I think the only promise she ever had was to be a distraction from the real talent and action.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2014 Formula 1 Thread
- Thread starter RaceTripper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I think the only promise she ever had was to be a distraction from the real talent and action.
The problem was they thought they wouldn't have to spend a few years at the bottom. Unreasonable expectations.
Dallara is physically close to Ferrari so it makes chassis/power unit integration easier. I expect they will chose Italy for their European base and not Northamptonshire (where all the F1 teams sans Scuderia Ferrari are).
There has been a fair bit of speculation that if "customer cars" are allowed back in Formula One, Haas would be the Ferrari customer team. Some speculate that Haas is waiting until 2016 in part to see if customer cars happen by then.
Beyond just the power unit, the FIA is trying to mandate more and more of the cars be "common components" supplied by a single source (such as the ECU's provided by McLaren Electronic Systems and the side pod(?) components provided by Red Bull Technology). There is also talk of a common active suspension design across the cars. Being able to buy those parts "off the shelf" will help reduce the Haas' start-up costs.
There has been a fair bit of speculation that if "customer cars" are allowed back in Formula One, Haas would be the Ferrari customer team. Some speculate that Haas is waiting until 2016 in part to see if customer cars happen by then.
Beyond just the power unit, the FIA is trying to mandate more and more of the cars be "common components" supplied by a single source (such as the ECU's provided by McLaren Electronic Systems and the side pod(?) components provided by Red Bull Technology). There is also talk of a common active suspension design across the cars. Being able to buy those parts "off the shelf" will help reduce the Haas' start-up costs.
just what Haas said, they tried to get set up too quickly. they probably should have been a little more patient and set the goal for two years after they originally announced.
I don't see active suspension coming back. McLaren and Williams offered it to competitors and FIA still banned it.
If FIA really wants competition, they should stop changing the rules every year. It's the constant rules changes more than the absolute difference in budgets that keeps smaller teams down.
FIA should make F1 a technology showcase again. You don't need a fuel capacity limit (it's redundant) when you have a fuel rate limit. Moreover, you don't need an engine specification when you have a fuel rate limit. Let the teams do whatever they want engine-wise.
It will also kill the sport. If I wanted to see 22 identical cars following each other round, I'd watch Formula Ford or Renult.
If F1 is going to continue to be popular, driving costs down can not be one of the key factors. I want to see teams being pushed to find that 2/10ths of a second a lap. If they spend £500000 doing it, who cares?
They are similar but not redundant. If the cars went full throttle 100% of the time, then they would be redundant. By allowing a higher flow rate during peak performance but setting a capacity limit for the whole race you are forcing the teams to engineer when and where they use their fuel.
----------
I totally agree. F1 is a constructors league that should be at the forefront of designing the next best thing. Limiting how much they spend hampers innovation.
I don't mind the regenerative power mandates and the reduction in engine size per say, because it is still encouraging development in performance. We don't need to go bigger always to get more out of something.
The fuel flow limit is liters per hour, not per second. Either permitted capacity exceeds the sum of the fuel flows, in which case nobody will actually use that capacity because they want to save weight, or it's less in which case the fuel flow limit doesn't limit anything. Like I said, redundant. FIA, make up your mind.
My point is the FIA shouldn't care what kind of engine you have or how you use your allotted fuel. If you want to run a 20,000 RPM 12-cylinder beast, so what? There is no need for a rule to ban such an engine, since you'll probably run out of fuel during the race. You want to run a rotary or a gas turbine? The more the merrier.
In any case fuel economy makes an insufferably boring racing scheme. I hate when political correctness infects sports. Plus it's plain schizophrenic. You ban all sorts of cool tech because they allegedly eliminate the driver (which isn't true), but then have crap like fuel flow limits and quick-degrading tires that make the team and their racks of computers even more important than they were before.
Nobody said anything about kg/sec.
The limits are 100 kg per race and 100 kg per hour. While most races lasting ~1.5 hours. So if you ran at Max flow you would run out long before the end of the race.
----------
Watching an open extreme class race would be even more boring... Prescribing some rules and classifications helps keep all competitors closer together and actually "Racing"
Fuel economy is the way the world is going, and racing has always been at the leading front of design. If they can design a car with the limits and still go faster and produce more power who loses?? We all gain hopefully at some point their design changes will filter down to production vehicles.
Then why have a flow limit? It's useless, nobody is going to burn fuel at an average rate higher than 66 kg/hour if they want to finish the race. And since F1 cars run full throttle 70-80% of the time, there is very little difference between the average and maximum fuel burn rate.
----------
Then why constrain engine design? Radical engines aren't boring. Give the teams their 100kg of fuel and let them have at it. If somebody wants to try something different we should encourage it, not ban it. There's very little you can use from an F1 car in a passenger car anyway.
If a teams max flow rate was say 150 kg/hr vs 100 kg/hr. It would effectively be a "push to pass button" which they got rid of with kers. So by limiting everyone to the same flow rate no one has a extra boost button up on anyone else.
Radical engines can be fun and then sometimes they are just absurd. Reining it in some and focusing the development to certain aspects keeps the race tight and exciting.
I love Hamilton and have been one of his fans for years, however watching him and Nico race this year hasn't been all that exciting. Now Canada was a nail bitter and then an aww crap!!!
It's more fun to watch the races when at least 3-4 teams are competitive.
With a required average fuel flow of 66 kg/hour a maximum fuel flow of 100 kg/hour is already a push to pass button. If you're behind on your fuel consumption an extra 5 seconds of burning 50% more fuel for a crucial passing attempt has little effect on your average fuel flow. Besides, I thought we wanted more passing, not less, that's why DRS exists.
I say allow skirts, turbos, v12s, refuelling, bigger tyres, traction control, huge spoilers, exhausts that flow anywhere they want and as much fuel as you want.
Then let the fun begin!
Then let the fun begin!
I get that - but I heard they got lifetime bans from the FIA, which seems.... excessive for being enthusiastic. Wondering if there was something behind the scenes that the FIA found out about.
Yeah baby! I'm there. Don't forget about sucker fans like the Chaparral's, and multiple steering wheels like the old Tyrrell's. I really think they need to bring back refuelling too. How bout a weight penalty too. Win the race, the next one you're saddled with extra pounds. Cheers
I've heard that the reason we have "power units" now is that many of the manufacturers see F1 as a testing/proving/developmental area for technologies that could potentially make it to their street cars.
Given that, maybe active suspensions aren't dead after all, but V12s probably are.
Given that, maybe active suspensions aren't dead after all, but V12s probably are.
The F1 Strategy Group (which includes the FIA) is considering it because a common AS setup would be cheaper than the current mechanical setups being engineered by each team.
For F1 to continue to survive, there cannot be unlimited budgets. Eventually, all the privateer teams (like Williams, Sauber, Force India) will be forced out and only factory teams from the major auto manufacturers will remain and we've seen manufacturers leave after not meeting their expectations (Toyota, Honda, BMW).
We could see Formula One suffer the same fate of FIA Group C where the costs became so high that only manufacturers remained and they eventually pulled out and the series collapsed.
Nissan and Porsche both joined the WEC with LMP1 (Le Mans Prototypes) rather than F1 because of what they felt was WEC being more relevant to road car production than F1 (where the emphasis on performance is predominately aerodynamic in nature).
Renault was one of the major drivers of the current Power Units. They threatened to leave F1 if the FIA did not change the rules to make F1 engine technology more relevant to consumer automobiles (hence turbos and hybrid power).
Last edited:
Seems Montezemolo is pissed and is threatening to pull Ferrari out. Sabre rattling or maybe some truth of going into WEC? http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/ferrari-could-leave-formula-one-1402679223?mobile=y
In terms of sporting philosophy I agree with Montezemolo.
Plus FIA's notion that using fewer engines and transmissions in a season reduces costs is absurd. The real cost of those items is not in their construction, but in R&D, and the R&D costs required to make much more reliable engines and transmissions destroys (and then some) any financial benefit gained from using fewer engines in a season. The same goes for the rules. Stable rules mean lower costs. The constant annual rules changes to "save costs" do nothing but increase costs and reduce competition.
Plus FIA's notion that using fewer engines and transmissions in a season reduces costs is absurd. The real cost of those items is not in their construction, but in R&D, and the R&D costs required to make much more reliable engines and transmissions destroys (and then some) any financial benefit gained from using fewer engines in a season. The same goes for the rules. Stable rules mean lower costs. The constant annual rules changes to "save costs" do nothing but increase costs and reduce competition.
Completely agree with you! I think bringing back in race refueling and having an unlimited number of tires would go really far to bringing the spectacle back. No more of this coasting to save tires or fuel. There have been some great races this season, but also some really boring ones too. And lets not get started about the sound. Its good, but its no V10.
Alonso was the starter at Le Mans today. He looked pretty relaxed. Course he was wearing a suit jacket with the Ferrari emblem on the pocket. Hey, he's a company man. Rumors that Ferrari might jump in to LMP1. Wonder if he might be considering a turn at the wheel. I'd guess that all drivers of his accomplishments and ability would relish a chance at winning Le Mans. Don't think anyone is gonna catch up or beat Tom Kristensen's record though, 9 wins. I'm hoping he makes it 10!
While I would love to see Ferrari go back to Endurance racing, I definitely don't want it to be at the risk of loosing F1.
Ferrari will never leave F1. They might threaten to if things don't go their way, but it will never happen IMO.
exactly.
LM is correct that nobody watches F1 for the efficiency though… he he he…
- Status