who does it.
Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren, Mercedes and Williams with Lotus as the current floating member (Force India will likely take that spot in 2015)

Er... just realised that I missed Merc out of my musings over who'd supply three cars 😳

I'll be honest, I'm not dead against 3 car teams providing the 3rd car is for a new/young driver (no more than 2 seasons).

It could even bring more money in.

Say young 'Carlos Fandango' from Mexico is pitching to his sponsors for money to enter F1. He can either say...
a) I need £X million to drive for a back of the grid team and get little exposure.
b) I need £XX million for a 3rd car drive with Ferrari. Sponsors may be more prepared to open their wallets for this sort of association.

I can't see them agreeing to them without some bitterness, unless they all get a 3rd car.
The setup knowledge gained from another car running on Friday and Saturday is considerable and the ability to race test future upgrades is almost priceless

Just wanted to agree that Claire Williams is great. Very switched on.

3 car teams is a terrible idea - I really enjoy seeing the back end of the grid do well every so often

However, the main reason why 3 car teams are bad is when the manufacturers leave again. Mercedes & Red Bull are not in it for the long run - they'll both be gone in the next 5 years

Must admit, I quite fancy Claire Williams 🙂

I think the most serious proposal was eight 3 car teams.

They would be Ferrari, Mclaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, Williams, Lotus, Force India and Sauber. So we would lose Caterham (who are all but dead anyway) Marussia and Toro Rosso. Although given the parlous state of Sauber its quite likely that we'd lose them instead of Toro Rosso

But if it goes this way what's to stop 4 car teams once Lotus and Force India are skint?

Then Merc pull out because they finally stop winning, Red Bull pull out because the find a better vehicle for their brand.

We then end up with three 6 car teams Ferrari, Williams and Mclaren

Williams and Mclaren then get fed up with Ferrari's political antics (which were bad enough when there were 10 teams to argue against them) and also leave

So F1 becomes 18 Ferraris

So Claire thinks closed cockpits may be the way to go...

A bit more info on that Louis Hamilton/McLaren rumour [url= http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/10/mclaren-targeted-by-rumours-but-whats-behind-it/ ]here[/url]

Closed cockpit would have done nothing to help Bianchi as his injury came from his brain rattling around inside his skull.

we would lose Caterham (who are all but dead anyway) Marussia and Toro Rosso.

I think Marussia are reasonably secure with the Russian oligarch cash and now extra money for actually getting a point.

Red Bull effectively run 4 cars now anyway; TR is the RB B-team so it wouldn't make sense for them to run 6 cars from the same pot of cash. Even if they could run 4 children instead of one.

Closed cockpit would have done nothing to help Bianchi as his injury came from his brain rattling around inside his skull.

+1 - More driver protection while not inherently a bad thing is only a mitigation here - In Bianchi's crash, the causes for his injury are aquaplaning off and hitting a truck

For the first, they should be looking at whether they should have still been racing (and IMO it wasn't unreasonable though possibly light conditions weren't good enough). For the latter, they need to consider whether trucks should be allowed on the circuit while cars are racing (particularly if it's wet) and if so, what mitigations they can offer against cars hitting them - be that SC, crash protection on the trucks, etc.

But they need to also consider that motorsport is inherently dangerous given high speeds and it's possible that they have to just accept that this was just a horribly unfortunate combination of circumstances that will always happen every now and again in the sport.

Do we know that Bianchi's helmet didn't hit the truck and that caused the injury? I think a closed cockpit may have helped here. If his helmet had been protected I can't imagine that the car's impact with the truck was as big as Kubica's wall hit in Canada and his noggin was fine.

What they'll enforce for future races will be that the recovery vehicles are capable of removing cars without going on the track side of the barriers - so more like cranes rather than loaders.

Do we know that Bianchi's helmet didn't hit the truck and that caused the injury?

I can't imagine that the car's impact with the truck was as big as Kubica's wall hit in Canada and his noggin was fine.

Kubica's crash in Canada was a bit different. He hit the wall at an angle with the front of the car so a lot of the energy was dissipated by the front suspension/crash structure at the front of the car. He then bounced off down the track for a couple of hundred metres. Bianchi hit a the tractor which while not being a solid object like the wall at Canada was unfortunately just the right height for the front of the car to go under it, the car only really stopped once the roll hoop hit which is probably what did the damage as the deceleration will have been massive.

Helmet was intact in the pictures. Doctors have stated that the injury is was caused by sudden deceleration of the brain [within the skull]. Similar to shaken baby deaths.

I get that, but I've not seen a picture of the left side of the helmet. And I can't imagine that the force of the car hitting the truck would have been as bad as hitting a concrete wall, the truck moved a fair bit on impact.

I would assume that the helmet hit the truck, that stopped his head suddenly and caused the brain injury, but the strength of a modern helmet stopped any fractures/obvious injuries.

However, I am not a doctor or a fizzysist.

Edit - @ northernmatt - good point on the snagging roll hoop, didn't think about that.

If the FIA did decide that closed cockpits should be mandatory on F1 where does that leave all other open cockpit racing? Speeds of 125mph are easily reachable in most race series.

And would they ban motorbike racing all together!

What they'll enforce for future races will be that the recovery vehicles are capable of removing cars without going on the track side of the barriers - so more like cranes rather than loaders.

It's kind of strange they don't do that already - maybe it just needed an incident like this to provide the impetus. Even at an old track without much space it seems there is plenty of room to take a big mobile crane in behind the barriers to lift Sutil's car.

I can't imagine that the force of the car hitting the truck would have been as bad as hitting a concrete wall

They don't generally hit concrete walls head on.

Perez talks sense http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29551563 - we discussed above that drivers won't necessarily slow down that much when the SC comes out until they're behind it, but surely with a SC and waved double yellows they would, as it's not the same as waved double yellows without a SC when they are still racing. They should of course also get rid of the silly unlapping rule - does anybody have an explanation of what the supposed advantage of that is?

They don't generally hit concrete walls head on.

Bianchi didn't hit the truck head on either.

does anybody have an explanation of what the supposed advantage of that is?

I think it's to make the restarts a bit more interesting as technically they aren't allowed to overtake until the first safety car line which is somewhere between the last corner and the start/finish line and I think this uncludes lapped cars. Obviously if you have a Mercedes sat behind a lapped Caterham it'll have a massive straight line speed advantage and will have to hang back whereas the cars behind can keep their foot in.

It's all a moot point anyway as they are introducing standing starts after SC periods next year, which is just bloody stupid IMO.

It's all a moot point anyway as they are introducing standing starts after SC periods next year, which is just bloody stupid IMO.

No that got sensibly dismissed.

The unlapping cars thing is annoying and stupid. One of the reasons for the safety car is that it keeps all the cars in the same place on the track. If you let the lapped cars through you've no longer go them all together in the one place

I suspect they'll introduce something like a 75% delta time for any sector with double waved yellows.
Very easy to implement & police

Easy to enforce, not so easy for the drivers - don't forget they are still racing, so won't want to do 70% sector time if the chap just in front is doing 74.9%

The drivers can easily see if they're on target for the delta or not, if they choose to push the envelope, they're risking a penalty.
Pretty much the same as attacking the pit lane in and out, push it too far and you'll be coming back in.
They are driving to a delta now when catching the safety car

If the FIA did decide that closed cockpits should be mandatory on F1 where does that leave all other open cockpit racing? Speeds of 125mph are easily reachable in most race series.

And would they ban motorbike racing all together!

A change like this in F1 is not going to affect motorbike racing.

For other car based open cockpit racing - yes there is a risk. Plenty more flip overs in slower car racing and possibly less safe cars as smaller budgets but what gets developed for F1 does trickle down through improved understanding and analysis. Maybe they will get closed cockpits eventually, maybe not as at the end of the day F1 is much faster and longer races than any other open cockpit series.

With regards to the roll-hoop snagging: that is what I thought when I watched the video the other day. The car seems to not only snag but be pushed down and slam into the ground and seems to stop very quickly. It looked to me as though his head missed it, just.

And would they ban motorbike racing all together!

The FIA aren't the sactioning body of international motorcycle racing, that's the job of the FIM

So have his team released his telemetry yet? It'd be interesting to see what he was doing before under double-yellows and if he really had lifted right off as required.

So have his team released his telemetry yet?

According to this he was doing 132mph when he went off..

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/amateur-video-shows-green-flag-waving-at-time-of-bianchi-crash/

Ok and looking at this? (JB was doing 213km/h in the wet possibly trying to clawback time?)

[img] [/img]

He was going quickly to track and catch up to the rear/make capital on the safety car?

ALL drivers know you can't overtake under SC but MANY drivers know (and do) make capital to either capitalise on their position to the safety car (or pit).

This'd only stop when all cars have automatic limiters.

Is that fair to say?

He was going quickly to track and catch up to the rear/make capital on the safety car?

No, the safety car wasn't out

It's all a moot point anyway as they are introducing standing starts after SC periods next year, which is just bloody stupid IMO.

but it's going to be complicated to keep tyres warm etc.

Tyre warmers may also be banned from next season too. So no different to what will then be a normal start.

Tyre warmers may also be banned from next season too.

That's in doubt too and likely to be deferred until at least 2016 or until and if lower profile tyres come in.
At the Pirelli tyre tests in the heat of Bahrain they were unable to get the 2015 tyre up to temp without the use of warmers.
Without the temp, the pressures were too low to push hard to try and get heat into them - catch 22