Oh wow that's brilliant! Thanks DHC. Interesting that unless Caterham are sandbagging they're nearly 2 seconds behind even in terms of race pace. Long-run pace of the mid-WCC teams wasn't too bad either.
Tyres: Yes, deliberately quick wearing tyres could indeed be cited as 'wasteful', as could a great deal more aspects of F1, including the race itself. However, as a concept, it has always been accepted that tyres are essential and that they will wear to a greater or lesser extent, and also that they are required for road cars. It is also accepted that a racing car uses a lot more fuel because it is a lot more powerful than a road car and is fundamentally important to producing power - which, once again, is still a requirement of a road car - whereas using fuel for anything other than providing engine power is not. Cold blowing: does not use any extra fuel. In this sense it is indeed completely 'free'; quite unlike using extra fuel to enhance the effect. The restrictive engine-mapping you mention has come about in an effort to discourage deliberate use of fuel to provide anything other than engine power. Innovation: I'm all for it too, so long as there is a tiny glimmer of justification for it, such that it might provide even the most tentative argument that it may eventually be of value outside F1, whilst not handing a golden egg to the greens who would do away with us. Using every drop: The point is that every drop which is used should not provide an argument against F1, which is precisely what has happened. At least when fuel is used in the commonly accepted manner as is required by a road car, it keeps the issue of fuel-usage on the back burner with tyres, as you mentioned. Reactive ride-height: I agree that this sort of innovation is justified. It definitely can be cited as of benefit to road cars and definitely provides a strong justification in motor racing's favour. DRS: This is more a case of personal preference. Yes, in my opinion, it's a gimmick; and so it will remain whilst it needs to be differently 'engineered' for every occasion by an agency external to the car, until its full potential is handed to the driver - which will likely never happen due to safety concerns. However, once again, whether one likes it or not DRS is not handing an open goal to the greens, since they have not the slightest interest in it. I also sympathise with your view on the FIA's frequently late changes of mind. For all manner of reasons, I have been highly critical of the FIA for donkey's years. But moving goal-posts with the changes of policy we have seen far too often and far too late in the day to be fair to innovators, especially when efforts have been made to ensure compliance, does not apply in this case: to their efforts to outlaw fuel usage in the manner we have been discussing.
what you mean it's got a hole in it? I had some f-ducts on my old Talbot if the F stands for ferric-oxide. Or did you just kick out the front and rear windscreens?
It's easy to criticise them but the problem the FIA has, as this hot-blowing issue has illustrated, is in securing F1's longevity when the teams are too short-sighted to consider the long-term and how their innovations look to the world beyond.
Everyone thought it wa great to send Stephen hawkings and his whole medical crew up in a jumbo jet so he could feel the effects of weightlessness, now that really is a waste of ****ing fuel.
There is an inlet on the the front of the car and a hole in the gearstick, when you cover the hole in the gearstick in stalls the rear windscreen wiper and boosts top speed.
German Update: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...edes-findet-software-schlupfloch-4443852.html Renault engines were not involved in the whole stuff. RBR never used hot blowing anyways.
That explains Autosport's use of the Mercedes photo. That is the team that alerted them and with whom they have been working to eradicate the possibility. So Renault kept schtum. I wonder if they'd worked it out, too.
[video=youtube;Qo_sLLRzv0U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo_sLLRzv0U[/video] [video=youtube;I9mJodj8utw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9mJodj8utw[/video] [video=youtube;D6suilKvFhw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6suilKvFhw[/video]
Analysis of the pecking order from various "experts": http://www.blick.ch/sport/formel1/ferrari-ist-im-elend-id1782228.html
Auto Motor und Sport put Ferrari in 9th!! Wowsers. Does go to show how impressive Force India have been mind. Not sure why people are so positive about Mercedes either, they haven't exactly impressed me at any point with the new car yet.
To put those predictions into some sort of perspective, the last time Ferrari were 6th or worse, Bernie Ecclestone was in his 40s.
I can see Ferrari starting the season 4th/5th fastest and quickly getting up to 2nd/3rd fastest in less than 4 races. They didn't look great in testing but they also didn't look bad either.
AMuS have lost all credibility in one fell swoop in my eyes. Ridiculous analysis. My own prediction would be: Red Bull McLaren Ferrari Lotus Mercedes Force India Sauber Toro Rosso Williams Caterham HRT Virgin
Ah... I miss the days when we could expect something like: 1 Fernando 2 Massa 3 Vettel 4 Button 5 Raikkonen 6 Schumacher . . . . . . 24 Hamilton
