Official: Testing Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
AbsolutelyGlorious said:
Unlike, say, designing tyres to be fast wearing?



This is exactly my understanding of it too.

Ok my post last night was a bit impetuous. Of course I understand why they outlawed hot blowing of the diffuser, and the exhaust repositioning as an added measure to stop teams pursuing alternatives. But the cold blowing presumably only results in a small increase in fuel economy, especially with the restrictive fuel maps they're now forced to adhere to. It's the general war on innovation that's really frustrating me. Whiting was apparently going round the pitlane in Jerez checking that the exhaust positions weren't affecting aerodynamics, in this case a practice such as blowing the beam wing is recycling a waste product into something useful, which is in keeping with the general 'green' philosophy. Ok it's not reducing carbon output in anyway, but the mentality of using every drop of what's available is the right one. And the one which really angered me was the Lotus reactive ride height system, which was clearly legal in how it worked, and the FIA gave them the green light to design, research and refine the system for a full year before banning before they had chance to race it. I don't know how allowing a research and development team with a restrictive budget to spend a year fruitlessly designing a concept which they were going to outlaw any way isn't wasteful.

Oh, and I really hate DRS.
Click to expand...


  • 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.
 
sea-man said:
Thats not true, my mum got an F-duct on her Nissan Micra last year, very good it is to.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Miggins said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
[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]
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back