Can I learn the ip-address of the person whose comment is in my blog?
What the current RASF1 opinion barometer says..
Hello Guest		   
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog		   • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels		   • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests		   • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search		   • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru		   • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online		  
Register!
CarGuru > Formula-1 > What the current RASF1 opinion barometer says.. 7 March 2005 11:15:46
  Recent blog posts: 
starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

;-)
;-)­

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

gandon.......
gandon.......

you
you

  Forums:   
    topic feeds

• CarGuru  all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous
  Discuss: 
Donington gets planning…
That's about it, really. Wonder if they still think they can get the money? The story's on the BBC…

New F1 Website
Please take a look at my F1 website It is fairly new, so i would really appreciate some visitors…

A buck?
I have a twenty in my pocket right now. Could I have gotten the team? -- - dillon I am not invalid…
  Recent forum topics: 
mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…

...96 Accord tranny issue
I have a 1996 honda accord ex automatic. on a cold start the car shits gears realitively fine. however…

i just want to find out how…
i just want to find out how much it will cost to change an ignition to a 2001 pontiac grand am and can i…
  Recent forum comments:
RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: 2001 PT Cruiser Problems??????
lor

RE: turn signal problams
Try a new flasher because it's cheaper. If that doesn't work then you probably need a new turn signal…

RE: Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
Well, I passed on the 4th roadtest. The examiner said I should have passed it the first time. I have…

RE: Still trying to find an NB…
Anon wrote: I got the real thing last year for $55 from Trussville Mazda…

RE: Re: 1996 neon problems.. :(
no spark

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?
  Ìîäåðàòîð:
 Administrator

What the current RASF1 opinion barometer says..

Mark Atkins 6 March 2005 23:19:13
 ..that the new qualifiying is crap
...that the no-tyre-change regs are crap
...that the pit-stop crews have a strong union
...that MS *must* have had an off-day..
...that JPM went to sleep
...that the new engine regs are full of holes.

and just think, farty little 2.4-litre V8s next year, just to crown the heap
of crap..

--
Ciao for now,

Mark
"Habt ihr einen letzten Wunsch?"
"Ja, das Lied von der Super-perforator Werbung."


Add comment
Vile Merchant 6 March 2005 23:24:23 [ permanent link ]
 
"Mark Atkins" <mark_atkins@freene­t.de> wrote in message
news:422b57b0$0$257­69$9b622d9e@news.fre­enet.de...> ..that the new qualifiying is crap> ...that the no-tyre-change regs are crap> ...that the pit-stop crews have a strong union> ...that MS *must* have had an off-day..> ...that JPM went to sleep> ...that the new engine regs are full of holes.>
and just think, farty little 2.4-litre V8s next year, just to crown the
heap> of crap..

I can hear Mr.Mosley laughing already :(­


Add comment
F2004: 15 of 17*** 6 March 2005 23:26:22 [ permanent link ]
 On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:19:13 +0100, "Mark Atkins"
<mark_atkins@freene­t.de> wrote:>..that the new qualifiying is crap>...that the no-tyre-change regs are crap>...that the pit-stop crews have a strong union>...that MS *must* have had an off-day..>...that JPM went to sleep>...that the new engine regs are full of holes.>
and just think, farty little 2.4-litre V8s next year, just to crown the heap>of crap..

"Thank the fucking British, kids..."

Add comment
Phil Newnham 6 March 2005 23:50:37 [ permanent link ]
 Mark Atkins wrote:> ..that the new qualifiying is crap> ...that the no-tyre-change regs are crap> ...that the pit-stop crews have a strong union> ...that MS *must* have had an off-day..> ...that JPM went to sleep> ...that the new engine regs are full of holes.>
and just think, farty little 2.4-litre V8s next year, just to crown the heap> of crap..

I don't know if V8s will make any difference, apart from the sound.
They're already saying they can get 850bhp out of them.

I want to see:

...1 tyre manufacturer
...no refuelling during a race
...no stupid rules about not refuelling between qually and race
...1 hour qually, 12 laps each
...no height restriction on front wings
...no diffusers, not even a little one
...limited width and chord, max 2 element wings, front and rear
...slick tyres
...no ban on changing the tyres
...suitable restrictions on engines that keep the power levels sensible
but allow for technical creativity
...no silly rules about using engines for 2 races

All for 2008, all fixed and in place by the middle of this season, so no
excuses for turning up and not being ready.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.­com/photographer/313­07.html
Add comment
Pete Fenelon 7 March 2005 00:26:14 [ permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:>
I want to see:>
...1 tyre manufacturer

Control tyres, no choice of compounds.
...no refuelling during a race

Better still, an FIA-mandated tank "big enough" to do the race, filled
and sealed before the start of the race. (Sufficient fuel for 110% race
distance).
...no stupid rules about not refuelling between qually and race

No refuelling.
...1 hour qually, 12 laps each> ...no height restriction on front wings

No front wings.> ...no diffusers, not even a little one

No diffusers at all.
...limited width and chord, max 2 element wings, front and rear

One element rear wing.
25mm ground clearance, not 10mm plank.

I want to see downforce at about 20% of its current level, at most.
...slick tyres> ...no ban on changing the tyres> ...suitable restrictions on engines that keep the power levels sensible > but allow for technical creativity> ...no silly rules about using engines for 2 races>
All for 2008, all fixed and in place by the middle of this season, so no > excuses for turning up and not being ready.>

agreed.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
Add comment
Phil Newnham 7 March 2005 00:39:08 [ permanent link ]
 Pete Fenelon wrote:> Phil Newnham <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:>
I want to see:>>
...1 tyre manufacturer> Control tyres, no choice of compounds.

Yup, fair enough.
...no refuelling during a race>
Better still, an FIA-mandated tank "big enough" to do the race, filled> and sealed before the start of the race. (Sufficient fuel for 110% race> distance).

Why? Just don't let them put more in after the lights go out, and let
the teams decide how big a tank they need - if they run out, its their
own stupid fault.
...no stupid rules about not refuelling between qually and race>
No refuelling.

They should be allowed to refuel before the race starts, because
qualifying on race fuel is a crap rule.
...1 hour qually, 12 laps each>>...no height restriction on front wings>
No front wings.

They'd look silly without them.
...no diffusers, not even a little one>
No diffusers at all.>
...limited width and chord, max 2 element wings, front and rear>
One element rear wing.> 25mm ground clearance, not 10mm plank.>
I want to see downforce at about 20% of its current level, at most.

I don't want to reduce it that far. I don't want to see F3000 cars
cornering quicker than F1.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.­com/photographer/313­07.html
Add comment
Pete Fenelon 7 March 2005 00:48:41 [ permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:>> Better still, an FIA-mandated tank "big enough" to do the race, filled>> and sealed before the start of the race. (Sufficient fuel for 110% race>> distance).>
Why? Just don't let them put more in after the lights go out, and let > the teams decide how big a tank they need - if they run out, its their > own stupid fault.

Oh no, it's quite simple. Qualify on fumes, 'cos that's much more
interesting. Then you put an FIA-mandated 200-odd litres in at the
start of the race, seal the tank, and off you go. Everyone's carrying
the same load. No refuelling at all. Nobody runs out of fuel.
No front wings.>
They'd look silly without them.

They didn't in the early 80s. Then again the cars were a sensible size ;)
I don't want to reduce it that far. I don't want to see F3000 cars > cornering quicker than F1.>

Other formulae would of course lose downforce proportionally. F3 would
be wingless, F3000-level formulae would have small wings. ;)

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
Add comment
Phil Newnham 7 March 2005 01:16:08 [ permanent link ]
 Pete Fenelon wrote:> Phil Newnham <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:>
Better still, an FIA-mandated tank "big enough" to do the race, filled>>>and sealed before the start of the race. (Sufficient fuel for 110% race>>>distance).>>­
Why? Just don't let them put more in after the lights go out, and let >>the teams decide how big a tank they need - if they run out, its their >>own stupid fault.>
Oh no, it's quite simple. Qualify on fumes, 'cos that's much more> interesting. Then you put an FIA-mandated 200-odd litres in at the> start of the race, seal the tank, and off you go. Everyone's carrying> the same load. No refuelling at all. Nobody runs out of fuel.

I'd want to see them gain an advantage from having an efficient engine -
with your plan, they gain a weight advantage by using as much of the 200
litres as possible.
No front wings.>>
They'd look silly without them.>
They didn't in the early 80s. Then again the cars were a sensible size ;)>
I don't want to reduce it that far. I don't want to see F3000 cars >>cornering quicker than F1.>
Other formulae would of course lose downforce proportionally. F3 would> be wingless, F3000-level formulae would have small wings. ;)

Hmmm maybe. Still sounds a bit too emasculated to me.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.­com/photographer/313­07.html
Add comment
Guest 7 March 2005 04:12:29 [ permanent link ]
 Pete Fenelon <pete@fenelon.com> wrote:
Phil Newnham <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:>>> Better still, an FIA-mandated tank "big enough" to do the race, filled>>> and sealed before the start of the race. (Sufficient fuel for 110% race>>> distance).>>
Why? Just don't let them put more in after the lights go out, and let >> the teams decide how big a tank they need - if they run out, its their >> own stupid fault.>
Oh no, it's quite simple. Qualify on fumes, 'cos that's much more>interesting. Then you put an FIA-mandated 200-odd litres in at the>start of the race, seal the tank, and off you go. Everyone's carrying>the same load. No refuelling at all. Nobody runs out of fuel.>
No front wings.>>
They'd look silly without them.>
They didn't in the early 80s. Then again the cars were a sensible size ;)>

Cars without front wings in the 80s?
Add comment
Drp535 7 March 2005 07:09:01 [ permanent link ]
 On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:50:37 +0000, Phil Newnham
<dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:
I want to see:>
...1 tyre manufacturer

why? the advantages of one tyre over another on a particular track or
weather is one of the last things that make F1 in its current sad state
remotely unpredictable and interesting for the viewer.
...no refuelling during a race

had that in the 80's
...no stupid rules about not refuelling between qually and race

had that in the 80's
...1 hour qually, 12 laps each

had that in the 80's
...no height restriction on front wings

had that in the 80's
...no diffusers, not even a little one

had that in the 80's
...limited width and chord, max 2 element wings, front and rear

had that in the 80's
...slick tyres

had that in the 80's
...no ban on changing the tyres

had that in the 80's
...suitable restrictions on engines that keep the power levels sensible >but allow for technical creativity

had that in the 80's
...no silly rules about using engines for 2 races

had that in the 80's

What about a sensible and logical points system as well? Like one that runs
9,6,4,3,2,1 for example? Guess what?

had that in the 80's too.

Everyone wants to go back to what worked in the 80's. Nothing wrong with
that I say.
Add comment
Drp535 7 March 2005 07:11:32 [ permanent link ]
 On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:48:41 +0000, Pete Fenelon <pete@fenelon.com> wrote:
Phil Newnham <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:>>> Better still, an FIA-mandated tank "big enough" to do the race, filled>>> and sealed before the start of the race. (Sufficient fuel for 110% race>>> distance).>>
Why? Just don't let them put more in after the lights go out, and let >> the teams decide how big a tank they need - if they run out, its their >> own stupid fault.>
Oh no, it's quite simple. Qualify on fumes, 'cos that's much more>interesting. Then you put an FIA-mandated 200-odd litres in at the>start of the race, seal the tank, and off you go. Everyone's carrying>the same load. No refuelling at all. Nobody runs out of fuel.>
No front wings.>>
They'd look silly without them.>
They didn't in the early 80s.

Ah yes they did. Those Williams and Brabhams without front wings were the
gheyest looking things out there.
Add comment
Bob Dubery 7 March 2005 07:38:46 [ permanent link ]
 
Mark Atkins wrote:> ..that the new qualifiying is crap
Agreed.
...that the no-tyre-change regs are crap
That remains to be seen.
...that the pit-stop crews have a strong union> ...that MS *must* have had an off-day..
Look at how Rubinho went.
...that JPM went to sleep
That would require him to have been awake in the first place
...that the new engine regs are full of holes.
This is a surprise?>
and just think, farty little 2.4-litre V8s next year, just to crown
the heap> of crap..

I don't see that as a problem - or as a plus. I can't see it effecting
the racing other than to reduce the need for refuelling stops.

Add comment
Guest 7 March 2005 10:40:09 [ permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:
Mark Atkins wrote:>> ..that the new qualifiying is crap>> ...that the no-tyre-change regs are crap>> ...that the pit-stop crews have a strong union>> ...that MS *must* have had an off-day..>> ...that JPM went to sleep>> ...that the new engine regs are full of holes.>>
and just think, farty little 2.4-litre V8s next year, just to crown the heap>> of crap..>
I don't know if V8s will make any difference, apart from the sound. >They're already saying they can get 850bhp out of them.>
I want to see:>
...1 tyre manufacturer>...no refuelling during a race>...no stupid rules about not refuelling between qually and race>...1 hour qually, 12 laps each
<snip>

Why limit to 12 laps? Why not 1 hour, as many laps as you like?
Add comment
Bob Dubery 7 March 2005 11:15:46 [ permanent link ]
 
DRP535 wrote:> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:50:37 +0000, Phil Newnham> <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:>
I want to see:> >
...1 tyre manufacturer>
why? the advantages of one tyre over another on a particular track or> weather is one of the last things that make F1 in its current sad
state> remotely unpredictable and interesting for the viewer.>
...no refuelling during a race>
had that in the 80's
When was that banned exactly? It was allowed but not common during the
70s. I would think it came about to make life difficult for the turbo
cars.
...no stupid rules about not refuelling between qually and race>
had that in the 80's>
...1 hour qually, 12 laps each>
had that in the 80's
In fact they had pre-qualifying for the teams that hadn't finished in
the top 15 over the last two half-seasons. Thereafter it was
unrestricted qualifying with no control over the number of laps or when
you went out. Lets not forget super sticky qually tires and special
qualifying engines for the teams with enough cash.>
...no height restriction on front wings>
had that in the 80's
Don't think so. Restrictions on wing sizes and mounting started
appearing in the 70s already.>
...no diffusers, not even a little one>
had that in the 80's
By 1984 they had them. Diffusers weren't necessary on ground effect
cars. The minute the flat bottom was mandated designers started looking
for ways to win the downforce back (see... nothing is new). IIRC it was
Barnard with the McLaren who came up with the coke bottle shape, the
narrow rear end and the diffuser. By the end of the decade everybody
had diffusers.
...limited width and chord, max 2 element wings, front and rear>
had that in the 80's
No. They might have gone for simpler rear wings in the ground effect
days (and at some races Brabham did away with the front wing) but there
weren't the restrictions there are now. More complex wings were
explored as the rule makers took away the ground effect.>
...slick tyres>
had that in the 80's>
...no ban on changing the tyres>
had that in the 80's>
...suitable restrictions on engines that keep the power levels
sensible> >but allow for technical creativity>
had that in the 80's
Yes.... all those lovely turbos right up until 1988. They still ruled
even in their last season when they were supposedly severely hamstrung
and the normally aspirated motors were allowed to expand to 3.5 litres.>
...no silly rules about using engines for 2 races>
had that in the 80's>
What about a sensible and logical points system as well? Like one
that runs> 9,6,4,3,2,1 for example? Guess what?>
had that in the 80's too.>
Everyone wants to go back to what worked in the 80's. Nothing wrong
with> that I say.

What's clear is that you can't legislate equality of performance - no
matter how you try. By the mid 80s we had a ban on ground effects and
increasing proscriptions on turbo engines in a bid to close the gap
between the haves and the have nots.

McLaren won 3 straight championships in 1984 to 1986 with a turbo
engine. Then Williams won in 1987 only for McLaren to win another 4 on
the trot - including winning 15 out of 16 races in 1988. So it's not
clear that the competition was any more even then.

Add comment
Guest 7 March 2005 14:38:03 [ permanent link ]
 
jim@jim.com wrote:
Why limit to 12 laps? Why not 1 hour, as many laps as you like?

One possibility: a team that sets a fast time early will then spend the
rest of the session tooling around slowly making it difficult for
anybody else to get in a good time.

bp

Add comment
Guest 7 March 2005 15:01:14 [ permanent link ]
 posner889@yahoo.com wrote:
jim@jim.com wrote:>
Why limit to 12 laps? Why not 1 hour, as many laps as you like?>
One possibility: a team that sets a fast time early will then spend the>rest of the session tooling around slowly making it difficult for>anybody else to get in a good time.>
But surely if they do that, they stewards would pull them up and if
they do it often enough - ban them.

Add comment
Phil Newnham 7 March 2005 17:26:55 [ permanent link ]
 Bob Dubery wrote:>>>...no silly rules about using engines for 2 races>>
had that in the 80's

But I would keep the 1 engine rule, to rule out qually engines.
What about a sensible and logical points system as well? Like one> that runs>
9,6,4,3,2,1 for example? Guess what?>>
had that in the 80's too.>>
Everyone wants to go back to what worked in the 80's. Nothing wrong>> with that I say.

I don't think my rules would produce cars that looked like 80s ones. And
yes, I would change the points system, but I prefer 10-6-4-3-2-1 - the
value of winning was higher, which was good.
What's clear is that you can't legislate equality of performance - no> matter how you try. By the mid 80s we had a ban on ground effects and> increasing proscriptions on turbo engines in a bid to close the gap> between the haves and the have nots.

I don't want to legislate for equality of performance, I want to
legislate for a more aggressive rule of diminishing returns, so that the
cars are closer (the best team will still win, of course), and spending
ridiculous amounts of money is less productive in percentage terms. I
want to legislate against some of the things that make it impossible to
overtake on the road, and against some of the things that make it
possible, desirable, and in some cases far too easy, to overtake in the
pits.

I don't care if MS is still WDC, and Ferrari win everything, so long as
I can work out who's where easily (which on Sunday was really down to a
lack of onscreen info), see and understand what the strategies might be
(therefore it should start at race start, not qually start), and watch
MS have to actually fight for position if he's not in front to begin
with. Of course there will always be races where the polesitter wins,
and is never behind, but there will hopefully also be races where the
winner started 6th and had to make 5 brilliant moves to win, rather than
overtaking 2 cars each time he pitted.

--
Phil
Add comment
Phil Newnham 7 March 2005 17:28:03 [ permanent link ]
 jim@jim.com wrote:>>...1 hour qually, 12 laps each>
<snip>>
Why limit to 12 laps? Why not 1 hour, as many laps as you like?

Pressure. I like the idea of a limited number of chances, I just think 1
lap qually is too limited.

--
Phil
Add comment
Phil Newnham 7 March 2005 18:16:49 [ permanent link ]
 DRP535 wrote:> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:50:37 +0000, Phil Newnham> <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:>
I want to see:>>
...1 tyre manufacturer>
why? the advantages of one tyre over another on a particular track or> weather is one of the last things that make F1 in its current sad state> remotely unpredictable and interesting for the viewer.

The tyre manufacturers spend collosal amounts of money trying to beat
each other, leading to a year on year increase in cornering speeds, and
consequently a year on year increase in silly safety rules. This costs
F1 any chance of stable technical regulations. The tyre manufacturers
have different numbers of teams each - although they develop tyres to
suit each team - which leads to a perceived testing advantage for
Michelin, and a reduced desire to limit testing, which could help reduce
costs, although I'm not convinced of the advantages as yet. The first
issue is the main reason, and I would go with Pete's suggestion of a
control tyre, to increase the teams dependence on their own performance
and reduce the possibility of accusations of favouritism.

--
Phil
Add comment
F2004: 15 of 17*** 7 March 2005 19:00:07 [ permanent link ]
 On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:01:14 +1100, jim@jim.com wrote:>posner889@ya­hoo.com wrote:>>jim@jim.com­ wrote:>>> Why limit to 12 laps? Why not 1 hour, as many laps as you like?>>
One possibility: a team that sets a fast time early will then spend the>>rest of the session tooling around slowly making it difficult for>>anybody else to get in a good time.>>
But surely if they do that, they stewards would pull them up and if>they do it often enough - ban them.

Ban McLaren? Perish the notion, old bean.

1 hour, drive it all, or not.

Add comment
Doc Knutsen 7 March 2005 23:17:57 [ permanent link ]
 

posner889@yahoo.com­ wrote:> jim@jim.com wrote:>
Why limit to 12 laps? Why not 1 hour, as many laps as you like?>
One possibility: a team that sets a fast time early will then spend the> rest of the session tooling around slowly making it difficult for> anybody else to get in a good time.

You are Rene Arnoux' manager & ICM5GBP!
Doc

Add comment


Sylvan Smyth 8 March 2005 09:42:43 [ permanent link ]
 jim@jim.com wrote:
Cars without front wings in the 80s?

Yah. Here's a link with a couple of pics:

http://home22.inet.­tele.dk/perbeer/f1pi­cs.htm

Check out Reenie Arnooks's folded up Renault at Brands.


Add comment
Sylvan Smyth 8 March 2005 10:06:18 [ permanent link ]
 "Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com­> wrote:
When was (refueling) banned exactly? It was allowed but not common>during the 70s. I would think it came about to make life difficult >for the turbo cars.

It was banned after 1983, when they also reduced the maximum
fuel capacity from 250 litres to 220. There had been a few fires.
Some of the refueling rigs they used back then were kinda primitive.
Here's one:
http://www.oak-barr­el.com/water_butts/p­ump_barrel.jpg


Add comment


Guest 8 March 2005 11:02:57 [ permanent link ]
 Sylvan Smyth <sylvan@islandnet.c­om> wrote:
jim@jim.com wrote:>
Cars without front wings in the 80s?>
Yah. Here's a link with a couple of pics:>
http://home22.inet­.tele.dk/perbeer/f1p­ics.htm>
Check out Reenie Arnooks's folded up Renault at Brands.>

Thanks for those. My memory is failing me more than I thought. I don't
remember any MP4s without wings, nor that the FW07 or FW08 didn't have
them.

I was probably at the circuit for that Arnoux crash as well.

Time to pull out my old issues of Grand Prix International from '81
and '82 and re-educate myself.

Add comment
Guest 8 March 2005 11:06:14 [ permanent link ]
 "F2004: 15 of 17*·**" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCh­eatingSwine.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:01:14 +1100, jim@jim.com wrote:>>posner889@y­ahoo.com wrote:>>>jim@jim.co­m wrote:>>>> Why limit to 12 laps? Why not 1 hour, as many laps as you like?>>>
One possibility: a team that sets a fast time early will then spend the>>>rest of the session tooling around slowly making it difficult for>>>anybody else to get in a good time.>>>
But surely if they do that, they stewards would pull them up and if>>they do it often enough - ban them.>
Ban McLaren? Perish the notion, old bean.

Would be on a 'per driver' rather than 'per team' basis. Can't see
them having an issue with banning JPM.
1 hour, drive it all, or not.

Exactly.

Add comment


Guest 8 March 2005 11:14:20 [ permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:
jim@jim.com wrote:>>>...1 hour qually, 12 laps each>>
<snip>>>
Why limit to 12 laps? Why not 1 hour, as many laps as you like?>
Pressure. I like the idea of a limited number of chances, I just think 1 >lap qually is too limited.

You've already got the pressure of time. From memory, the 12 lap limit
was only added as a 'cost-saving' measure, to limit the maximum sets
of tyres required - although how often are you going to take more than
4 sets anyway.

But give it 1 hour, free laps, and Minardi and Jordan (and anyone else
looking for a bit of extra track/setup time) can lap around to their
hearts content for the first 30 mins and rubber in the track for
everyone, without limiting their choices later. Otherwise you still
get the situation where everyone waits in the garage for the first 30
mins save save their 12 laps to the end when the track should be the
fastest.

Add comment
Guest 8 March 2005 11:39:18 [ permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:
Bob Dubery wrote:>>>>...no silly rules about using engines for 2 races>>>
had that in the 80's>
But I would keep the 1 engine rule, to rule out qually engines.>

Hmmm - bit of a balance there. I agree that keeping out qualifying
engines is a good idea, but if you limit engines, you limit the laps
that will be run prior to the race. Many will run the minimum they can
get away with, and also often at reduced revs to save the engine. And
also as currently implemented, the penalties for changing engines are
laughable.

Any sensible technical way of proving one engine is the same spec as
another, such that engine changes are allowed, but all engines used by
a team within a race meeting are of the same spec?
Add comment
Sylvan Smyth 8 March 2005 11:44:28 [ permanent link ]
 jim@jim.com wrote:
Thanks for those. My memory is failing me more than I thought. I don't>remember any MP4s without wings, nor that the FW07 or FW08 didn't have>them.

Check out these team bios. Lots of pics of no-wing and no-front-wing
GP cars:

http://www.allf1.in­fo/teams/mclaren.php­

http://www.allf1.in­fo/teams/brabham.php­

http://www.allf1.in­fo/teams/lotus.php ouch

Add comment
Guest 8 March 2005 11:46:54 [ permanent link ]
 Sylvan Smyth <sylvan@islandnet.c­om> wrote:
jim@jim.com wrote:>
Thanks for those. My memory is failing me more than I thought. I don't>>remember any MP4s without wings, nor that the FW07 or FW08 didn't have>>them.>
Check out these team bios. Lots of pics of no-wing and no-front-wing>GP cars:>
http://www.allf1.i­nfo/teams/mclaren.ph­p>
http://www.allf1.i­nfo/teams/brabham.ph­p>
http://www.allf1.i­nfo/teams/lotus.php ouch

Excellent site - thank you.

Add comment
Phil Newnham 8 March 2005 14:05:49 [ permanent link ]
 jim@jim.com wrote:> Hmmm - bit of a balance there. I agree that keeping out qualifying> engines is a good idea, but if you limit engines, you limit the laps> that will be run prior to the race. Many will run the minimum they can> get away with, and also often at reduced revs to save the engine. And> also as currently implemented, the penalties for changing engines are> laughable.

Is it important to see people running lots of laps before the race?
They'll still be competing, and trading off the value of saving the
engine vs. track experience and better setup. Oh, another rule I would
change - if one team can run a third car on a friday, they all should be
able to, probably at the expense of being able to test at other times
(as it is now?).
Any sensible technical way of proving one engine is the same spec as> another, such that engine changes are allowed, but all engines used by> a team within a race meeting are of the same spec?

I don't know a lot about piston engine design (because I learnt about
jet engines instead) so I won't claim I know how to do this but one way
of capping power that has been mentioned was to limit the amount of fuel
getting to the engine, with a restrictor of some kind. I don't know if
that would make qually engines a waste of time, though.

--
Phil
Add comment
Guest 8 March 2005 17:56:19 [ permanent link ]
 the Redbull car will have wings anyway..
"Redbull gives you wings"

Add comment
F2004: 15 of 17*** 8 March 2005 21:48:06 [ permanent link ]
 On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 10:05:49 +0000, Phil Newnham
<pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:>jim@jim.com wrote:>> Hmmm - bit of a balance there. I agree that keeping out qualifying>> engines is a good idea, but if you limit engines, you limit the laps>> that will be run prior to the race. Many will run the minimum they can>> get away with, and also often at reduced revs to save the engine. And>> also as currently implemented, the penalties for changing engines are>> laughable.>
Is it important to see people running lots of laps before the race?

It is for the paying customer in the stands
They'll still be competing, and trading off the value of saving the >engine vs. track experience and better setup. Oh, another rule I would >change - if one team can run a third car on a friday, they all should be >able to, probably at the expense of being able to test at other times >(as it is now?).

Blaspheme!
Any sensible technical way of proving one engine is the same spec as>> another, such that engine changes are allowed, but all engines used by>> a team within a race meeting are of the same spec?>
I don't know a lot about piston engine design (because I learnt about >jet engines instead) so I won't claim I know how to do this but one way >of capping power that has been mentioned was to limit the amount of fuel >getting to the engine, with a restrictor of some kind. I don't know if >that would make qually engines a waste of time, though.

Yes... Let's dumb the whole thing down to FFUK.

...That'll be "perfection".

Add comment
Guest 9 March 2005 08:28:12 [ permanent link ]
 Mark@Jones.eo.nz (Mark Jones) wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:14:20 +1100, jim@jim.com wrote:>>But give it 1 hour, free laps, and Minardi and Jordan (and anyone else>>looking for a bit of extra track/setup time) can lap around to their>>hearts content for the first 30 mins and rubber in the track for>>everyone, without limiting their choices later. Otherwise you still>>get the situation where everyone waits in the garage for the first 30>>mins save save their 12 laps to the end when the track should be the>>fastest.>
Well, you could take a page from the champcars and have the bottom 5>teams run in the first 30 minutes, then the top 5 teams run in the>last 30 minutes. That should ensure a busy hours worth of qualifying.>

Yes, but that gives the possibility for weather to effect half of the
field differently from the other half. Do Champcars have a rule to
handle that, or just let it be?
Add comment
Guest 9 March 2005 10:11:01 [ permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:
F2004: 15 of 17*·** wrote:>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 10:05:49 +0000, Phil Newnham>> <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:>>
jim@jim.com wrote:>>>
Hmmm - bit of a balance there. I agree that keeping out qualifying>>>>engin­es is a good idea, but if you limit engines, you limit the laps>>>>that will be run prior to the race. Many will run the minimum they can>>>>get away with, and also often at reduced revs to save the engine. And>>>>also as currently implemented, the penalties for changing engines are>>>>laughable.>>­>
Is it important to see people running lots of laps before the race? >>
It is for the paying customer in the stands>
When I went, I enjoyed the support races far more than the Formula 1 >free practices. To begin with, just seeing the cars going round is >exciting, but then when you've seen 10 of them go through Copse in the >same manically fast fashion, it's time for a wander, usually. Certainly >there's not much track action, as such, until qualifying.

I agree with Mark - it's for the fans. Especially on friday. Last week
in Australia half the sessions were quiet except for a few test
drivers. Either make it free running, or just lose friday altogether.
Many people come along to see their heroes drive. For them to do a few
installation laps is really not enough.




Add comment
Sylvan Smyth 9 March 2005 11:56:03 [ permanent link ]
 jim@jim.com wrote:
I agree with Mark - it's for the fans. Especially on friday.

Hell, yeah, I'd like to see two wide open 90-minute practice sessions
and a free 60-minute qualifying session on both Friday and Saturday.
Aggregating times from qualifying is fine. Then if the track's slower
on Saturday they'll all have to try for a time anyway. Keep the third
drivers for the bottom four teams and let 'em run all four practice
sessions. 20 races a year and no in-season on-track testing.


Add comment
Phil Newnham 9 March 2005 13:52:59 [ permanent link ]
 jim@jim.com wrote:> Yes, but that gives the possibility for weather to effect half of the> field differently from the other half. Do Champcars have a rule to> handle that, or just let it be?

On ovals, they don't run, if it's raining...?

If you use the one race engine rule to kill qually engines, then they're
not going to want to run any more laps in qualifying than necessary,
whatever. For that reason I like the idea of 1 hot lap per quarter hour,
although if a car has mechanical issues, it's going to get penalised for
not being able to run, and also the teams wouldn't be able to make any
setup change that took longer than, say, 25 minutes - that might not be
a problem, of course.

--
Phil
Add comment
Vile Merchant 9 March 2005 16:05:16 [ permanent link ]
 
"Phil Newnham" <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote in message
news:d0hnog$r7s$1@s­un-cc204.lut.ac.uk..­.> DRP535 wrote:> > On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:50:37 +0000, Phil Newnham> > <dont_you_spam_me@b­tinternet.com> wrote:> >
I want to see:> >>
...1 tyre manufacturer> >
why? the advantages of one tyre over another on a particular track or> > weather is one of the last things that make F1 in its current sad state> > remotely unpredictable and interesting for the viewer.>
The tyre manufacturers spend collosal amounts of money trying to beat> each other, leading to a year on year increase in cornering speeds, and> consequently a year on year increase in silly safety rules. This costs> F1 any chance of stable technical regulations. The tyre manufacturers> have different numbers of teams each - although they develop tyres to> suit each team - which leads to a perceived testing advantage for> Michelin, and a reduced desire to limit testing, which could help reduce> costs, although I'm not convinced of the advantages as yet. The first> issue is the main reason, and I would go with Pete's suggestion of a> control tyre, to increase the teams dependence on their own performance> and reduce the possibility of accusations of favouritism.

Totally agree, the tyres just have too much weight in the performances.
Races should be won from driver and car performance. To have certain teams
dominating at X track just because dickhead rubber scientists managed to
make a good tyre this week really ruins the competition IMO. The last few
years it's been a case of: Michelin bring a good tyre = interesting race,
bridgestone bring a good tyre = ferrari win by half a lap. Just what is the
point of races being decided by tyre suppliers rather than racers?


Add comment
Vile Merchant 9 March 2005 16:11:42 [ permanent link ]
 
"Phil Newnham" <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote in message
news:d0mh1m$2f3$1@s­un-cc204.lut.ac.uk..­.> jim@jim.com wrote:> > Yes, but that gives the possibility for weather to effect half of the> > field differently from the other half. Do Champcars have a rule to> > handle that, or just let it be?>
On ovals, they don't run, if it's raining...?>
If you use the one race engine rule to kill qually engines, then they're> not going to want to run any more laps in qualifying than necessary,> whatever. For that reason I like the idea of 1 hot lap per quarter hour,> although if a car has mechanical issues, it's going to get penalised for> not being able to run, and also the teams wouldn't be able to make any> setup change that took longer than, say, 25 minutes - that might not be> a problem, of course.

I liked Bernie's idea that almost came in mid last season. Two 25(?) minute
qualifying sessions with a 10 minute ad-break inbetween, all cars have to do
a minimum of 3 timed laps (or something like that) in each session. There
would be heaps of cars on track with plenty of action. Oh and the best part
was no more parc-ferme fuel loads for the race start. Just a pity it
couldn't get past that stoddart retard.


Add comment
F2004: 15 of 17*** 9 March 2005 21:34:58 [ permanent link ]
 On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:52:59 +0000, Phil Newnham
<pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:>jim@jim.com wrote:>> Yes, but that gives the possibility for weather to effect half of the>> field differently from the other half. Do Champcars have a rule to>> handle that, or just let it be?>
On ovals, they don't run, if it's raining...?>
If you use the one race engine rule to kill qually engines, then they're >not going to want to run any more laps in qualifying than necessary, >whatever. For that reason I like the idea of 1 hot lap per quarter hour, >although if a car has mechanical issues, it's going to get penalised for >not being able to run, and also the teams wouldn't be able to make any >setup change that took longer than, say, 25 minutes - that might not be >a problem, of course.

Shove your filthy equivalency pogrom where it belongs: This is
supposed to be F1, there is no need for any greater penalty than lack
of success.

Add comment
Phil Newnham 10 March 2005 13:50:36 [ permanent link ]
 F2004: 15 of 17*·** wrote:> Shove your filthy equivalency pogrom where it belongs: This is> supposed to be F1, there is no need for any greater penalty than lack> of success.

Your model of F1 would appear to have disappeared many, many years ago.
There are loads of technical regulations that limit the design of the
cars. All of them could be said to act to level the field. A rule
against qually engines has no difference to a rule against 4 wheel
steer, or a rule against having bodywork in a particular area, or a rule
against a car that weighs less than 600kgs. Why do you imagine that the
cars look more or less the same?

--
Phil
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

CarGuru > Formula-1 > What the current RASF1 opinion barometer says.. 7 March 2005 11:15:46
see also:
CSBK: Atlantic: Team Toyota Yamaha race…
BGTC: Bradley Ellis Rockingham summary
SCCA-WC: Denver: Touring Car race…
pass tests:
see also:
Engine Light
2001 Xterra AC/Heater only Blows on Max…
1997 Dodge Ram
  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .