As Ian always says, "they're still the fastest," so I tune in. If something came along that was faster than F1 and had the star power to go with it, I would have no problem dumping F1. In fact it would be a nice reality check for them if something like that happened. You can't keep going out of your way to make the cars slower year after year. Sure this close competition is great, but I was just as into F1 (possibly more into F1) when it was just McLaren and Ferrari slugging it out. What people fail to realize, is that this close competition is just a side effect of the circus tires, banning any sort of innovation that would differentiate the teams, and implementing things like budget restrictions, testing bans and engine freezes. When the cars are so restricted that the engineers have only so many routes to go down (coupled with no testing so big $$$ teams have no advantage), they're going to be similar in performance.
During prohibition there was a speakeasy/casino owner in NYC who would greet her patrons with a rousing " Hello suckers". Didn't keep many away.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I thought exactly the same.... They came up with a very neat solution only to have it pulled out from under 'em. It's just that I understand why it happened. Indeed. Totally agree. I suspect that if Merc's (& Fauxtus apparently) FRIC system gives them a big advantage anytime soon it'll be protested as another movable aid....... IIRC, it took a protest to get the mass-damper outlawed, right? Shocks & springs etc are explicitly excluded - There's some fancy wording in there somewhere on this subject as it outlaws Colins brilliant "twin chassis" concept - Another real shame that would have re-written the history of Lotus - Or at least changed the outcome some. As for flexi-wings I just don't know!.... We've certainly seen plenty of evidence but OTOH the load test is now pretty damn serious - What can Charlie do beyond that? Cheers, Ian
If Charlie can't figure out how to ban it maybe it should be allowed. The rules loosened so everyone can join the party.
Oh no! Beg to differ there! The test is the same for all of 'em. Seems the Cans have found something that allows 'em to, lets say, "circumvent" the test. Why should they now be disadvantaged and lose their edge because the others can't figure it out? Can't have it both ways....... Cheers, Ian
Only round a fish bowl..... Higher top speed, OK. But I'd bet an F1 car would beat 'em consistently around a real track. Cheers, Ian
IMO equating this with truly innovative design that rewrites the rules a la Chapman et al is off the mark. This is case where the point is to circumvent the test not to reinterpret the rule.
Honda went after some speed records at the salt flats not long ago. As I remember they hit 400KPH or so. Indy cars are faster?
I think the problem and frustration many F1 enthusiasts see is that what's allowed or banned is at the whim of the officials. It was 1,000x worse when Mosley was in charge, but it still exists today. It's like government.... the guy who forgot to pay $6 in taxes due to a calculation/date error gets $1,500 in fees and interest tacked on. But Tim Geithner can "forget" to pay $35k in taxes for 6+ year and gets off scot free. It seems the FIA meddles a bit too much. The Renault incident sticks out - I'm not a huge Alonso fan nor was a Flavio fan, but I still feel Renault was totally screwed on that deal. It was only banned after they started seeing major success with it. You're allowed to be successful, just not too successful, it seems.
Hmmm ... I think we can agree that when an F1 styled car actually entered Indy, ie. the Lotus with Clark driving they completely embarrassed the current Indy cars. So they were only faster before then because all cars were front engined and the Indy rules permitted large engines, and of course they had local knowledge. Once F1 went mid engined your comment is not true. I suspect that even an unmodified Lotus 49 would have lapped the brickyard faster than the Indy cars of the period. Pete
Er, engines are not equivalent for any straight line comparisons. Indy car can just wind up the boost ... Pete
Actually Ian the test is wrong. If moveable aero is banned then wings should not be allowed to flex. Pretty simple really. Thus how do we prevent this? I can see that the flex test is based on the wing being able to support a particular weight with no flex but beyond that it does not matter. Obviously the weight is too light and thus flexing occurs under racing loads. If the FIA really wanted to stop this, just times the weight by 5 and if flexing still occurs when they watch slow motion footage keep increasing the weight until it is impossible for racing loads to cause flexing. Just shows how silly this rule is!@! They can't have grey areas like this IMO, makes a mockery of their intentions. Again I think it is time to allow movement in this area. Heck production Ferrari road cars have moveable aero aids AND flexible ones. Pete
Considering Indy cars have run 230MPH+ average lap times at multiple tracks - the contention of "fastest" was definitely Indy/Champcar for probably two decades at least! Top speed is fairly similar, with Penske cars running potentially a hair over 250MPH, Le Mans pre chicane also had a car clocked at about 250MPH. F1 with special prep on the salt flats has also approached 250, but for sheer speed around the tracks they raced, there really hasn't been anything like the brute Indy/Champ cars of the respective series primes. I'm pretty sure the Indy cars ran without diff's, so their cornering would be impaired compared to a F1.
Agree, but the period you are talking about is AFTER all Indy cars were mid-engined and 20+ years after when I was talking about and Indy cars have turbos and methanol. Back in the Jim Clark days Indy cars were like quarter mile dragsters, ie. corners were a nusiance. Pete
Two options available to Charlie, both of which have precedent and rules enabling them:- 1) start testing with loads in the direction of the flex (seems rather obvious to me) 2) just ban it - exactly as they did with the Ferrari gurney in Spain a couple of years ago and as is being suggested they are doing with Renault's rubber grommets
But the test is the same for everyone, Red Bull just made it work best. I can't really see what the issue is.
Yes true but the issue is moveable aero aids are not permitted but in this case for some reason they are ... but for no apparent reason not elsewhere. Not fair and not enough clarity of rules in this area. Renault and now Lotus have things banned in this area but not RedBull ... why? Pete
I thought that's what they were doing? The outsides of the sucker *appear* to flex downward and Charlie's loading up the outsides, no? Don't recall the Gurney, unless you mean their "flexi-floor"? No doubt that was "pushing the limits" though..... The rubber grommet issue may have started as an April Fools tale, but as I said above, I can see those grommets being illegal - According to the letter of the law anyway. Nothing's been banned AFAIK, not so far at least..... We have one unconfirmed (and possibly spoof!) story questioning their grommets and *possibly* a flexing issue with the tea-tray / floor that may or may not be questioned in China. Remember, an official protest is needed before anything can be ruled upon; Charlie certainly tries to keep 'em on the straight & narrow with his "technical directives" when they try and stray, but an outright ban on something "clever" pretty much always needs a protest. Cheers, Ian
IMO the test and load should be exerted at the front of the wing, not from on top - IMO (and quite a few others on some technical sites) this would, in a moment, end the flexing front wing issue. RB exploited a grey area in the rules in the box around the rear of the car. They used it to apply a gurney to the diffuser with great effect. The FiA accepted their use of the loophole. Two years ago it was common practice for teams to tape strips to the top rear flap of the rear wing. Ferrari arrived in Spain (Barca I believe) with a rear wing that had the gurney attached (as RB had attached the gurney to their diffuser). Ferrari ran this rear wing at Friday practice. Sometime before Qualifying Charlie came out and said words to the effect that it was a very clever interpretation by Ferrari, but that he had decided to ban it immediately. There was no protest, and, as it hadn't been used in Q or the race there wasn't anything to protest about. Read my note on the item above, Charlie called it clever (or words to that effect) and then banned it - no protest. Sorry mate, but this is just wrong. Cars are measured, weighed and scrutinized after Q and the race all the time in multiple areas. Some parts are scrutinized on all cars before the event and things can be ruled illegal and penalized without any protest.
Fair enough. I'm not sure that'll expose what they're up to, and certainly don't believe there's any kind of "pro Can" conspiracy, but maybe Charlie should give it a go...... +1 My bad. I wasn't clear, you're correct; They're randomly measured, tested & weighed throughout the W/E. But, interpreting legal -v- illegal stuff is another can of worms. Fauxtus (?) protesting Merc's passive DRS last year was the last official protest I recall. The DDRS and F-duct were subjects of prior protests IIRC. Hmmmm.... Thinking more, I don't think the F-duct was ever protested (?) - They all tried copying it as there were no grounds IIRC. Cheers, Ian
