Official: Formula One Thread
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!
Please let this happen!
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.
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.
It's QQ thankyouverymuch
iTrader: (39)
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 19,721
From: San Jose
Car Info: 2011 SWP WRX Hatch
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?!
That doesn't make any sense to me. How is Mercedes not paid out the most?!
How is a premium payment more than the top constructors championship payment?
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
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.
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.
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?!
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Official: Formula One Thread
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
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.
Other than the noise, you know what I really missed about the V8 and V10...those crazy headers.
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
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.
Other than the noise, you know what I really missed about the V8 and V10...those crazy headers.
It's QQ thankyouverymuch
iTrader: (39)
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 19,721
From: San Jose
Car Info: 2011 SWP WRX Hatch
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
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.


