Zoxxo

I haven't watched MotoGP is a long time - at least not enough to be appreciating what I'm seeing. So I don't know what info they give on the boards but I assume it's simple, straight-forward stuff that you'd expect. So yes, stuff like position, how far ahead/behind am I? Etc.

It's been a terrific season. LOTS of good racing all through the field. Kvyat, Magnussen, Bottas, and Ricciardo have all been quite impressive.

I won't be at all surprised to see Alonso leave Ferrari given all the BS that's going on there now.

And how many races have we watched now where NO mention has been made of the sound of the motors? Just as I predicted.

Z//

NemesisC5

Formula One won't feature three-car teams

http://autoweek.com/article/formula-...hree-car-teams

September 10, 2014

McLaren team boss Eric Boullier dismisses tweet from former Williams chairman Adam Parr

Eric Boullier has dismissed suggestions top Formula One teams will have to run three cars next year to plug vacancies on the grid.

Amid suggestions some teams are struggling to survive, former Williams chairman Adam Parr issued an alarming tweet within minutes of the end of Sunday's Italian Grand Prix.

He announced, "In 2015, eight teams will contest the championship, with several teams entering three cars."

When asked about Parr's message on Tuesday, McLaren team boss Boullier responded, "I think he's being a bit provocative."

The Frenchman did, however, acknowledge that some teams are in financial difficulty after budgets went "through the roof" over the last decade.

"So there is potentially a couple of teams which may suffer [because] of this, and I don't know if they will still be on the grid.

"But I don't think we'll go to eight teams and three cars per team next year and definitely not at such short-term notice," said Boullier.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand the world economy is not doing that well and I can say I know even less concerning understanding the financial state of F1. Did the 2014 rule changes escalate costs 'so much' and then coincided with shrinking profits to create a 'perfect storm' of sorts?

NemesisC5

I admit the quality of racing on track has far overshadowed the lack of sounds on track. The caveat is and will forever be "as long as the racing is good the show is good".

Do yourself a favor and watch Moto GP to check out their show. Valentino Rossi has risen to the podium for most of the events this season and challenged for the win in many as well. Marc Marquez is an extreme talent that has won every race except for one. Sundays with F1 and Moto GP both on my DVR are fantastic !

Zoxxo

The storm has been brewing for years.

The new engines basically doubled the cost of motors to the teams. Ten million per year became twenty. Hence the rise of the pay driver in the small teams.

The engine change was at the behest of the auto makers (Merc, Ferrari (begrudgingly), Renault), Bernie, and the FIA. The auto makers want advertising relevance. That old "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" maxim still applies (see Merc's new AMG GTS for a prime example or Infinity's "Vettel-designed" () sedan.) Bernie and the FIA wanted the auto makers involved because they want to tap into the bank accounts of those auto makers.

The small teams couldn't care less what form the engines take as long as (a) they can get them for their team, and (b) they can afford them.

But now they really can't.

At the same time, the sour economy has driven many sponsors to cut back or leave altogether. The result is even more "money-to-the-top-teams" and the rest of them be damned. Add in Bernie's refusal to help by adjusting the season-end prize money dispersal...

Even Ferrari is not immune: http://autoweek.com/article/formula-...porate-concern

Another part of the story is that as the FIA continues to clamp down on pretty much anything remotely clever or revolutionary. The only way to gain on the competition is through zillions of (expensive!) hours of CFD and wind tunnel work in order to refine and refine and refine all those winglets and those bumps in the bodywork for an extra .000001 removed from the drag coefficient value. That means hiring lots more people to do that stuff and buying lots more computers and main frame time for those people. So, as always, the rich get richer since the only teams that can afford that crap are those that do NOT count on Bernie for a large chunk of their income. And those teams get those added .000001 values to their advantage and on Sunday you see them pulling away from the Saubers in every session/race.

Remember those old 1950's dinosaur movies where the two dinos were fighting it out while the humans scurried about trying not to get trampled? Dino #1 = Mercedes. Dino #2 = Ferrari (or Red Bull.) Humans = the small teams.

I think the day is rapidly approaching where some (many?) of the small teams will finally throw up their hands in surrender. That will be a bad day for Bernie, the FIA, and the dinosaurs.

Z//

Zoxxo

FIA bans radio chat about car and driver performance

The FIA is pushing ahead with its plan to cut back on radio transmissions – by banning all messages from pit to car relating to the performance of the car and the driver.

Drivers can still say whatever they want to the pits, however.

The FIA has used a long standing rule that says that drivers must drive the car "alone and unaided."

The news was confirmed to teams today in a Technical Directive, issued by Whiting and seen by this writer.

Whiting wrote: "In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 20.1 of the F1 Sporting Regulations are respected at all times we intend to rigorously enforce this regulation with immediate effect. Therefore no radio conversation from pit to driver may include any information that is related to the performance of the car or driver."

He also confirmed that teams cannot get round it by sending information in other forms: "We should also remind you that data transmission from pit to car is specifically prohibited by Article 8.5.2 of the F1 Technical Regulations."

Z//

froggy47

Luca gone!

Zoxxo

F1’s radio ban – full details of what is and isn’t allowed

The FIA’s Charlie Whiting has sent the teams a further technical directive clarifying what can and cannot feature in pit to car radio conversations from the Singapore GP onwards.

Seen by this writer, the document confirms that a lot of technical information will also be banned from appearing on pit boards.

In some instances, regarding tyre and brakes, the ban has been postponed until the Japanese GP.

In addition the FIA has specifically targeted “any message that appears to be coded.”

The FIA has confirmed that the restrictions “apply at all times the car is out of its garage during the Event,” which means all practice and qualifying sessions are included.

Messages not permitted (either by radio or pit board)

Sector time detail of a competitor and where a competitor is faster or slower.

Adjustment of power unit settings.

Adjustment of power unit setting to de-rate the systems.

Adjustment of gearbox settings.

Learning of gears of the gearbox (will only be enforced from the Japanese GP onwards).

Balancing the SOC or adjusting for performance.

Information on fuel flow settings (except if requested to do so by race control).

Information on level of fuel saving needed.

Information on tyre pressures or temperatures (will only be enforced from the Japanese GP onwards).

Information on differential settings.

Start maps related to clutch position, for race start and pit stops.

Information on clutch maps or settings, eg bite point.

Burn-outs prior to race starts.

Information on brake balance or BBW settings.

Warning on brake wear or temperatures (will only be enforced from the Japanese GP onwards).

Selection of driver default settings (other than in the case of a clearly identified problem with the
car).

Answering a direct question from a driver, eg “Am I using the right torque map?”

Any message that appears to be coded.

Messages permitted (for the avoidance of doubt)

Acknowledgement that a driver message has been heard.

Lap or sector time detail.

Lap time detail of a competitor.

Gaps to a competitor during a practice session or race.

“Push hard,” “push now,” “you will be racing xx,” or similar.

Helping with warning of traffic during a practice session or race.

Giving the gaps between cars in qualifying so as to better position the car for a clear lap.

Puncture warning.

Tyre choice at the next pit stop.

Number of laps a competitor has done on a set of tyres during a race.

Tyre specification of a competitor.

Indication of a potential problem with a competitor’s car during a race.

Information concerning a competitors likely race strategy.

Yellow flags, blue flags, Safety Car deployment or other cautions.

Safety Car window.

Driving breaches by team driver or competitor, eg missing chicanes, running off track, time penalty will be applied etc.

Notification that DRS is enabled or disabled.

Dealing with a DRS system failure.

Change of front wing position at the next pit stop.

Oil transfer.

Wet track, oil or debris in certain corners.

When to enter the pits.

Reminders to check for white lines, bollards, weighbridge lights when entering or leaving the pits.

Reminders about track limits.

Passing on messages from race control.

Information concerning damage to the car.

Number of laps remaining.

Driver instructions from the team to swap position with other drivers.

Test sequence information during practice sessions, eg aero-mapping.

Weather information.

Pit to retire the car.

////////

Z//

hklvette

I can see a lot of drivers complaining about the comms ban at first. A lot of the banned information looks to be very useful to getting the best race result.

Zoxxo

Teams worried that radio ban will make starts difficult

The F1 teams are still coming to terms with the full meaning of the FIA clampdown on radio transmissions, after Charlie Whiting issued more details today.

The subject will be discussed further at a meeting of the semi-formal sporting regulations committee – the 11 team managers and the FIA – in Singapore on Thursday. That has been scheduled in addition to the regular Thursday team managers' meeting, where topical issues are usually discussed.

One area which has given teams particular cause for concern is that the ban covers complex pre-race procedures. The FIA has specifically targeted discussion of such areas as "start maps related to clutch position, for race start and pit stops," "information on clutch maps or settings, eg bite point,", and "burn-outs prior to race starts." Usually there is a lot of radio traffic as the drivers head to the grid.

"The really big headache is the parade lap," one insider told this writer. "Engine, tyres, brakes and clutch management during this lap require a lot of engineering input if the car is going to arrive on the grid in optimal condition.

"The driver workload during this time is huge. Driver intelligence doesn’t even come into play, as the settings are all 'calculated' live during the lap. At best we will end up with some seriously botched starts, and at worst a stall on the grid. It potentially mixes it up a bit if it’s the former. But the latter has the potential for things to go really seriously wrong.

"I think we are all happy to stop 'coaching' the driver but this is a much bigger step."

Z//

Zoxxo

Sure. But if the dials and switches on the car have to be explained to the driver on the fly then maybe there's something amiss. "Best drivers in the world", while hyperbolic (and pretty easy to refute given that half of them have bought their way into the car) is pretty hard to defend when the plaintive cry comes across the airwaves - "tell me what to do!"



The thing I just posted is serious - the cars now need a NASA launch team just to get them to the grid. This is beyond silly.

Z//

hklvette

I had typed a longer response to this, but the gist is: How simple is too simple and/or how complex is too complex?

Zoxxo

This is funny (funniER for long time F1 fans)

Z//

http://tinyurl.com/oybowxu

Zoxxo

Been away for a bit..

I see F1 this way... the constructors make racing cars that drivers can use to race. Said racing cars should be stand-alone tools for racing and should not be designed to *require* a team of support personnel that has to be connected to the car throughout a race in order for it to even work, much less be competitive (much less simply make it around to the grid (!)) If that is the case then it's too complicated. If it's so complex that a third party race team can't buy one and go racing - competitively - without having all the inside knowledge and support systems that the factory has, then it's too complicated. There is nothing wrong with having as just one more part of the technical challenge, the construction of a racing car that CAN stand alone on the track. They have just gone down this "arms race" path and the rules makers have done nothing to stop it.

Formula One has always been a technical series - the cars pushing the tech envelope all along. BUT, when all was said and done, it came down to the drivers to make use of the tech in the cars to win races - on their own - with only a pit board to give them necessary info once per lap. Only recently have we come to the place where the drivers are actually REQUESTING HELP with driving the cars in REAL TIME. That's not F1. Period. No current/future F1 driver will be able to look you in the eye with pride about his "World Champion" title if you can pull out your phone and bring up a YouTube video that clearly shows him/her whining and crying ("tell Charlie that so-and-so called me a name!") and begging for assistance with the ***** and dials on his steering wheel ("tell me how to drive!") If THAT is what being a "World Champion" has come down to then they can have it and the truly great drivers of the past can rest easy knowing that no one will ever take their places; they were actually race drivers.

Give this game another ten years going down the current path and most of the drivers will just be varying forms of "Justin Bieber in a driving suit."

Z//

VetteDrmr

Z,

That video was hilarious, a great start to the morning!

As to the current state of affairs, I guess I'm still coming from the memories of the era where the drivers didn't even shift, and each course was programmed into the cars for shift points, ABS (am I remembering that right?), etc. All the drivers had to do was stand on the gas, stand on the brakes, and turn. Now the drivers have to modulate the brakes (no ABS), the throttle (no TC), and dance that fine line.

What really amazes me is that the teams know, in real time, how the *other* teams are doing in various sections of the course. How much work does it take to gather, assimilate, and crunch that data to give their drivers meaningful info on how to best run their race?

As far as drivers go, I feel we've got a very similar crop now as we always have. Excellent drivers with excellent teams dominate (RB for the past several years, Ferrari before that, Merc currently), phenomenal drivers in slightly lower teams consistently punching above their weight (Alonso, Schumi in his early F1 career), and then the rest. Maybe a few more paying drivers than before, but they've always been around.

Have a good one,
Mike

Zoxxo

Well, not quite. Back in the days of the Williams FW14 (Adrian Newey again ) the main thing that the programming did was to optimize the ride height for the straights and the corners in order to maximize the aerodynamics. So you could program the car to know where it was on the track and to set the ride height the way they wanted for "here". (Just how they kept the car's sense of location accurate lap to lap I dunno but I can certainly think of several ways to accomplish that fairly simply and if I can then I'm sure that Newey could ) AFAIK there was no ability to be accurate enough with location to have the car shift and/or brake correctly. That requires exquisite perfection to extract the best lap time. Plus, I doubt that the drivers would feel particularly comfortable riding in such a thing (170 mph in a Google self-driving car? I think not )

They did have ABS and traction control if I remember correctly.

I have no real problem with some of the technology that has been used on the cars in the past. My issue is the required tethering of the car to the IT folks in the pits (and back at the factory.) I just think that the manufacturers should have to make a car that will be on its own once the race starts and that therefore can't be so complicated that a smart driver can't deal with all the options it presents to him *during the race*. Racing should be "my brain + my car" against the other guys' "brain + car" with no collectivism involved.

A lot of that comes from the FIA's GPS stuff that's made available to all the teams. There used to be (and I assume there still is) a lot of "spying" going on where team representatives would go out to various points on the track and do audio recordings of the opposition cars which could then be analyzed for rpm, shift points, speed, gear ratios, etc.

Re: Schumacher & Ferrari

People forget that Ferrari in those days had the total attention of Bridgestone. Their race tires were made for that car and that driver. The tires and the cars were tested for thousands of miles on Ferrari's own, private test track at Fiorano. Schumacher was a good driver but he had easily the best car on the best tires with absolutely the best race strategist (Braun) calling the shots.

The say that the only real measure of a driver's skill is how he compares to his team mate. Well, in the three years that Michael drove for Mercedes - in a car that was clearly designed to Michael's preferences - Nico Rosberg comprehensively out-qualified and out-pointed him all three years. You would think that the much lauded (too much, IMO) 7-time WC could do better than that.

Z//

tytek

That is all quite correct. Schumi was at Ferrari at the right time and had lots of luck (and back office engineering) to thank for his dominance. He was masterful in the wet, and great in the dry... but he is not the best F1 driver the walk this planet, most of us can agree to that. Fangio or Senna would be my choices, but the statistics clearly favor Schumi.

We are seeing a similar situation this year with Vettel (and Ricciardo). The car simply doesn't suit Seb and his driving style. The blown diffuser was his setup. This one clearly isn't. And the RB10 chassis is not as good (engine in particular) as it was for the past few years, so they are not able to dominate; as opposed to MB

VetteDrmr

Good point about Bridgestone; I had forgotten that point. And I think MS had his edge after 3 years away (and probably some before then as well).

Have a good one,
Mike

Zoxxo

MS is just one driver on a hefty list of World Champions who became so because of the CARS they had around them, the designers that thought them up, and all that went into making those cars way better than those of their competition.

The world has no problem reveling in the technical glory that is Formula One. The fans (and the engineers - see Newey) rue the fact that essentially all of the clever engineering solutions that are developed nowadays are quickly shot down and made illegal - they want it back to where it was 20 years ago - a (semi-)freewheeling technical playground. Yet, despite the fact that it's quite easy to demonstrate how, throughout the years, a great number of driver Championships came at the wheel of a dominant car - a car that would have "earned" the championship for any one of several drivers on the grid that season (Mansell, Button, Schumacher, and Vettel off the top of my head to start the list.)

But then the same world that revels in, and demands, the immense technicality of the series, turns around and carries on about the driver as if they are all Alonso - carrying loser race cars to glory by the sheer power of their driving skills. The NBCSN guys are almost at pains NOT to say "Vettel" without prefacing it with "four time world champion." Or Michael without "seven time world champion." So, even Steve Matchett and Diffey, who both ought to know better, still buy into this nonsense.

I think it's interesting that when you look back over the history of F1 the drivers that have filtered through the sieve of history to still be seen as the "great" ones are those who could, and did, regularly do what Alonso does today - make a winning car out of a losing car (or at least clearly take that loser much farther up the grid than where it ought to be.) They are drivers who won races and championships in different cars - and not always the best cars. This is why Vettel is not one of the "greats" IMO - any number of drivers on the grid the past few years could have taken those Newey vehicles to the top. If you look at Vettel's trophies in just the right light you can see the shadowy "Newey" lettering underneath Vettel's etched name.

Imagine a Newey/Alonso partnership with Newey actively working to create a vehicle that plays to Alonso's strengths.

Z//