Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2010 Formula One Thread

bartelby said:
Yeah, but a nice drive by Alonso...
Click to expand...

The question is whether this is gonna be a year where the brittleness of the Red Bull is again gonna cause them problems - is this exhaust problem going to be a feature of the season, for example?

EDIT: On a similar note, after all the criticisms of Eddie Jordan last year, I'm gonna get really peeved off if DC continues to talk predominantly about Red Bull. I think he forgets that Renault had no engine failures last year.
 
MOFS said:
The question is whether this is gonna be a year where the brittleness of the Red Bull is again gonna cause them problems - is this exhaust problem going to be a feature of the season, for example?
Click to expand...

Again? The only brittleness last year was Renault engines, something that looked like it was almost going to be a problem before the second corner today.
 
SpookTheHamster said:
Again? The only brittleness last year was Renault engines, something that looked like it was almost going to be a problem before the second corner today.
Click to expand...

Didn't Martin believe that Webber's smoke was overfilling of oil rather than an engine failure? It seems that what seems to be Red Bull's problem is their installation of the engine and all the connecting parts, as Renault themselves don't seem to have the same problems.
 
Well that was boring. At least Hamilton drove well. 3rd with a bad car in S2 is pretty damn impressive. I wonder if he'd been closer to the Ferrari's if he hadn't gotten stuck behind Rosberg.
 
Great effort by Lotus to complete the race with both cars (more or less). And even finish in front of one of the more established cars.
 
Well that was a little boring. I don't think it helped that I caught a glimpse of the press conference while trying to pad the DVR. :(

I hope this isn't indicative of the races to come. I've never been a big fan of this track, so hopefully that was the issue with the spread field more than anything else.

I think by race 3 or 4 we'll start to see the back of the field fighting more. Unfortunately, I think 12+ will be well out of contention to even hope for a 10th spot.
 
I think more races will be like this one than not. Heavy with fuel in the beginning, maybe one stop for tires, so they can't push all the time lest they need to stop again.
Someone tell me again why no refueling was supposed to make the races better?
 
Counterfit said:
I think more races will be like this one than not. Heavy with fuel in the beginning, maybe one stop for tires, so they can't push all the time lest they need to stop again.
Someone tell me again why no refueling was supposed to make the races better?
Click to expand...

It's supposed to have effects on tyre degredation (heavier cars wear down their tyres quicker), on handling (with the heavier cars being more rear weight balanced), and there was supposed to be a strategic effect with teams occasionally having to go to a low performance/ increased fuel efficiency mix. What happened today seems to indicate that the teams were quite conservative with little chance of any cars running out of fuel.
 
Counterfit said:
I think more races will be like this one than not. Heavy with fuel in the beginning, maybe one stop for tires, so they can't push all the time lest they need to stop again.
Someone tell me again why no refueling was supposed to make the races better?
Click to expand...

Refuelling was primarily banned because it will save the teams significant amounts of money. Carrying massive fuel rigs (at least two per team) around the world was expensive and completely unnecessary.

Refuelling was also very dangerous, as seen in the incidents involving Jos Verstappen in 1994, Felipe Massa in 2008 and Kimi Raikkonen in 2009.

For me as a fan, the best thing about it is that it now means that cars must overtake on track. I've watched so many races and been bored by drivers just waiting for pit stops in order to gain positions. When you gain a position in the pit lane you're not overtaking at all.

Also, refuelling itself is not interesting to watch. It's a hose being connected to a car and the only time it becomes interesting is when it also becomes dangerous when things go wrong.

The reason today's race was dull was because almost all of the teams followed the same strategy. There's a risk of this happening again, and the main way I can see of mitigating this is to remove the rule which states that cars must use both compounds of tyre. This would mean that we could have drivers who make no pit stops during a race, but of course they wouldn't gain the advantage of having fresh tyres half way through. We'd then be in a situation where a car could be leading a race (possibly someone who started further down the field) but is being chased by cars which are significantly faster as they have fresh tyres.

The rule which states that the top 10 drivers must start the race on their qualifying tyres is absolute nonsense and I see no reason why it was implemented. It serves only to confuse spectators, just like the two tyre compounds confuse spectators.
 
neiltc13 said:
Refuelling was primarily banned because it will save the teams significant amounts of money. Carrying massive fuel rigs (at least two per team) around the world was expensive and completely unnecessary.

Refuelling was also very dangerous, as seen in the incidents involving Jos Verstappen in 1994, Felipe Massa in 2008 and Kimi Raikkonen in 2009.

For me as a fan, the best thing about it is that it now means that cars must overtake on track. I've watched so many races and been bored by drivers just waiting for pit stops in order to gain positions. When you gain a position in the pit lane you're not overtaking at all.

Also, refuelling itself is not interesting to watch. It's a hose being connected to a car and the only time it becomes interesting is when it also becomes dangerous when things go wrong.

The reason today's race was dull was because almost all of the teams followed the same strategy. There's a risk of this happening again, and the main way I can see of mitigating this is to remove the rule which states that cars must use both compounds of tyre. This would mean that we could have drivers who make no pit stops during a race, but of course they wouldn't gain the advantage of having fresh tyres half way through. We'd then be in a situation where a car could be leading a race (possibly someone who started further down the field) but is being chased by cars which are significantly faster as they have fresh tyres.

The rule which states that the top 10 drivers must start the race on their qualifying tyres is absolute nonsense and I see no reason why it was implemented. It serves only to confuse spectators, just like the two tyre compounds confuse spectators.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that most teams went for the same strategy, and that it is still very difficult to overtake - the cars are just too sensitive in the "dirty air" to make a pass possible unless the speed differential is large.
 
I like the new Red Bull "smokescreen option" from Q Branch. It worked well, knocking two strong cars out at the start. ;)

And yes, bummer for Vettel, but that he held on for fourth shows even with a bum engine, he can make his car work (and it shows well for the car, IMO).
 
All in all, the hype quickly deteriorated into a pretty boring race. Felt bad for my boy Vettel. He's my pick for the WC.

I'm off to the 12 Hours of Sebring day after tomorrow. That should make up for it.
 
neiltc13 said:
Refuelling was primarily banned because it will save the teams significant amounts of money. Carrying massive fuel rigs (at least two per team) around the world was expensive and completely unnecessary.

Refuelling was also very dangerous, as seen in the incidents involving Jos Verstappen in 1994, Felipe Massa in 2008 and Kimi Raikkonen in 2009.

For me as a fan, the best thing about it is that it now means that cars must overtake on track. I've watched so many races and been bored by drivers just waiting for pit stops in order to gain positions. When you gain a position in the pit lane you're not overtaking at all.

Also, refuelling itself is not interesting to watch. It's a hose being connected to a car and the only time it becomes interesting is when it also becomes dangerous when things go wrong.

The reason today's race was dull was because almost all of the teams followed the same strategy. There's a risk of this happening again, and the main way I can see of mitigating this is to remove the rule which states that cars must use both compounds of tyre. This would mean that we could have drivers who make no pit stops during a race, but of course they wouldn't gain the advantage of having fresh tyres half way through. We'd then be in a situation where a car could be leading a race (possibly someone who started further down the field) but is being chased by cars which are significantly faster as they have fresh tyres.

The rule which states that the top 10 drivers must start the race on their qualifying tyres is absolute nonsense and I see no reason why it was implemented. It serves only to confuse spectators, just like the two tyre compounds confuse spectators.
Click to expand...

and i totally agree with you .. all this "both types of tires have to be used" is simply confusing

and o nthe other side i'm sure fuel economy/performance per ltier will become more important over the season when teams start to push it with saving fuel weight

this race was simply about looking where each teams stands and how well they are together compared to the competition andso far it looks like ferrari (as usual) is fast after new rules are introduced and red bull is also fast but has reliability issues
 
djellison said:
But quite evidently, they can't (overtake).
Click to expand...

Well I think the new section and all it's turns and surface undulations really hurt. It looked like it prevented any kind of rhythm a driver could use to set up a pass further on.

But if they can't pass at Melbourne or Sepang, then I'll start to get worried.
 
CWallace said:
Well I think the new section and all it's turns and surface undulations really hurt. It looked like it prevented any kind of rhythm a driver could use to set up a pass further on.

But if they can't pass at Melbourne or Sepang, then I'll start to get worried.
Click to expand...

they never have before why would they now? i'd be worried already if i were you.

TechieJustin said:
US F1 The debacle of debacles.

Lesson: don't start an F1 team int he middle of a recession.
Click to expand...

or in a country that doesn't give a **** about it... but it is more than that. it seemed to be a spur of the moment deal and that was the death knell,imho, get some things in place and then pace yourself. once it was announced it was all a mad dash to get on the grid asap.... not a good recipe for success.
 
benlangdon said:
do the the holes do anything, which they are not supposed to?
Click to expand...

From AUTOSPORT.

Such a hole in the diffuser helps create another tunnel for air to flow through - which as well as helping to produce more downforce, also ensures such downforce is more consistent throughout a lap - especially under braking, when the rear of the car rises up and the airflow can stall.
Click to expand...
 
I love how the FIA closed this loophole as not being 'in the spirit of the rules' but the McLaren f-duct completely goes along with that spirit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back