[Closed] The F1 Thread...

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.