FORMULA 1 ROLEX AUSTRALIAN GRAND PRIX 2019: RACE ▄▀▄▀ SPOILERS ▀▄▀▄

+1 stupid or corrupt?

 

I think that Ferrari believed that Hamilton would have to pit for fresh tires before the end of the race; Vettel probably would have had to do so as well, and Leclerc would have wound up on the podium!

 

Both at least. Seriously it would be so much cheaper if an engine had to last a weekend only.

 

WE all know that Bas, as we all know front wings should be a lot smaller, and cars shorter, and that everything is wrong...but for some reason i will never understand, they keep doing the exact opposite..go figure!!

 

Oh, i just want to say hello to my friend Fernando as i know he likes to take a peek around here.
How you doing Nando, love the way you ****ed Mclaren once more, making them got rid of the Honda PU and 100 mil a year in exchange for paying a Renault in order to keep you, and then go away was brilliant, just brilliant, that's why we love you mate!!!
PS: Did Marko payed you to sabotage all those Honda engines? cammon, nobody else can hear us, you can tell me m

 

Anyone know how many overtakes there were this race? Australia is a tough circuit for this in general.

 

Not many I think, but somewhat inflated by Giovinazzi's tyres falling of the cliff and Ric on Kubica (that's hardly a challenging overtake).

I think real overtakes where Max on Vet, Kmag on Gio, Norris on Gio.

 

Yes, and max on Seb was just because Seb was out of tires....

 

Wanna know how close Ferrari came close to disaster!!!! MUST WATCH....and yes they touch!! Could have been a rear puncture for Seb and a new front wing for Chuck. Max's on-board.

MUST-SEE: Watch how close Ferrari came to disaster in Australia race start

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.must-see-watch-how-close-ferrari-came-to-disaster-in-australia-race-start.3lQ2L4JQK8ZB8aRuNsbEEx.html

 

To be honest, I don't see the point of making engines less reliable.

We used to have that, and teams turning up at each GP with 4 or 6 engines for 2 cars, and still being plagued by unreliability.

Teams used to have qualifs and race engines and blow the lot over a week end!!! It was mechanical mayhem like the NHRA.

What was the good of that ? It may have been very profitable business for engine builders, but not good for the image of F1.

Forcing engine suppliers to build units able to last 7 GPs, and penalising teams that change engines before the allocated time, improved reliability tremendously.

I certainly don't want to go back to the 60s and 70s in that respect, and I support the FIA rules that limits the number of engines per season .

 

Wow...incredible! Both Ferrari had good starts btw. But ****ing hell...so unnecessary.

 

eh? Seb's tyres where about 9 laps old at the time of pass? How was he ''out of tyres''.

 

The amount of money invested in making the engines last this long is enormous. And they are still going through 100+ engines a year on the dyno alone....so all those engines that see zero time on a race track are still being blown.

1 engine per weekend is not so bad suddenly. + unit cost would be far lower.

 

Wasn't this discussion on this board a while ago with some shocking number on how many engines they munched through per car per race weekend in the 90s?
I thought it was ~10 engines.
Now, do the math. You supply 4 teams at 2 cars --> 80 engines per weekend at 20 races makes 1600 engines.
Current rule: 4 teams at 2 cars --> 8 cars at 4 engines per season --> 32 engines.

I am not saying I like the way things are (in particular if you'd want to see F1 as the pinnacle of what technology can get onto wheels). But some simple math suggests there is a much bigger difference than what one would think.

 

I blame these stupid massive front wings! How many got damaged and damaged other cars?

 

It was really only the top teams using more engines, and not in that fashion....it would be 1 engine for all practice sessions, 1 for quali 1 for race. = 6 engines for the top team. The poorer teams would use no more than 2 and keep practice engines in circulation longer. so 6 for the top team, 4 for each small team = 14 engines supplied per weekend (ferrari and merc each supply themselves and 2 teams) x 20 weekends = 280.

But the argument is 1 engine per car per weekend. so that's 6 engines x 20 = 120.

Current rules = 3 engines per car per year = 18 total, but they burn through over 100 engines on dyno. so we're on the same figures....but these engines are build to much higher tolerances, much more invested in = cost skyrocket.

Of course we can't do anything about it now, the money is invested, gone. Hardly going to switch back to 1 engine per weekend or every other weekend suddenly.

 

yes they are stupid. I loved the idea of the simplification of wings but then a few words later read that they would make them much wider....talk about a pointless change in regulations! The stupidity goes on.

 

Looking at Max and Charles’ starts they do look different. Charles is said to be using the same third paddle hand brake Vettel uses, which Kimi didn’t want. And it does look like the Ferrari leaps forward while Max’s gradually gets away.

 

I think imposing a minimum of reliability by limiting the number of engines per season was a smart move.

You don't need to blow 100 engines on the dyno for development; test bed engines can be rebuilt, and reused many times.

The benefit of this development can also be passed on to the car industry in general, so it's a win-win situation.

 

Back in the day cars were less reliable because they didn't have the current technology, not because of different rules. In the same way, most modern road cars don't need to get an engine rebuild in their entire life while in the 60s cylinder linings and piston rings were almost consumable parts.

Personally, I don't like that drivers get penalties because they blew an engine 5 races ago. Having a DNF should be enough penalty.

 

Out, because they obviously weren't working.....or something else, but everyone points towards the tires....i mean it's not like it was a great overtaking, Seb simply wasn't in a condition to fight and he did well no to force it, at least he takes half a bag of points home, better than to risk a crash with mister "let'***** a Ferrari"

 

Neither do I, but unrealiability should still be penalised.

It shouldn't affect the drivers, but the teams.

Maybe points deducted in the constructors ranking, or perhaps a Financial penalty at the end of the year?

 

I agree with limiting engines per season is a good move, but a (much) wider margin should've been used. IMO getting to one engine lasting 2-3 races is fine, drivers can push harder and so on.

They don't need to blow 100 engines on the dyno, but they do....so not sure what your point is.

I had a nearly 30 year old BMW with 300K+ km on the odo and that engine was fresh as anything, no rebuilds just maintained...still pulled strong and revved high. Plenty of engines last longer than the car does so find it hard to see how this fits into ''its good for the road cars'' narative.

 

Financial penalty at the end of the year???
So the rich teams can use as much engines as they need as they can afford the extra money... sounds exactly opposite to the idea of a budget cap and equalization between the top and the lesser teams, this would just be another way for manufacturers to outspent private teams

Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk

 

I am familiar with dyno testing, BTW, and I can tell you that you don't learn much by bringing engines to destruction.

You don't need to dyno that amount of engine (100) to ensure only 2 évolutions allowed per year on a power unit design, IMO.

The same engines can be used on the dyno to search for different improvements, or optimise the settings without the need to blow them.

They can also been stopped for different components to be tested (different cams, different grade of oil, for example), and the results measured.

So, although I have no doubt that Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda and Renault have teams of engineers working full time on dynos, I guess they don't "blow" 100+ units each per year.