+1 Further, seems the others have pretty much dumped them under the bus - From Autosport, my emphasis added Pretty damning comments from these generally very 'politically correct' people. Cheers, Ian
If that may be of any help: disagreing is one thing, but you're certainly not the bad guy; nobody doubts that you are passionate about the sport, which is what counts. Rgds
I don't see any honesty in your stance, just obstruction. You clearly are against post-race disqualification because it spoils the fun for the fans. Any motor-racing fan can understand why disqualifications are necessary when irregularities are found on a car after a race.
As Red Bull were warned at least twice during the race, why didn't they disqualify or penalize him during the race - that surely would have been a better thing to do me thinks.
If you want to insult us that we are too stupid to understand that Fiat makes Iveco trucks and we need to be schooled by you, you deserve to know you're not talking with the pimple faced kids down the street here on Fchat. I am not against post race disqualifications. I am not for cheating. I'm for simplification of rules so fans can understand why instead if shaking their heads in disbelief. This action was only a political statement by the FIA. You step on our toes, we will crush you. There were a lot of ways of putting together penalties. But my point is, this never should have been a "rule" in the first place. The FIA is it's own worst enemy.
My point was that these pathetic sounding turbo's only have 1/2 the power of the 1986 turbo engines 600 (w/o kers) vs 1300. The 1986 turbo's were loud and sounded awesome EVEN THOUGH they maxed out 3000rpm lower than these new turbo's. The cure for sound with a turbo is massive boost pressures which make very loud explosions.
Excellent point. They could have given a stop and go or each offense. They could have stopped them from competing in the next race. The could have massively fined them. They could have taken away their constructor and driver points but let Ricardo remain 2nd. No, they chose the death penalty as a show of power.
But lousy fuel economy. And, as that's what F1 has become, loud explosions are a thing of yesteryear. Maybe your grand kids can see one at a vintage event some day. He sure won't in our future.
And my point is, who gives a ****? It makes more power than last year, that's more important than noise. Noise for the sake of noise is stupid. It's one of the reasons I hate Harleys. They make very little power but are as loud as hell, and it serves no purpose other than to hurt my ears. I liked the old engines, especially the v10's, but it was because they put out 1000hp from only 3 liters, not solely because they were loud. That was a byproduct of them making power, not the cause of it, so why care about it? The new power units are infinitely more interesting than the 2.4 v8's and make (significantly) more overall power from less fuel. All good, imo. You want noise, go stick a straight pipe on your car and drive through a tunnel.
They warned the teams BEFORE the race (well before) that any violation of the fuel rules would be zero tolerance. Your ire is misdirected at the FIA, it should be directly squarely and solely at Red Bull. They're the ones that flouted the rules despite multiple opportunities to adhere to the rules.
Couldn't have said it any better. PS: I hate Harley's for that reason. Fart sounds instead of power is so dopey
ok. thank you for that clarification about the power curve. i learned something there. i will also accept that the tires and aero had some affect on the eventual speeds achieved - but this just adds to my frustrations with the current f1 rules....artificially making them slower to compensate for allowing them to potentially be faster, just seems like bureaucratic masturbation. the only nit i will pick with your post is that last sentence....i took like for like on the laptimes. same race, same time in the schedule, fastest race lap (not qualifying, pole, etc). if you want to say that the engineers will learn over the season (i agree) and make the cars go faster, then we will need to compare fastest race laps of brazil after the end of the season.
Here is where you guys miss the point. You talk physics. We are taking emotion. Would you go to a play or see a movie if it had no drama or wonderment? Would you rather just read a review in the paper and not spend $200 to see it? It's a show. Remember that without a good show there are no one to buy tickets. If you think people would have always appreciated car racing if cars were completely silent, you're kidding yourself.
So? You keep going back to "they cheated". Ok-- they cheated! Yeah you win! My point is that the rule is stupid in the first place. Give them a tank of gas and make it last to the end of the race. Duh! If Red Bulls fuel tank was too big, penalize them. I don't care. But the micro management of how fuel is delivered at what point is just anal engineering without any value to fans watching the race having no idea what is going on.
The show is much better. Did you not see all of the drivers wrestling with their cars in every corner instead of driving through on rails like the last few years? That is so much more interesting to me, it's not even close. The cars have the power to spin the tires out of turns through 5th gear now. I think in fp1 Alonso lit the tires up coming out of a 3rd or 4th gear turn for 100' down the straight. You'd never see that in years past and that's the type of thing I find exciting, not just some noise.
About 90% of the people who were at the race and saw it on TV disagree with you. Look I'm for better racing. I've been saying that all along. I just don't see why making the race all about fuel economy has improved it anymore than just getting rid of aero and wind tunnels and relying more on mechanical grip. I'm not anti turbo either. I would like teams to have more flexibility on how to engineer cars and run their race. I would like more back markers to get on the podium more often. I think Williams come back is fantastic. But the race now seems more about who turned down this knob when instead of who really drove better.
Well from all the news stories, threatened lawsuits to Bernie, and the emails Luca is getting, sound may indeed come back. It was only Renault according to one report that pushed for these V6 turbo's, the irony. Even they might see the light. The perfect compromise -- keep these new turbo/kers engines limited to 15,000rpm, but raise the boost to 5 bar so that they make great noise and power, BUT the FIA will set the limit of the tallest gear in everyone's transmission. This way top speed will be mechanically capped to what they feel is safe at a particular track. Everyone wins, they would still be efficient and you might be able to play with a fuel limit like they did in the 80's.
That's the thing though, they told Red Bull to lower the rate both before and during the race, then let him get a podium. Then disqualified him. They should have given him his punishment during the race...kind of like with Massa going over the white lines on his last race for Ferrari.
ok. simple question for all of you: which season do you think will be "better" (attribute to this one word, anything you like - entertaining, competitive, exciting to watch, emotional, pleasing results etc) , 2014 or 2004 ?
It was that way in the 80's too, all about the driver skill, piquet passing senna at the Hungaroring. Almost everyone cares about sound. That's 1 of the reasons I got an R1. And Yes I have basically done what you suggest to my car, and tunnels are fun.
+1 And while we may not like it, it was the engine guy from Audi defending the diesels that said something like 'noise is nothing more than wasted energy'..... They're on harder tires, D/F has been significantly reduced and they're obviously a handful to drive. Further, I'll say again, fuel flow restriction is the only fair way to do it without it becoming an economy run. Cheers, Ian
It's like any other rule. There are plenty of rules that don't make sense to the casual fan - like why do suspension pieces have to be symmetrical in cross section? Why do they have to have a flat plank on the bottom that can only wear a certain amount? They're all done for engineering reasons, and they're all rules that if broken, will result in DQ. I don't know why you're harping on this specific rule, but there are plenty of rules like that in the books that don't have an 'easy to explain' reason. The end result is a DQ, who cares why? Especially when the team was given multiple chances to fix it and ignored it. Again, your ire is misdirected, Red Bull are the idiots, not the FIA.
I don't think it's something they can penalize during the race as it's a technical issue, not an on-track rules issue. There are plenty of examples of teams running potentially illegal cars, getting DQ'd after the race and then appealing based on their interpretation. This is no different. Again, this is Red Bull's decision, not the FIA's. Blame them if you want to blame someone.
I can't wait for the next formula change 5 years from now when the new engines are quad turbo 3 cylinder 750cc jobs with solar cell powered batteries getting 50 mpg and everyone can tell us who great it is that F1 is the height of auto technology for "today's world" and how much better the racing is.
