Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Formula 1' started by Chris Jenkins, Jun 21, 2011.
The rule seems to be: if it works, ban it!
good. makes it fair for everyone else...just stick with body aerodynamics, not engine map settigs.
I don't like Red Bull's dominance at all, however in F1 there does seem to be a nature of "Oh look, this team has come up with something innovative that gives them an advantage, let's ban it" rather than embracing the technology.
F1 used to be the pinnacle of motorsport. I love F1, but I can see it turning into an absolute farce. DRS at Canada was one example.
What if they made it so that teams couldn't change the settings on the cars for the first 50% of races, including engine mapping and drs could only be used in the designated race areas in qualifying and practice. So that if a team uses gobs of fuel in qualifying to burn up in blown diffusers and whatever else they would be screwed in the long term as it would make them have to run very lean on fuel the rest of the way.
Thats why the FIA is taking more immediate action against the 'hot-blown' diffuser.
It goes against the greener image that the FIA is trying to create.
But if all teams are limited to the amount of fuel they can use, its really not one or the other. The point I made was for the teams that do that knowing might shoot themselves in the foot in that latter stages of a race.
What are the limits on the fuel they can use?
And also, limit or not, if the FIA bans things that use more of a team's allocation of fuel, overall the fuel consumption will come down, thus being more environmentally friendly.
I think that's the angle they're looking at.
I completely appreciate your point and it does pose an interesting view on strategy, but for that 50% of the race or whatever, the cars are a lot less fuel-efficient and that's the complete opposite of what the FIA is trying to achieve, as it would ultimately be 50% of the entire season that wasn't as fuel effective as it could've been.
How was it not fair in the first place?
I think because it was only the wealthier teams that could afford to develop the engine mapping software to make the hot-blown diffuser work.
wealth isn't a matter of being unfair, besides Redbull have a budget close to Team Lotus and Williams anyway.
And besides for Redbulls case, they got Renault To help them develop the off throttle engine mapping.
How do you figure?
Its been reported recently that Red Bull has the 4th largest budget behind Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes.
When costs have been reduced overall the figure from the top to bottom reduces.
Besides Redbull have always been far away from the top teams in spending since they started.
Weren't Red Bull reportedly the only team last season to request authorisation to exceed their spending?
There were reports in the off-season that Red Bull had exceeded a limit on resource expenditure set by the FIA.
yep, do not like that attitude at all, it takes away all the breathing space for inventive engineers and without those all aims of either going green or being more interesting to watch are doomed.
Sometimes I think they should just say, "No restrictions" - do what you want. Choose what tyres you want etc. Just restrict width and length of wheelbase etc.Then we would see the really good engineers come out!
And the coffins
Something similar to the Group 7 days would be fun, but costs get rapidly out of hand and everyone ends up quitting. (and while the cars were impressive, the racing was fair at best). It really doesn't work for long. It's really too bad that budget limits are unenforcable, because an less limited formula with a set budget of X million would see who was really innovative.
If none of these things were banned f1 would just turn boring again like it was when schumacher was winning every race. They change the rules to make the cars have less downforce but then teams will find a loophole in the rules and develop something that gives them more. The f-duct reduced downforce on the straights which allowed teams to run a higher downforce level for the corners, and the double diffuser and the engine mapping just give the teams more downforce overall. But the main problem is that only the top teams can afford to develop such ideas which put them above the smaller teams even more than they already are, and if that happens too much the small teams wont carry on.