The F1 thread

stickyfiddle

aord43 said:

57Deluxe said:

He made a right meal of passing Alonso though...

Yeah, what's that all about? Mercedes need to sort their car out if it's that fussy.
That was a good tussle with Alonso though, and shows that both are great drivers who fought hard but clean.  It's good that McLaren are getting better, hopefully next year they will be a contender.  I'd rather see them win than Ferrari.

It looks like this year's Merc is much like the RB's from 2011-2013. Fantastically quicker than everyone in clean air but drop back and it's much harder to pass. Then once it's clear you have the quickest car it gets developed through the year to emphasise that quali pace and the races don't matter because you lead most of them. 

I'm glad Ham has got this title, but I do hope someone else wins next year. If McLaren makes the leap they're hoping for there's actually a possibility that they'll take points off RB and Ferrari but not Mercedes. I hope we don't get that.

57Deluxe

aord43 said:

57Deluxe said:

He made a right meal of passing Alonso though...

Yeah, what's that all about? Mercedes need to sort their car out if it's that fussy.
That was a good tussle with Alonso though, and shows that both are great drivers who fought hard but clean.  It's good that McLaren are getting better, hopefully next year they will be a contender.  I'd rather see them win than Ferrari.

...will be too late for Jensen though...

sinbaadi

darcym said:

sinbaadi said:

Vettel should have had a penalty for causing the puncture.  Plenty of time, clear vision, loads of room, and he drove into the rear quarter of a car in front.  

plenty of time ? it was nano-seconds, loads of room ? there was 3 cars in close quaters that had already touched once and where fighting for the lead, clear vision ? Hamilton was behind him, you can't see anything out of the mirrors beyond a blob flashing in / out of vision to let you know what side the car is on.

There is no way that was intentional he was simply in the way as Hamilton rejoined the track after having being pushed wide, no-ones fault, simply 3 cars having a close fight with not enough grip.

Hamilton touched the back of Verstappen trying to take the lead, should he have got a penalty too ? no, because in that sort of situation, it was impossible to do anything other than they did really, hence why there was not even an investigation by the stewards. 

I hear pundits saying Vettel was at fault, but it doesn't feel like any one was at fault, 

3 cars went into the lead, Verstappen was aggressive and took the lead, Vettel was aggressive and slid a little with understeer and touched Verstappen, Hamilton was aggressive, tried to go around the outside, touched Verstappen and clipped Vettel rejoining the track as Vettel was moving slightly over to retake his line after the contact with Vertstappen, nothing bad sport or too aggressive about it, a little rushed, perhaps, but two of these where fighting for the championship and all three had a point to prove in the race and needed that first corner lead, as Verstappen proved, that first corner lead was critical to controlling the race. 

Hamilton never left the track?  Nothing aggressive either.  Vettel had Lewis and Max in clear sight from the instant he and Max collided.  Vettel straightened his steering and accelerated with no regard for the space occupied by the Mercedes.  So needless and easily avoided.

rolls1392

From another point of view.
Could have been a gamble by Vettel. Quick tap on Lewis, he gets a puncture and destroys backs of car and retires. Vettel then has a demon drive thru the field.
He gets point whilst Lewis has none.
Keeps the championship alive.
At that level these guys react,plan decide so quickly.
I bet the thought went thru his head!

gavin_axecaster

sinbaadi said:

darcym said:

sinbaadi said:

Vettel should have had a penalty for causing the puncture.  Plenty of time, clear vision, loads of room, and he drove into the rear quarter of a car in front.  

plenty of time ? it was nano-seconds, loads of room ? there was 3 cars in close quaters that had already touched once and where fighting for the lead, clear vision ? Hamilton was behind him, you can't see anything out of the mirrors beyond a blob flashing in / out of vision to let you know what side the car is on.

There is no way that was intentional he was simply in the way as Hamilton rejoined the track after having being pushed wide, no-ones fault, simply 3 cars having a close fight with not enough grip.

Hamilton touched the back of Verstappen trying to take the lead, should he have got a penalty too ? no, because in that sort of situation, it was impossible to do anything other than they did really, hence why there was not even an investigation by the stewards. 

I hear pundits saying Vettel was at fault, but it doesn't feel like any one was at fault, 

3 cars went into the lead, Verstappen was aggressive and took the lead, Vettel was aggressive and slid a little with understeer and touched Verstappen, Hamilton was aggressive, tried to go around the outside, touched Verstappen and clipped Vettel rejoining the track as Vettel was moving slightly over to retake his line after the contact with Vertstappen, nothing bad sport or too aggressive about it, a little rushed, perhaps, but two of these where fighting for the championship and all three had a point to prove in the race and needed that first corner lead, as Verstappen proved, that first corner lead was critical to controlling the race. 

Hamilton never left the track?  Nothing aggressive either.  Vettel had Lewis and Max in clear sight from the instant he and Max collided.  Vettel straightened his steering and accelerated with no regard for the space occupied by the Mercedes.  So needless and easily avoided.

Spot on - I've just finished watching it and Hamilton wasn't "rejoining" the track, he never left it. He was completely in front of Vettel, who drove into him.

Paul_C

I thought Vettel ought to have been able to avoid him completely but maybe was focused more on not letting the two in front get away from him than he should have been on avoiding an accident.

I read a report which said that Vettel's front wing was already damaged from contact with Verstappen, which might have contributed to his collision with Hamilton - whose punctured tyre damaged the floor of the Mercedes on the way back to the pits, and that might have meant that the car was no longer as quick as it might have been at the beginning of the race.

chillidoggy

Thing is, Vettel had more to lose than Hamilton.

TimmyO

I can't stick Vettel but there's no way it was malicious/deliberate. A bit clumsy? Maybe not even that - there was a lot to be watching all at once. 

Boromedic

Racing incident at the start of the race, Vettel didn't do it deliberately at all, if there was a case to answer then the stewards would have made it happen. He just understeered into him due to cold tyres, loss of front downforce etc.

axisus

I don't think that Vettel would have done that deliberately. 

Schumacher yes though, 100% if he thought it would help him win.

stickyfiddle

High level summary of the new engine regs is out:

• 1.6 Litre, V6 Turbo Hybrid
• 3000rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
• Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
• Removal of the MGUH
• More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
• Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
• Standard energy store and control electronics
• High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
• Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used

Higher reves is good for sound, and losing the MGU-H is good for getting new companies coming in, as that's the bit Honda & Renault fucked up. 

Of course without changing the fuel flow limits noone will actually use that higher rev limit, so hopefully they'll just tell them "Here's 100kg fuel; use it however you want". 

And of course Mercedes & Renault are up in arms over it, because Merc don't want to lose their advantage, and Renault know they can't develop new engines for shit, so don't want to have to just as they're getting close with the current formula. 

Interesting times...

siremoon

stickyfiddle said:

High level summary of the new engine regs is out:

• 1.6 Litre, V6 Turbo Hybrid
• 3000rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
• Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
• Removal of the MGUH
• More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
• Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
• Standard energy store and control electronics
• High Level of external prescriptive design to give ‘Plug-And-Play’ engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
• Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used

Higher reves is good for sound, and losing the MGU-H is good for getting new companies coming in, as that's the bit Honda & Renault fucked up. 

Of course without changing the fuel flow limits noone will actually use that higher rev limit, so hopefully they'll just tell them "Here's 100kg fuel; use it however you want". 

And of course Mercedes & Renault are up in arms over it, because Merc don't want to lose their advantage, and Renault know they can't develop new engines for shit, so don't want to have to just as they're getting close with the current formula. 

Interesting times...

Whispers that Honda and Ferrari don't like it either. 

Seems to me to satisfy nobody.  Means the current engine suppliers have got to start from scratch and it's too complex and expensive for an independent. 

If I were a betting man I would say whatever they end up with will be nothing like what's been quoted.

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

Has there ever been a change in engine regs that didn't result in the major manufacturers getting their knickers in a twist? Whoever is the dominant force at the given time will always whinge as it threatens their superiority, and any change is always gonna incur development costs which upsets the other guys.

Personally I don't think it sounds too bad - at least they're keeping the basic architecture, so they wouldn't have to start completely from scratch like they had to last time there was a major change in engine regs. If it makes them sound better, and makes it easier for teams to change between engine suppliers then that's got to be an improvement. 

sinbaadi

Not a big enough change to make a huge difference to the show.  3k rpm is significant but it will still be muted by the turbo charger.

And at the same time back to the drawing board for the manufacturers which seems wasteful.

stickyfiddle

Agreed. I'd also add that having a formula that will help get commitments from at least a couple of Porsche/VAG, BMW, Toyota, Cosworth is really important. You only have to look at WEC to see what happens when the rules require huge spend and 1 team is unbeatable. 

chillidoggy

Whichever way it goes, it'll cost money, and the engine manufacturers will want to be able to use the tech elsewhere in road cars. I do like the idea of saving up energy for use later, though.

aord43

chillidoggy said:

Whichever way it goes, it'll cost money, and the engine manufacturers will want to be able to use the tech elsewhere in road cars. I do like the idea of saving up energy for use later, though.

Isn't that just what hybrid road cars do now?  I admit I thought the F1 cars already did it.  What happens to recuperated energy now?

TimmyO

Sounds like it'll rebalance things for a while

I just hope they find a way to show viewers what the situation is with driver use of the extra power (rather than the occasional graphic when the director feels like it) otherwise it'll be a bit confusing

FX_Munkee

The higher rev limit that means they'll all have to go back to the drawing board and start again. Which will cost everybody a fair chunk of cash. So Merc et al have a bit of a point there.

chillidoggy

aord43 said:

chillidoggy said:

Whichever way it goes, it'll cost money, and the engine manufacturers will want to be able to use the tech elsewhere in road cars. I do like the idea of saving up energy for use later, though.

Isn't that just what hybrid road cars do now?  I admit I thought the F1 cars already did it.  What happens to recuperated energy now?

Might be the driver saving up more and more energy to release into the drivetrain when he needs it. Larger battery capacity, maybe? Maybe a number of overtake boosts but only after 'x' amount of laps? Where's @fretwired when you need him?