Technical 2014 Technical Regulations
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
... Oh, wait ...
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
Just read at Autosport.com that 2014 spec weight now is 690 kg, 48 kg more than the current spec. So despite ~50 kg less fuel, at the start the cars will weigh the same as 2013, but ~48 kg more at the finish.
Pirelli are anticipating the cars will produce ~900 bhp, which I take to be petrol power plus ERS combined, so I was puzzled when Charlie Whiting predicted they would be 2-3 seconds/lap slower than 2013. The increased spec weight explains it.
The last draught of the 2014 TR I downloaded lists 660 kg as spec weight. That it keeps incrementing upwards I take to mean the teams are finding the lighter weights too ambitious.
Pirelli are anticipating the cars will produce ~900 bhp, which I take to be petrol power plus ERS combined, so I was puzzled when Charlie Whiting predicted they would be 2-3 seconds/lap slower than 2013. The increased spec weight explains it.
The last draught of the 2014 TR I downloaded lists 660 kg as spec weight. That it keeps incrementing upwards I take to mean the teams are finding the lighter weights too ambitious.
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
TR 11.7 ERS brake valve:
The pressure generated by the driver in the rear brake circuit may be reduced by the use of an ERS brake pressure reducing valve. The valve must be manufactured by an FIA designated supplier and installed in accordance with the fitting instructions which may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
Any such valve may only be controlled by the control electronics described in Article 8.2.
This was included because the dramatic increase of energy being harvested at the rear wheels otherwise would unduly complicate the matter of brake bias adjustment. But you know the teams' engineers all are parsing the verbiage here used, trying to figure how they can contort this provision into a perfunctory antilocking system.
The pressure generated by the driver in the rear brake circuit may be reduced by the use of an ERS brake pressure reducing valve. The valve must be manufactured by an FIA designated supplier and installed in accordance with the fitting instructions which may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
Any such valve may only be controlled by the control electronics described in Article 8.2.
This was included because the dramatic increase of energy being harvested at the rear wheels otherwise would unduly complicate the matter of brake bias adjustment. But you know the teams' engineers all are parsing the verbiage here used, trying to figure how they can contort this provision into a perfunctory antilocking system.
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
Auto Motor und Sport is reporting that development of the 2014 V6T engines isn't going too well. Too large, too thirsty, too hot, reliability uncertain.
Interesting but not really surprising. I imagine the manufacturers will get it together somehow, but if they don't and there are a lot of reliability issues the championship will be a farce - especially if, as the article says, replacing each individual component of the power train will result in a 5 place grid penalty, so if KERS, engine etc. etc. all fail that's a 20 place penalty. And with only 5 engines for the year in a calendar that could have more than 20 races...
Something needs to give way...
Something needs to give way...
This is the problem with penalties for failures. In their first season back, I would imagine their will be a great number of fire belching turbo explosions, just like the old days.
With out the restrictions in place it wouldn't be a farce it would provide another level of unpredictability and a slightly less false one than made to wear tyres. I miss the nervous wait as every lap ticked off and you were never sure if that little puff of smoke was nothing or the pre-cursor to oil spitting, smoke pouring engine failure.
With out the restrictions in place it wouldn't be a farce it would provide another level of unpredictability and a slightly less false one than made to wear tyres. I miss the nervous wait as every lap ticked off and you were never sure if that little puff of smoke was nothing or the pre-cursor to oil spitting, smoke pouring engine failure.
Bring the bangs on! It's the only thing that could save F1 with the current balance of power.
There's no problem, there. To finish first, first you must finish. If you can't get to the end, hard luck.
What's the issue. We've destroyed the skill of tyre preservation; allow them to develop an engine preservation skill.
What's the issue. We've destroyed the skill of tyre preservation; allow them to develop an engine preservation skill.
The issue is cost. If they remove the engine restriction the big teams will stick a new one in for each race whereas teams in the midfield might not be able to afford to. I think 5 engines is too few though, especially for the first season.
Build a reliable engine, and you'll get no grid penalty. Build it fast and you might get away with having one.
Lovely. Should be interesting.
Lovely. Should be interesting.
Westy
Pole Sitter
I think a level of uncertainty is deeply needed in F1. The reliability of the cars today is unbelievable, and all the credit should go to the team's engineering staff. Well done for making some truly bullet proof cars.
However, for the spectators a few mechanical failures never go amiss. They can blow a race wide open and allow for a surprise victory. They can also spell wicked defeat when your favorite driver comes to a screeching halt mere miles away from the finish line.
If the regulations stay as they are now for the next season then the teams are going to have to nut up and get on with it. Teams always have to balance reliability with performance. They'll figure it out.
However, for the spectators a few mechanical failures never go amiss. They can blow a race wide open and allow for a surprise victory. They can also spell wicked defeat when your favorite driver comes to a screeching halt mere miles away from the finish line.
If the regulations stay as they are now for the next season then the teams are going to have to nut up and get on with it. Teams always have to balance reliability with performance. They'll figure it out.
Bushi
Race Winner
I don't know, i find it pretty frustrating when my favorite driver has to give up because of reliability issues....Raikkonen 2005 is a perfect example of that. On the otherhand it's fun when it brings the field back together on the championship table.
Does anyone find it strange that Ferrari are the only ones that haven't showed there engine yet?
Does anyone find it strange that Ferrari are the only ones that haven't showed there engine yet?
Young driver tests on Friday P1 sessions all but agreed.
FP1 is now to be 2hrs long rather than the current 90 minutes. In the first 30 minutes the teams will have an extra set of tyres that can only be used in this window and be free to run the test driver in this time slot with swapping to the race driver at any time in the session.
All the teams are agreed it only needs rubber stamped.
That can only be good news.
FP1 is now to be 2hrs long rather than the current 90 minutes. In the first 30 minutes the teams will have an extra set of tyres that can only be used in this window and be free to run the test driver in this time slot with swapping to the race driver at any time in the session.
All the teams are agreed it only needs rubber stamped.
That can only be good news.
Every Friday FP1 Greenlantern101 ?
Yes every Friday.
I would post the source but due to the websites fascist cookie policy I refuse to do so.
I would post the source but due to the websites fascist cookie policy I refuse to do so.
Would the "young drivers" have to be below a certain age, below a certain number of race starts, acknowledged reserve drivers?
Rookie drivers may be a better description, it is clearly to avoid throwing rookies in at the deep end with little track time. I don't think age is relevant.
Similar threads
- Article
