Ask The Apex
- Thread starter Galahad
- Start date
Racking my memory, I think it is pretty unusual for a driver to take their engineer with them to a new team.
The only example I can bring to mind instantly (and I'm sure there is certainly more than one) is Jock Clear, who race engineered Jacques Villeneuve at Williams and then went with him to BAR, right through to the Honda years (though not to Renault or Sauber subsequently).
In the unlikely event of Massa leaving Ferrari I could certainly see Smedley going with him. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that these guys have houses, families, lives of their own and even irrespective of that, relocating halfway across Europe for a driver (whose careers are not of a guaranteed length) can be a bit of a gamble. Particularly if you've got a reasonably secure job at Ferrari, eh?
The only example I can bring to mind instantly (and I'm sure there is certainly more than one) is Jock Clear, who race engineered Jacques Villeneuve at Williams and then went with him to BAR, right through to the Honda years (though not to Renault or Sauber subsequently).
In the unlikely event of Massa leaving Ferrari I could certainly see Smedley going with him. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that these guys have houses, families, lives of their own and even irrespective of that, relocating halfway across Europe for a driver (whose careers are not of a guaranteed length) can be a bit of a gamble. Particularly if you've got a reasonably secure job at Ferrari, eh?
Cheers for the quick answer guys.
The reason I asked it is because of Ferrari's upcoming hearing. Rob Smedley will be giving crucial evidence about the case. Where does his loyalty lie? Is it the team who pays his wages or his driver.
The reason I asked it is because of Ferrari's upcoming hearing. Rob Smedley will be giving crucial evidence about the case. Where does his loyalty lie? Is it the team who pays his wages or his driver.
I knew there would be more!
- Jarno Trulli's race engineer, Gianluca Pisanello, followed the Italian from Toyota to Lotus last winter.
(although Juan Pablo Ramirez, Heikki's engineer, also made the trip from Cologne to Norfolk having worked with Timo Glock last season)
- Jody Scheckter took Roy Topp with him when he went from Tyrrell to Wolf for the 1977 season.
- Jarno Trulli's race engineer, Gianluca Pisanello, followed the Italian from Toyota to Lotus last winter.
(although Juan Pablo Ramirez, Heikki's engineer, also made the trip from Cologne to Norfolk having worked with Timo Glock last season)
- Jody Scheckter took Roy Topp with him when he went from Tyrrell to Wolf for the 1977 season.
Incubus
Champion Elect
I see the Brabham-BMW turbo (circa 1982-87) was mentioned earlier.
I'm no technician but one thing I'd always wondered was how the asymetrical Babhams from this period, with their four cylinder engines leaning towards the right and their differently-positioned radiators, could get by without it affecting their weight distribution and chassis balance?
Me no comprendo.
I'm no technician but one thing I'd always wondered was how the asymetrical Babhams from this period, with their four cylinder engines leaning towards the right and their differently-positioned radiators, could get by without it affecting their weight distribution and chassis balance?
Me no comprendo.
From what I understand about the Brabham turbo cars they had a radiator in one side pod and the intercooler in the other with the 4 cylinder engine running down the centre line of the car. In terms of balance, most F1 cars are no where near the weight limit so they can use ballast to get the weight distribution right.
In the final incarnation of the Brabham BMW (BT55 & 56) Gordon Murray tilted the engine to improve the aero shape of the car. Aerodynamically it was a good idea but, if I remember correctly, it had horrendous reliability problems as the oil couldn't get to where it was supposed to be in the motor.
This schematic shows how it all fitted together.
In the final incarnation of the Brabham BMW (BT55 & 56) Gordon Murray tilted the engine to improve the aero shape of the car. Aerodynamically it was a good idea but, if I remember correctly, it had horrendous reliability problems as the oil couldn't get to where it was supposed to be in the motor.
This schematic shows how it all fitted together.
Incubus
Champion Elect
Thanks FB, great views of the car's architecture.
But regarding weight distribution issues cars nowawadays may use ballast to reach minimum weight, but this was definitely not the case back in the eighties.
F1 teams back then had a hard job of getting near minimum weight regulations, and even the that period's top cars were often a good 10kg at least above the then-minimum weight of 540kg.
But regarding weight distribution issues cars nowawadays may use ballast to reach minimum weight, but this was definitely not the case back in the eighties.
F1 teams back then had a hard job of getting near minimum weight regulations, and even the that period's top cars were often a good 10kg at least above the then-minimum weight of 540kg.
Given the 4 races per gearbox rule now in place in F1 are the teams allowed to change the gear ratios between races? I was somewhat surprised to see the cars hitting the rev limiter, especially the Red Bulls, and it would (for me at least) help to exlplain why the FI was so much faster than the Red Bull in a straight line regardless of horsepower.
I'm fairly sure that gearboxes can be opened and ratios changes and in fact, the rules state they must inform the FIA of the ratios they intend to use for the event and an FIA official must be present when the gearbox is opened.
If you read the Qualifying notes from the F1 2010 Standings & Results thread, you will see that some teams/drivers have been penalised for breaching both of these rules.
If you read the Qualifying notes from the F1 2010 Standings & Results thread, you will see that some teams/drivers have been penalised for breaching both of these rules.
I still have the suspicion that the Renault engine is a lot better unit then Horner would have us believe. He is always saying that it is down on power, which I agree with. I don't think, however, that he is telling us the whole story with regards to its drivability, and its performance at lower revs.
If he got the engine equalisation he desired, I'm sure it would be a far better unit than any of its competitors. Maybe because of this, running lower gear ratios makes use of this advantage, explaining why they appear to be on the limiter a lot of the time.
If he got the engine equalisation he desired, I'm sure it would be a far better unit than any of its competitors. Maybe because of this, running lower gear ratios makes use of this advantage, explaining why they appear to be on the limiter a lot of the time.
ATL11
Pole Sitter
With the latest incident with Button & Vettel, watching the incident again my first thought wasn't Vettel again causing another crash, but how close his nose was to Button's helmet. The picture link below shows the impact.
I got the same ebee geebees with Kubica's crash @ Canada a few years ago....again not how he survived it.....over the years we've come accustomed with even massive impacts (Webber this year) the bloke just gets out the car....but with Kubica how he missed by inches vaulting the wall and travelling towards oncoming traffic.
What I'm trying to get at is the next major injury & even death in F1, will not come from a lax in the safety tests we have but in a freak accident that can't be tested, i.e. a Spring hitting Massa on his helmet.
So grusome though it is, are there accidents that couldn't be tested that could cause a major injury/death, that soon (if not now) FIA would need to look at, I'm thinking of:
Like Webber hitting rear of car, flipping & falling flat upside down...what's the stress test on the roll bar?
Side impact & spearing of helmet with nose cone
Head on impact, again where does the nose cone go, towards drivers head, etc.
Now of course I know where I was on the 1st May, but just with the Button/Vettel incident I'm getting worried on FIA's safety complacency:
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/...l-retain-f1-world-title-despite-belgium-crash
I got the same ebee geebees with Kubica's crash @ Canada a few years ago....again not how he survived it.....over the years we've come accustomed with even massive impacts (Webber this year) the bloke just gets out the car....but with Kubica how he missed by inches vaulting the wall and travelling towards oncoming traffic.
What I'm trying to get at is the next major injury & even death in F1, will not come from a lax in the safety tests we have but in a freak accident that can't be tested, i.e. a Spring hitting Massa on his helmet.
So grusome though it is, are there accidents that couldn't be tested that could cause a major injury/death, that soon (if not now) FIA would need to look at, I'm thinking of:
Like Webber hitting rear of car, flipping & falling flat upside down...what's the stress test on the roll bar?
Side impact & spearing of helmet with nose cone
Head on impact, again where does the nose cone go, towards drivers head, etc.
Now of course I know where I was on the 1st May, but just with the Button/Vettel incident I'm getting worried on FIA's safety complacency:
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/...l-retain-f1-world-title-despite-belgium-crash
The Renault engine is very efficient, and RBR and Renault can carry 15kg less of fuel at the start of a race, so about one and a half tenths, almost making up for the slight performance loss in the early stages of a race.
Also with the crash test, what can they do, apart from putting a roof over the drivers head, like some race cars do - GT90. I also have a bad feeling that a very bad accident is just round the corner, but its the same dillema that Computer firwalls have. They can only protect against the viruses that have been created. So If a roof is put over the cars, then maybe a chassis could snap clean in two and then the driver may fall out of the car onto the track. It's immpossible to protect against things that are so unlikley. Its a tough one but all the drivers sign contracts alerting them of the possible death that can happen. The only sure-fire way of stopping a bad crash is to turn the engine off.
Also with the crash test, what can they do, apart from putting a roof over the drivers head, like some race cars do - GT90. I also have a bad feeling that a very bad accident is just round the corner, but its the same dillema that Computer firwalls have. They can only protect against the viruses that have been created. So If a roof is put over the cars, then maybe a chassis could snap clean in two and then the driver may fall out of the car onto the track. It's immpossible to protect against things that are so unlikley. Its a tough one but all the drivers sign contracts alerting them of the possible death that can happen. The only sure-fire way of stopping a bad crash is to turn the engine off.
Andrea_Moda_Rules
Podium Finisher
A little daft question here.
When does a wet race constitute as a wet race, for the two compound rule not to apply?
just something that came up after Spa. Think Brundle had said that teams still needed to switch to the other compound. I was surprised cause i thought after everyone had jumped the gun on inters and wets 'two compound rule' still wouldn't of applied.
When does a wet race constitute as a wet race, for the two compound rule not to apply?
just something that came up after Spa. Think Brundle had said that teams still needed to switch to the other compound. I was surprised cause i thought after everyone had jumped the gun on inters and wets 'two compound rule' still wouldn't of applied.
Once you have run a set of inters or wets, in the race, the two compound rule is gone.
I think the point Martin B was making was that those to have pitted for inters as soon as it rained now could have a minor strategic advantage because as and when it dries enough for slicks they have the pick of tires...
I think the point Martin B was making was that those to have pitted for inters as soon as it rained now could have a minor strategic advantage because as and when it dries enough for slicks they have the pick of tires...
Of course, the smart strategy in Belgium was Mercedes' plan to start on prime and wait to see if there was rain.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
