Official: Formula One Thread

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 19, 2015 | 10:07 AM
  #2671  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Michelin ready to return as Formula 1 tyre supplier - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

Please let this happen!
Old May 19, 2015 | 10:09 AM
  #2672  
JourdanWithaU's Avatar
It's QQ thankyouverymuch
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 19,721
From: San Jose
Car Info: 2011 SWP WRX Hatch
They're racing each other, not the record books.

I agree that the RPM limits are kind of lame. But I think the fuel restrictions are good and limit on engines is good. Although I think the engine limit is low. I think 6 would be more reasonable.

I agree that the small team accommodations are bad. But I think a small grid is worse. 10/20 seems pretty good though.
Old May 19, 2015 | 10:14 AM
  #2673  
JourdanWithaU's Avatar
It's QQ thankyouverymuch
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 19,721
From: San Jose
Car Info: 2011 SWP WRX Hatch
Originally Posted by joltdudeuc
Details of Formula 1 teams' 2014 payouts revealed - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

That doesn't make any sense to me. How is Mercedes not paid out the most?!
Technically, they were. But Ferrari got a huge Premium payment.

How is a premium payment more than the top constructors championship payment?
Old May 19, 2015 | 10:32 AM
  #2674  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by JourdanWithaU
They're racing each other, not the record books.

I agree that the RPM limits are kind of lame. But I think the fuel restrictions are good and limit on engines is good. Although I think the engine limit is low. I think 6 would be more reasonable.

I agree that the small team accommodations are bad. But I think a small grid is worse. 10/20 seems pretty good though.
They will race each other regardless, so what's your point?

I don't think there should be any fuel restriction, and refueling will 1) Make the cars smaller and lighter 2) Therefore faster 3) Bring better strategies for teams

Having engines that last so long cost money. Costs insane R&D hours and costs to make that happen. When you read about the Mercedes V6T package to a customer team being $50million vs V8 being just shy of half that, cmon now... how can anyone possibly argue that it's saving costs?!
Old May 19, 2015 | 10:47 AM
  #2675  
JourdanWithaU's Avatar
It's QQ thankyouverymuch
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 19,721
From: San Jose
Car Info: 2011 SWP WRX Hatch
If records are being broken all the time, what's the point of keeping records?

Formula 1 should be the forefront of automotive technology. The current climate calls for fuel efficiency and reliability. This is why I think the fuel restrictions and new engines are good. I'm not against refueling. I'm more concerned about its safety.

The V8 had 7 years of development. Of course it was cheaper to make. The V6T is brand new. Of course it's expensive as ****. But even then, 4 $50mil engines is less expensive than 8 $50mil engines.
Old May 19, 2015 | 05:36 PM
  #2676  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Official: Formula One Thread

Originally Posted by JourdanWithaU
If records are being broken all the time, what's the point of keeping records?

Formula 1 should be the forefront of automotive technology. The current climate calls for fuel efficiency and reliability. This is why I think the fuel restrictions and new engines are good. I'm not against refueling. I'm more concerned about its safety.

The V8 had 7 years of development. Of course it was cheaper to make. The V6T is brand new. Of course it's expensive as ****. But even then, 4 $50mil engines is less expensive than 8 $50mil engines.
Records are kept for the sake of know what the record is. yes, they should be breaking every few years, they were doing just that until 2004.

You realize that when RBR hits #5, it's going to be new right? That rule does not stop the spending, just brings about a grid penalty for spending.

they are still going to spend. and the 50mil package is for all the engines and support and spare parts etc.

the roughly 24mil needed for the v8s had many more engines, there was no limit.

its simply twice as expensive to run a Mercedes V6T than it is the V8 as a customer. I highly doubt the costs will go down anytime soon. the constraints are still there for how reliable these engines have to be to avoid a penalty.

Refueling is not any more dangerous than dudes getting run over by cars or loose tires. the number of accidents due to refueling have been few and far between.

maybe you'd prefer a no pit sprint race? it's working great for MotoGP. can't get any safer than that.
Old May 19, 2015 | 08:51 PM
  #2677  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Official: Formula One Thread

http://www.grandprix247.com/2015/05/...-favour-of-it/
Old May 19, 2015 | 09:09 PM
  #2678  
JZ oo7's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,351
From: San Francisco
Car Info: 1.8L FWD
I like refueling too because it brought another element to the pit stop and strategy. Stop this 2.5s stop. Oddly, it's becoming routine and boring compared to fuel stops. I almost want to say it seems like there were more wheel related mishaps when they were able to stop longer.

Other than the noise, you know what I really missed about the V8 and V10...those crazy headers.
Old May 20, 2015 | 08:53 AM
  #2679  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by JZ oo7
I like refueling too because it brought another element to the pit stop and strategy. Stop this 2.5s stop. Oddly, it's becoming routine and boring compared to fuel stops. I almost want to say it seems like there were more wheel related mishaps when they were able to stop longer.

Other than the noise, you know what I really missed about the V8 and V10...those crazy headers.
They don't use Inconel Nickel on these engines?
Old May 20, 2015 | 09:06 AM
  #2680  
JourdanWithaU's Avatar
It's QQ thankyouverymuch
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 19,721
From: San Jose
Car Info: 2011 SWP WRX Hatch
Originally Posted by joltdudeuc
Records are kept for the sake of know what the record is. yes, they should be breaking every few years, they were doing just that until 2004.

You realize that when RBR hits #5, it's going to be new right? That rule does not stop the spending, just brings about a grid penalty for spending.

they are still going to spend. and the 50mil package is for all the engines and support and spare parts etc.

the roughly 24mil needed for the v8s had many more engines, there was no limit.

its simply twice as expensive to run a Mercedes V6T than it is the V8 as a customer. I highly doubt the costs will go down anytime soon. the constraints are still there for how reliable these engines have to be to avoid a penalty.

Refueling is not any more dangerous than dudes getting run over by cars or loose tires. the number of accidents due to refueling have been few and far between.

maybe you'd prefer a no pit sprint race? it's working great for MotoGP. can't get any safer than that.

If teams are willing to take penalties, yeah, they are going to buy more engines. But it seems like the penalties are kind of working.

New tech will always be expensive. The V8s are old tech. Gotta bring in something new.

I guess I'm just really afraid of fire. But refueling had to have been banned for a pretty good reason, no?

I wish there were more pitstops. The tires are too robust.
Old May 20, 2015 | 10:25 AM
  #2681  
JZ oo7's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,351
From: San Francisco
Car Info: 1.8L FWD
Originally Posted by JourdanWithaU
I guess I'm just really afraid of fire. But refueling had to have been banned for a pretty good reason, no?
I think it was banned to cut cost. Teams didn't have to pack their fuel rigs to races. Besides, all of them wear Nomex, so it's all good.
Old May 20, 2015 | 10:53 AM
  #2682  
G_Ride's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,634
From: Campbell, CA
Car Info: Some sort of Subaru
^ That's what I heard too. Supposedly those refueling rigs were expensive too.
Old May 20, 2015 | 02:50 PM
  #2683  
JourdanWithaU's Avatar
It's QQ thankyouverymuch
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 19,721
From: San Jose
Car Info: 2011 SWP WRX Hatch
Name:  VkKtd8R.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  26.9 KB
Old May 20, 2015 | 05:28 PM
  #2684  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by JourdanWithaU
If teams are willing to take penalties, yeah, they are going to buy more engines. But it seems like the penalties are kind of working.
How so? Taking a penalty and still spending the money solves nothing.
New tech will always be expensive. The V8s are old tech. Gotta bring in something new.
I'm all for it if it's faster, which so far it's not. That's not due to it being V6T, but fuel limits on rate and capacity. Refueling + much higher rate allowance will fix this for me.
I guess I'm just really afraid of fire. But refueling had to have been banned for a pretty good reason, no?
Costs, thought I personally don't feel that's a great reason. As valid it may be.

I wish there were more pitstops. The tires are too robust.
WUT?!
Old May 20, 2015 | 11:20 PM
  #2685  
JZ oo7's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,351
From: San Francisco
Car Info: 1.8L FWD
Monaco...the most amazing boring race all year.



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:24 PM.