1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Motorsport Off Topic Thread

Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Shimmy, 2 Jan 2012.

  1. Skeeter

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 37,148

    Location: Surrey

    Because they said they would along with Renault. They had no interest in continuing with an NA V8s.

    The commitment to V6s happened a while before 2013. It was even delayed a year from when they first planned to have them, wasn't it?
     
  2. ThestigGT999

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 30 Aug 2009

    Posts: 7,951

    Location: one nation under sony

  3. Skeeter

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 37,148

    Location: Surrey

    Because F1 wouldnt go back to V8s?
     
  4. MissChief

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Jul 2010

    Posts: 19,831

    Renault were deciding on buying the Lotus team or leaving the sport all together. They decided to stay.

    Renault openly stated that if the V8's were to continue they would leave. Honda have also stated that were the engines still NA V8's they wouldn't have returned either. That would have left Ferrari and Mercedes.

    Ferrari care about one thing and one thing only; Ferrari. it's not unheard of that Ferrari supplied teams have been 'advised' on how to vote in strategy meetings in the past, lest the amount of technical assistance might suddenly be reduced or the price of next years engines might suddenly be $5m more than last season for no apparent reason. Mercedes weren't great fans of the NA V8's either. There was, as I've already stated, a drive to make F1 engines more relevant to road car technology. How many road cars have V8 engines that rev to 17k, with 10 year old technology? How many road cars have small capacity, hybrid based, turbo charged engines? Dozens, and they're only going to become more and more prevalent.

    As much as you would like it, the V8's won't EVER return in their previous NA format. Not only are the teams against it for reasons of road car relevance and cost (already spent as opposed to on-going) it doesn't make any sense. And I certainly don't agree that the V8's meant more competition. If it did Vettel wouldn't have won 4 WDC's in the same car, although I'll admit one of them was very close. The Engine is a part of the car, a winning car (and team) is the sum of it's parts. If the Engine was the most important factor then why are Williams and Force India not following in the Works Mercedes' wheel tracks every race?
     
    Last edited: 1 Aug 2016
  5. ThestigGT999

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 30 Aug 2009

    Posts: 7,951

    Location: one nation under sony

    more different teams won races as I posted already regarding V8s over V6s
     
  6. Cosimo

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 9 Jan 2007

    Posts: 163,805

    Location: Londinium

     
  7. Skeeter

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 37,148

    Location: Surrey

    Correlation does not mean causality.
     
  8. MagicBoy

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 17,396

    Location: South Manchester

    Eight seasons vs two and a half. Yeah, that's a fair yardstick. :confused:

    Take the first two and a half years of V8s and the winning engines are still Renault,Ferrari and Mercedes. Plus a single BMW win in Canada, but they're not around any longer. Not exactly a slam dunk for V8s then.
     
  9. Skeeter

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 37,148

    Location: Surrey

    There were more manufacturers then too. Wasn't there 7 at one point (Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, BMW, Toyota, Honda, BMW and Cosworth)?

    So 3 out of 6 or 7 is less competitive than 2 out of 3.
     
  10. MagicBoy

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 17,396

    Location: South Manchester

    It's 3 out of 4 - Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault. Only Honda have failed so far to win a race, also being a year behind on their programme.
     
  11. smr

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 6 Mar 2008

    Posts: 8,566

    Location: Leicestershire

    [​IMG] :cool:

    How awesome the bigger tyres look, next year's cars are going to look brilliant.
     
  12. Skeeter

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 37,148

    Location: Surrey

    Nobody has disputed that. It looks like a hybrid 2017 rear wing too, as it looks wider?

    The problem is F1 doesn't need better looking cars, it needs better racing, and the 2017 rules are not going to provide that.
     
  13. Marvin

    Mobster

    Joined: 27 Nov 2009

    Posts: 3,872

    Location: Maidstone, Kent

    The depressing thing is they're running ground effect on that car to simulate the 2017 level of downforce, yet this isn't allowed in the regulations still due to safety concerns. Woe is the FIA.
     
  14. MarcLister

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 18,952

    Location: LU7

    Was thinking that earlier when I read the BBC Sport article. Using something outlawed on safety grounds to help test 2017 tyres? :D
     
  15. Skeeter

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Mar 2007

    Posts: 37,148

    Location: Surrey

    We should get some pictures of the modified Red Bull when it tests on Wednesday too.
     
  16. MissChief

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Jul 2010

    Posts: 19,831

    The issue with Ground Effect is if the effect is lost as it usually results in a very sudden and dramatic loss of downforce, often with big and costly consequences. If you're able to go round, say, 130R at 160MPH thanks to the massive levels of downforce and this downforce were suddenly halved or even lost altogether then the shunt would be mighty.
     
  17. Blackvault

    Mobster

    Joined: 5 May 2004

    Posts: 3,902

    Location: Northern Ireland

    Isn't that the same if the rear wing producing the down force where to fall off during the corner? Yes ground effect could be lost as well but the risk is slim is it not? Sorry for the silly question, I'm no expert.
     
  18. DRZ

    Soldato

    Joined: 2 Jun 2003

    Posts: 6,861

    Location: In the top 1%

    Not quite.

    The chances of a total rear wing failure are extremely slim and if that did happen mid-corner there would be an enormous accident but at, say, 120mph. DRS makes a mid-corner failure more likely but in this scenario you'll still have some downforce and so the accident is likely to be less severe.

    What you have with ground effect is where relatively trivial things can cause the total loss of almost all of the downforce generated by the car - which is enormously more than with the wings we have today. So the crash might happen at 160-180mph instead of the 120mph around the same corner. By trivial I mean things like hitting a bump, gusts of wind, front wing damage etc.
     
  19. Havana_UK

    Mobster

    Joined: 14 Oct 2004

    Posts: 4,916

    Location: location, location

    It's not like today's cars don't generate down-force using ground effects, but if regulations changed to allow the teams to seal that underbody airflow using side skirts like Ferrari's modified test car than the potential loss of down force in the event of that seal failing (for whatever reason) could be significant.

    It will be interesting to see how the tyre changes affect things next season. Having loads more mechanical grip will make it fun to watch how quickly they can go around corners!
     
  20. Armageus

    Don

    Joined: 19 May 2012

    Posts: 12,144

    Location: Spalding, Lincolnshire

    Anyone see BTCC at the weekend?

    I was there and pretty enjoyable day, but a couple of pretty horrific accidents (one involving a camera man).

    Race 2


    Race 3