Formula 1 Predictions

[jeremytaylor]

I agee with you. My money would be on the McLarens this time round. Imagane if you will, what would have happened it Kimmy had started nearer the front. Using the fuel load as he did with one stop, would initially have moved him down the grid. As the race progresed he would have had the lighter car and been able to open a lead when the others went to top up for the second time. 22 to 3rd isnt shabby is it?

Maybe Montoya would have done better on a 1-stop strategy?

Maybe they should both be on a 1-stop this weekend? (I don't know enough about the Malaysian track to know if it's definitely a 2-stop track).

 

[glojo]

'ccording to bbc teletext (page 361) DC has a 10 place penalty...

Just posted the list on the wrong thread

Massa
Villeneuve
Coulthard
Fisichella

I hate this rule, it is bias towards front runners and also prevents engines from being used to their limit.

Will the FIA listen to the main constructors allegations about Ferrari, or will they also 'bend' get it?? bend the rules.

John

 

[blassberg]

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=35276&PO=35276
Coulthard – who has already incurred a grid penalty this weekend due to an engine change between Bahrain and Malaysia – believes the rule is especially unfair to smaller teams whose cars are invariably forced to start from the back.

 

[glojo]

Nice interview, I don't agree with some of his points, but he is someone that should be listened to.

Last week I moaned about the silliness of cruising around solely to burn off fuel, Im glad he raised that issue. I also agree that last session needs fine tuning.

Regarding the two race engine requirement, I still maintain it effects the front runners more than those at the back, I simply fail to see his logic? Yes Raikkinan had a fantastic race, but starting at the back really ruined any chance he had of winning. (not an engine failiure)

The biggest, biggest problem is Ecclestone saying he is happy with qualifying and it does NOT need any fine tuning

I thought I was the only thing that was perfect??

John

 

[Mr E]

Qualifying - absolutely agree.....the current format is due to two things: the need for tv ad breaks and that with the old, one-hour format no-one came out 'til the 10 mins. Let's have 3 20 mins sessions, 10 min breaks, all cars must go out or stand in front of the stewards to explain........fastest car goes first, fuel top-up allowed, but with minimum load requirement....

Engines - done for cost. Top teams ran "qualifying" and "race" engines, with the Q-engine built for power and a 15 lap life, the R-engine built for an 80-lap life. Tier 2 teams couldn't afford to do this - so the only way to police was to cap the number of engines, and link with the race. It's also supposed to be cheaper to have an engine that last two events, but my Dad (who's opinion I have to bow to here) scratches his head about that....

Penalty - 10 grid places seems harsh, esp in DC's case (for example) where the engine did it's job (survived the race). But need something to prevent the Q/R engine situation - what about a time penalty (60 secs) added to the end time (poss, 'cos that's how penalties are dealt with in the last few laps) which would encourage the driver (say Kimi) to build a decent lead. I would assume that he gained more than 60 seconds on Alonso, so would have won the race (which the drive deserved).

John - bang on, the biggest problem is Ecclestone/Moseley, and the cost relationship that they have with certain team principles (mention no names). Also the formula needs to swing back to driver performance and away from lawyers/rule interpreters and size of wallet. Which is why it's such a shame that A1GP is not better than it is....give it time (hopefully).

 

[glojo]

Engines - done for cost. Top teams ran "qualifying" and "race" engines, with the Q-engine built for power and a 15 lap life, the R-engine built for an 80-lap life. Tier 2 teams couldn't afford to do this - so the only way to police was to cap the number of engines, and link with the race. It's also supposed to be cheaper to have an engine that last two events, but my Dad (who's opinion I have to bow to here) scratches his head about that....

I would love to hear your fathers opinions.

I totally accept that what you have said and I have reprinted..... Is the party line.

May I very respectfully suggest though this has not been thoroughly thought through?

Done for cost????? The rich teams have merely diverted the budget into attempting to get the engine more reliable?

Has their been a financial saving?

Toyota have publically stated the TEAM will get through over 100 engines per year. I wonder how many they will actually get through if we include ALL types of testing.

Formula 1 has always been about cutting edge racing technology and so unfortunately we will always have the rich teams leading the way. Some might hate the way Ferrari hogged the limelight, but in fairness Formula 1 has usually been about having one or perhaps two teams dominating the formula?

I do not see any need for punishing anyone for an engine failiure, don't forget we used to have hte lead driver coming in with a sick car and taking over the number two car.

Everyone will have opinions on how to improve the qualifying, but I'm sure we all agree it is far more entertaining than it was, the highest qualifiers though must surely put more stress upon their engines?

I hate this stupid two race engine rule

Great thread with excellent contributions

John the BRM fan

 

[Mr E]

Hi John,

The ol' man isn't convinced about costs saving on the premise that it's easier to take a high performance engine and increase performance substantially over taking the same engine and tripling it's lifespan - I bow to his wisdom as an ex-F1 engineer.

The big problem is run-away budgets - some would argue that budget caps are needed in a number of sports (football, F1....) and are watching the NFL with interest. Previous dominance was not always about the size of budget whereas the pendulum has swung in favour of the larger wallets.

Qualifying is undoubtably better, but is not the best it could be. Remove the TV and the money men; the teams/drivers would be happier with the fastest man approach rather than the convoluted, over-engineered approach we now have.

I feel the best approach on the engine front is a single engine for the event - qualifying and racing - but you need a form of penalty to prevent the Q/R engine approach again. 10 places is too harsh, but difficult to have something both fair and easy to understand........

 

[glojo]

Hi John,

The ol' man isn't convinced about costs saving on the premise that it's easier to take a high performance engine and increase performance substantially over taking the same engine and tripling it's lifespan - I bow to his wisdom as an ex-F1 engineer.

I feel the best approach on the engine front is a single engine for the event - qualifying and racing - but you need a form of penalty to prevent the Q/R engine approach again. 10 places is too harsh, but difficult to have something both fair and easy to understand........

The greatest of respect to your father. What teams did he work for?

To keep the engine thing simple why not punish the constructor as opposed to the driver? Perhaps one point deduction for the constructor's championship AFTER the team has earned a fixed number.... Ten maybe? Leave the drivers championship and do not punish drivers for unreliability problems. It is difficult for drivers to actually wreck engines (certainly not impossible)

I am still with you though one engine one race

John

 

[Ian B Walker]

If its about cost cutting on engines, let me throw this into the fire and see if it produces heat Lets say we go back to the days of slick tyres etc, but instead of a pertol engine lets try a diesel The drivers would have to work for their positions and in my opinion it would make for some interesting overtaking. The engines would probably (and I say probably) last longer. Over to you John

 

[glojo]

If its about cost cutting on engines, let me throw this into the fire and see if it produces heat Lets say we go back to the days of slick tyres etc, but instead of a pertol engine lets try a diesel The drivers would have to work for their positions and in my opinion it would make for some interesting overtaking. The engines would probably (and I say probably) last longer. Over to you John

Stupid boy...

I think both Mr E and I agree the big teams in Formula 1 are still pouring millions into engine development. The two race per engine has incurred perhaps more expense instead of less. Respect for Mr E's father "easier to take a high performance engine and increase performance substantially over taking the same engine and tripling it's lifespan"

I am laughing at the thought of a diesel spillage in the pits.... Seeing the ***FORTY plus pit crew sliding on this oil would be a sight to behold.

*** Me exaggerate

Regards
John the diesel fan

 

[saorbust]

V good thread this.

On the subject of rules - I see no reason for the 10 place rule, nor do I see a reason for the two engine race rule. Certainly not financially.

On the basis of commerical entertainment, maybe. The new qualifying format forces everyone out in a given timeframe, and appears to work (apart from the burning off fuel, but even then at least we see the cars....)

I think the rules and regs which are designed to restrict spending are actually having a net effect of zero. In fact all they serve to do is focus the spending in particular areas. This will benefit teams who can better apply and refocus resources in the short terms.

Its easy to see that an engine manufacturer will have a better time with a new V8 rule than someone who can purchase customer engines.

It effectively creates an elite group of teams who are better placed to dynamically allocate resources within their supply chain. Ferrari have excelled at this - but then they own their entire supply mechanism. I think they fell apart last year due to technical failings, but kept up (at least to some extent) for the former reason. Renault are brilliant at this, and McMerc are getting a lot lot better. I expect Honda to do well as well.

Slicks would be nice. The engine regs should just be left alone, or aligned closer to road cars. One engine per race meeting (ie, quali and race) would be nice - and if it blew up - have another go. But have a weight or fuel penalty - don't restrict the teams on a technical basis such as places to encourage overtaking. F1 drivers overtake when they have power and grip and confidence. We've been attacking the former for years.

 

[Mr E]

Ask any driver with a superlicence what they would do to improve F1 and they answer "aerodynamics". The reliance on clean air over the aero surfaces means that it becomes very difficult to overtake - and aero favours the team with the budget to have dedicated aero facilities........ aero has come to mean so much that "flexible" surfaces can make a huge difference in car performance, even mm's on bargeboards can redirect airflow to increase downforce and aid braking/cornering. But that's another topic......

I like the weight/fuel idea - this would be similar to BTCC where the previous winner carries a weight penalty? Makes for good racing.

John - can't name the team....he left after a major bust-up with the team principle and was paid enough to retire on and then some (he was 56 when he left) but mustn't talk about it.....non-red, non-silver, british-based european team. He worked with them for many years - touring car, DTM, F1 - which meant that I had a great life as a kid being driven around circuits and even getting the chance to drive touring cars on the track when a bit older. Sadly, never good enough to think about it as a career.....and didn't like to get my hands dirty. So becomes a pain when the new principle is a complete t9553r and your dad is someone who speaks his mind (and can throw a spanner!).

Mind you, always good for that phone call "I'm changing the brake pads on wifey's car - do you have a 7mm allen key......oh, you're coming over, cool....."

 

[glojo]

..... aero has come to mean so much that "flexible" surfaces can make a huge difference in car performance, even mm's on bargeboards can redirect airflow to increase downforce and aid braking/cornering. But that's another topic......

Boy am I envious of your travelling and of course experiences.

I cannot begin to guess what you mean by 'flexible' or barge boards

Great thread and we need to put the World to rights

Doh!! Every 'th' was typed 'ht'... Stupid keyboard

Nothing wrong with my typing.

John

 

[scumbag]

Right... my turn.

The teams are given 2.5kg of fuel for every lap they do. if they save 3 laps worth of fuel in the 8 laps they do before gunning it, they get 3 extra laps of race fuel for the race. the regulation stated the cars were weighed before the race and after, in practice they are weighed in the pit garage, leave at at a declared weight and are given a weight fuel allowance for every lap they complete.

easy way to stop this is actually wieght the car again. porblem is, no incentive to drive! now you have a sudden incentive to drive round and round. which may compromisze the reliablity a bit. so, altho i dont like it, i see the sense. and pole is won by the faster driver of the day still! the problem is it isnt indicative of the car performance, but more of strategy. thus meaning, to have car performance pole laps you need to allow low fuel.

so my idea would be to send the cars out in full race trim for the 1st 15mins. so every car is out on track doing the best in the same trim set up. knock the slowest off like as now, then allow light fuel and go for it. insist on a minimum of laps to be done. none have to be consecutive and add the times together. the fastest combined time of all laps gets pole. thus meaning all drivers must hammer it at all times for timed laps. obviously you would discount the in-out laps.

this way. all drivers need to push at all times. no slower teams benefit from running light early, tv veiwers see cars being pushed, and the race strategy doesnt affect pole performance. fastest car gets best slot. no fabricated grid. see.
easy.

and the good news is, from 2012 the restriction on engine size, and aerodynamics goes. you can do what you like. they are going to limit the amount of fuel you use for the full race distance.

so if you can do a 25ltr V78 supercharged/ sep-Turbo with 84bn BHP you can. as long as it does 305km on 2 quarts of 84RON unleaded from the local garage! and once speeds get ridiculous or dangerous, 1 quart of fuel.

I see the AUDI V10TDI is doing well in the le-mans series! diesel en-route?

 

[glojo]

and the good news is, from 2012 the restriction on engine size, and aerodynamics goes. you can do what you like. they are going to limit the amount of fuel you use for the full race distance.

It will be interesting to see if this happens. There are still rumblings from the big teams apart from Ferrari.

I am thinking about your thoughts on qualifying. I understand the first session where all cars go out in race trim, but am confused over the details of hte remaining process.

are you still advocating splitting the remaining qualifying into sections?

How long will you allow for removing fuel, then setting the car for qualifying?

What are the safety ramifications of removing fuel from a very hot car in the pits?

How many fast laps in each session?

What about cars that spin off, or break-down?

I am NOT being critical, I am merely curious and at present I have these questions buzzing around my empty head. Hopefully I will get a better understanding of your suggestions.

John

 

[scumbag]

hmmm, will try to add some ideas to me suggestion in the hope it adds some clarity. bear in mind, i know what i am banging on about, so i just assume that everyone else does. apolgies to those who are not directly conneted to my brain wave, just ask and i shall atempt to add.


now what was the question?


taking the fuel in or out of the car isnt a problem. apart from in the race, the fuel is put in or out using a device that doesnt fill it up very fast and is connected safely. it uses pressure to force the fuel out so they can drain the tank. they put fuel in and out of cars during the practice sessions like this, even hot cars. so quiet safe. but another way to look at it is to wiegh the cars. they can then remove the quantity of fuel needed for race conditons and subsititue it for wieght ballast. either way, the car will be at its race weight at the start of the session and the start of the race.

I think i would have the first 15mins, followed by a 5 min break. then another 15mins followed by a 5min break. this is what the TV companies ask for , so they dont go to ad breaks dring the qualifying lap. thats why for the last few years you had 5 cars then a 5 min break, then another 5 cars. the current idea doesnt allow for major setting changes for qualifying, mine will after the first session, but as its a team sport, quicker they work, more time for driving, slower they work mite penalise them.

I think i would insist that one of the 2 teams cars is on track at any one time, unless a mechanical breakdown occurs, then the car affected is placed on the grid by its fastest time in that session. the team then can do as they please with the other car for the remainder of that session. they have been penalised enough already.

i would then give the last session 30mins track time. this gives a total qualifiyng time of 1 hr. in a 1hr 10mins tv show. sorry to the james allen haters. still, you can mute the TV, it doesnt affect the result i notice. just lowers your stress levels.

the minimum number of laps changes at each circuit and is based on lap time. so what i would do is work out how many laps you can do in 15mins, and that becomes the minimum, thus meaning that they have to be out for at least half the session. but by allowing low fuel, they can do 3 lap shoot outs like the good old days. the idea allows the cars to be shown at peak performance. (Remember Mansell, Senna and that big nosed frenchy? and what about Keke's lap at Sillystone, the first 160MPH average lap)

mite just add, to keep the sport as it is, the amount being spent is self policing to a degree, ie, if you can afford it you are in, if not you are out. but the FIA also does not allow teams to make cars for others. this prevents lots of teams from entering as it costs too much. bit of a closed shop if you like. so remove that restriction, McLaren can make chassis for other teams. that way, if you have a year that does not have many entries, the top 3 teams must produce extra cars, as a privilidge of winning, but these cars must be run by independant outfits.

bear in mind, Red Bull will be runnning 4 cars under the guise of 2 teams in the future. so its an extension of this.

needs some work but i can be done.


oh, Sack Max and retire Bernie. spent forces, time to move on etc.

I cancelled my subscription to F1 Racing mag last month, as I was disgusted to find Max is now a contributor. I do not support this spin system the FIA is using to get is message across. unlike politicans who directly appeal to the voter, this man is not elected by the general public, and yet he preached to the general public thru the media. The teams and such like can do the same, but we dont have the power to choose. so its wrong. Max is just like his dad. an autocratic monoploy on all ideas and the font of all knowledge to boot!

Mr M Bishop, the Mag editor, even emailed me to explain why they allow him in, but i had to defend my actions. i have got several emails from Mr Bishop over it too. so i must have hit a nerve. but he has a magazine to run so i dont wish him any problems. as soon as Max goes, i may start my subscription again.

 

[glojo]

I think i would have the first 15mins, followed by a 5 min break. then another 15mins followed by a 5min break. this is what the TV companies ask for , so they dont go to ad breaks dring the qualifying lap. thats why for the last few years you had 5 cars then a 5 min break, then another 5 cars. the current idea doesnt allow for major setting changes for qualifying, mine will after the first session, but as its a team sport, quicker they work, more time for driving, slower they work mite penalise them.

I think i would insist that one of the 2 teams cars is on track at any one time, unless a mechanical breakdown occurs, then the car affected is placed on the grid by its fastest time in that session. the team then can do as they please with the other car for the remainder of that session. they have been penalised enough already.

i would then give the last session 30mins track time. this gives a total qualifiyng time of 1 hr. in a 1hr 10mins tv show. sorry to the james allen haters. still, you can mute the TV, it doesnt affect the result i notice. just lowers your stress levels.

I am slowly understanding where your coming from, but how will the final placing for the grid be sorted out?

Your first 15 minutes is with the cars in full race spec?

They all set times so there is a qualifying order?.....

What about cars that fail to set a timed lap?

Will all cars go through to the next session?

What happens with the qualifying times which of course should be faster?

Will all cars go through to the next session?

I am merely again asking these questions to get a better feel for where you are coming from. I bet you are kicking yourself trying to explain to someone that is a bit on the slow side? I apologise for that, but I value your comments and you have got my interest.

but the FIA also does not allow teams to make cars for others. this prevents lots of teams from entering as it costs too much.

What about the old Sauber which had Bridgestone tyres, Ferrari engine and gearbox! The paint was not red and the sponsers were different, does that make it okay?

You certainly cannot kick out Ecclestone, he is F1, plus does he and his wife own some of the circuits? I was sickened by the sight of him having an official Police escort at Hungary (similar in size to that given to their Head of State) plus they have named an Avenue after him????

John

 

[scumbag]

hmmm...stop asking questions.


i am taking the idea at present and refining it. so, the slowest in the first session, that being where ALL cars are in the race trim, are on the grid at present. the last 6 if you have 22 cars like now. same for the 2nd session, where my idea differs from the present is that, the session when all cars are out is the full load session to reduce the advantage. at the moment the teams run cars light in the hope they get to go thru. so you can run your MF1 ultra light and get thru the session to the next if the toyota has heavy fuel. the idea of qualiflying is not for show, but to determine the race order. the prize of pole goes to the fastest car. a meritocracy. if you artifically induce a constructed order, you stop the element or it being the faster car, to that of which way the dice rolls. i dont like that idea, so i think mine brings the balance back. everyone out in full load.

then we get to see the cars at full chat. but you dont want qualifying engines and tyres as that again artifically induces a result. but small adjustments to get the most out of your car in low weight high peformance laps is okay. adds to the spectacle. plus it is an advantage to be on pole so why not.

i would throw out any car that does not take part. same as the race. if you dont finish the race, you dont win. if you dont finish the qualifying, you dont get pole. if you dont set a time, or break down, same as the race, you are out.

by adding the times from the sessions together, you put pressure on them to drive hard, thus meaning they wont be fuel saving like they do at the moment. but by allowing them to have reduced wieght and stop, they can go for it, and pit again. by making them do a number of laps also means they will have to keep going out. this makes it fairer if it rains as all times will be added up, so they will have to drive as hard as they can in the wet. Tough job being the best driver in the world aint it? by making them go out and pressuring them for speed, means they are going to go for pole on each lap. thats what we want to see. but it keeps most of the elements of the sesssions at the moment so the TV people will be happy. i am just reorganising it to bring more competition to it. and it means the drivers get a work out, as they have to be careful but fast. thats what the best drivers should be doing.

am i making sense for you? i am trying. but i keep having to add bits to get my thoughts right.


as for Sauber, the rules of F1 means to be a constructor you must make the chassis yourself. the Sauber did that. Ferrari suplied them the engine. Ferrari did not supply or build their chassis. You may have noticed that BMW kept the name Sauber. This is so they can suggest it is independant if Max gets on about manufacturer teams. the discussion at the moment is to allow some chaissis manufactures to sell the chassis to a race team who then buy an engine and race it. now thats cheaper as you dont need the people in your race team to build a car. and it means that the teams who do have them, can off set the cost by selling chassis. this is similar to the american series where reynard and lola build all the cars...or is it Penske....whatever, all english anyway. McLaren could build a car for them but FIA rules in F1 prevent it. remove the rule, McLaren sell cars to the yanks, hey-presto, reduced costs! so the FIA or Max, to be more precise is using his spin to suggest that teams spend million and shouldn't get any extra money from TV revenue as they dont do anything for the show, and yet the FIA rules prevent them for finding other ways of acquiring income thus meaning they need to get into bed with the people who do give them the money.

Max is banking on the public not looking into the regulations. this is how bad he has become.

I have no problem with Bernie, but at 75 he is now too old and does not have the modern day approach, the world has moved on and he is still in the old days. As he says, F1 is bigger than 1 person. time to move on and prove it. He had the power to get the Indy race last year running. He didnt and as such, he prevented the race from happening. what we saw did not fit within the wording of "race!" The reason the FIA did not ban the teams from F1 was due to the fact that Bernie had his hands tide by Max. and you then couldnt do the teams if you had prevented them from racing. so he isnt all powerful like he thought he was. and the teams had made the legal position clear, so the teams did everything right, which means Max got it wrong and F1 suffered due to his blind indifference and indignant biligerance! Man is clearly a buffoon!

and anyway, Change is a good as a rest!

 

[blassberg]

rubens, schuey x 2, dc and massa engine penalties

 

[blassberg]

fisi, button or rosberg to win?
i think montoya starts 5th, kiki 6th, alonso 7, schum 14, massa 22