F1 trivia help

[Guest]

Thought we could have a general F1 and or motorsport trivia thread where the more knowledgeable among you could maybe help the less well informed i.e. me lol

I have a couple of questions I'd like to know the answers to:

1) After listening to the commentary after quali for the French GP today it was suggested that Lewis would have a very difficult job to get a win or a podium from that far back.
Now, here's the question: my opinionated 19 year old daughter said she remembered Michael Schumacher winning a race from 20th on the grid a few years back. Is this a figment of her imagination (I can't remember that feat) and if not where and when did that win happen. Also then, related to that, what's the furthest back on the grid that a driver has won a grand prix from?

2) The Red Bull Racing car is powered by Renault engines... is this exactly the same engine as used in the current Renault F1 car and if so, is the RBR performing better points wise because of Adrian Newey's design? I'd assume Fernando would be extracting the maximum from the Renault team car so if the engines are identical, are the differences in speed down to aero and engineering design?

 

[Andrea_Moda_Rules]

1) The furthest back Schumacher has won from is i believe 14th in the 1995 Belgian GP. i have my suspicions that she is perhaps confusing Schumacher with Barrichello, somehow. Barrichello won the 2000 German GP (his first win too i might add) from 18th,

the driver to win from the lowest postion on the Grid is John Watson at Long Beach in a Mclrean, not sure what year though 82/83ish he started 22nd out of 26

2) Not completely sure if its the exact same engine, they both use the RS27 version of the engine but its is more likely to be a slightly older devlopment then the Renault Team, has engines are similar to the chassis has they evolve/devlop through the season,

You have to presume that in the Early season Adrian Neweys design was better than the Reanaults, although i think Renault have overtaken them now and are being hindered by piquets lack of form.

The speed diffences come down to a number of diffent things,
- The weight of the Car
- The Gearbox (I think Redbull dont get a gearbox as part of the package) i.e if one gearbox can get better acceleration woth out sarcificing the top end speed
- and has you say down to the car has well, how much downfoce a team can run, the amount of Drag this generates, also if a car has better mechianal Grip, its like having extra downfoce without the Drag, which slows the car down in a straight line,
- and finally Driver style has a part to play too, for instance a Driver might like to sarcifice a bit of handling for some more top end speed, or vica virsa

sorry if theres any typos, and i hope its readable, been out 2night on the piss

 

[Guest]

Thank you AMR .. you are a star... except we dont have a star smiley <wah> so will these do instead 8)

 

[Galahad]

Andrea_Moda_Rules has done a great job there so I feel bad for saying this, but...

Schumacher won the '95 Belgian GP from 16th on the grid, after a rain-affected qualifying.
Again he's right about Wattie holding the record, in fact it was from 22nd in 1983. The McLarens started 22-23 and finished 1-2 (they picked the right Michelin tyre). Not bad for a street circuit though...

With the freeze on engine development I don't think it's wrong to say that Renault and RBR are using the same engine, yes. Because of differences in the design of the radiators and airboxes, one team might run the engine a bit cooler or be a bit more efficient on the combustion, but we're talking tiny tiny differences. The mechanical and aerodynamic properties of the car are more significant (and judging from Magny-Cours, there's very little to choose between them in performance)

 

[Guest]

Thank you Gordon

I knew some of you knowledgeable people would be able to help and I feel a tad less embarrased about asking here than on 606 so thanks to you both. lol

 

[Galahad]

No problem. A_M_R deserves full credit.

You should never feel embarassed to ask either!

 

[Andrea_Moda_Rules]

Andrea_Moda_Rules has done a great job there so I feel bad for saying this, but...

Schumacher won the '95 Belgian GP from 16th on the grid, after a rain-affected qualifying.
Again he's right about Wattie holding the record, in fact it was from 22nd in 1983. The McLarens started 22-23 and finished 1-2 (they picked the right Michelin tyre). Not bad for a street circuit though...

With the freeze on engine development I don't think it's wrong to say that Renault and RBR are using the same engine, yes. Because of differences in the design of the radiators and airboxes, one team might run the engine a bit cooler or be a bit more efficient on the combustion, but we're talking tiny tiny differences. The mechanical and aerodynamic properties of the car are more significant (and judging from Magny-Cours, there's very little to choose between them in performance)

GM dont feel bad and thanks for putting me in the right direction, I knew the furest back shumi started was in 95 but said believe cuz i wasnt sure about the postion, also in my slight tipsy state, I completey forgot about the engine freeze,

Saltireless, I second what GM has said you shouldn't feel embarrsed, and this therad is a good idea too!

 

[Brogan]

Good thread.

I know I can Google the answer but why do F1 tyres have such a fat profile?
Normal road cars always go for the lowest profile possible to aid with cornering and grip so why are F1 tyres the opposite?

P.S. I've moved the thread to the F1 forum.

 

[Galahad]

Good question Brogan.

There are positives and negatives to having low profile tyres - they do provide better grip on some surfaces due to the lack of sidewall flexibility, but they are not as good on a bumpy road surface and tend to give up grip suddenly, rather than progressively. On a road car you don't tend to suffer from these problems as the suspension is very soft, and likewise in GT or Touring Car racing low-profile tyres are preferred.

In F1 the suspension is very stiff of course and this presents a greater challenge for the low-profile tyre. The higher sidewall allows better heat distribution too - a low-profile tyre would pick up heat from the brakes, and it would be more difficult to ensure an even temperature across the tread.

Furthermore the tyre companies can use the sidewalls to aid the quest for more grip. Michelin tended to use very flexible sidewalls combined with a relatively stiff tread; Bridgestone went the opposite way. This partly explains why Michelin tended to perform better on bumpy circuits or ones with high kerbs, and Bridgestone on smooth ones.

 

[Guest]

I was looking at wiki to see if I could find anything interesting as a question for the blockbuster quiz and came across a listing for the "Colin Chapman Trophy" for naturally-aspirated runners and also the "Jim Clark Trophy" for the same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Formula_One_season

So, can anyone explain why there were two trophys ostensibly for the same thing and why they differ from the constructors trophy. And, leading on from that .. why were these engines different? Were naturally aspirated engines better or worse than any other engine type and are they still in use today?

Cheers.

 

[Galahad]

Hi Salti,

A bit of background - in 1966 the FIA set up new regulations for engines for F1 cars - you could have a 3-litre normally-aspirated (aka Atmospheric) engine or a 1.5-litre turbocharged engine. Turbochargers use a compressor to increase the pressure of air as it enters the cylinders of the engine - higher pressure means more oxygen and a more powerful combustion - more power. In a normally-aspirated car the air enters the cylinder at a more normal pressure, it isn't artificially pressurised.

Renault were the first to build a turbo car in 1977 and through the early 80s gradually all the leading teams sourced turbo engines, as the early Renaults had proved to be more powerful than the normally-aspirated equivalents. By 1985 the BMW turbo was producing in excess of 1500bhp in qualifying spec.

Those teams who could not source a turbo engine were left well behind however, and effectively F1 became two races, the turbo race and the normally-aspirated race. To maintain interest and give these smaller teams something to aim for the Colin Chapman and Jim Clark Trophies were created for the 1987 season.

The Colin Chapman Trophy was awarded to the constructor scoring the most points with a normally-aspirated engine. The Jim Clark Trophy was the same but for drivers instead of teams.

The huge leap in power as a result of turbos caused great concern about the safety of the cars, and the FIA announced in 1987 that turbos would be phased out in time for the 1989 season, and all teams would have to run 3.5litre normally-aspirated engines. As a result several teams made the decision to switch back to atmospheric engines early, and the Colin Chapman and Jim Clark Trophies were discontinued after just the one season.

The FIA's pledge to ban turbos for 1989 went ahead, and since then all F1 cars have been powered by normally-aspirated engines (though the capacity has gone down from 3.5 to 3.0 and now to 2.4 litres).

 

[Guest]

Thank you Gordon .. you are a star

It's great when you go surfing through old records and find some very interesting nuggets of information ...which, as usual, I don't understand!

Makes me wish I'd taken more of an interest in motorsport in my youth.

... now if anyone fancies putting a new question on the blockbusters game, I'd be obliged

 

[Guest]

Salti is on full on anorak mode again :doh: so I wanted to know about slicks and the changes for next season.

Currently we have two types of dry tyres, the option and the prime; the softer option identified by the white stripe .. how can we ever forget!

Next year with the introduction of slicks will there only be one tyre type for dry running or two? If there are to be two compound types, how will we be able to tell which one is which and do the teams HAVE to use them, what are the advantages over grooved tyres

I may have the wrong idea totally in my head, but are slicks a softer compound anyway .. do they have to "give" more to adhere better to the track .. so is softer better?

I could go on but I'd probably better stop now before I confuse myelf even further

 

[Brogan]

Good questions salti.

Hopefully our resident expert will be along to answer them.
I'd have a stab myself but I'd only end up proving how poor my technical knowledge is...

 

[McZiderRed]

From what I remember, from back in the day, was that you couldn't tell slicks from slicks. Slicks were slicks.... Oh, there were also intermediates and wets, you could which were those! White stripes ala James Allen are a modern day luxery!

No doubt, once the FOM, FIA, BBC, etc will sort the new coverage out, it they will think of new tyre demarcations...

As ever, anyone with better/newer knowlege than me, please speak up!

Cheers

Steve

 

[Galahad]

Morning all,

At the moment, I think the plan is for the two-compound rule to stay in place for next season. The teams have asked Bridgestone to bring compounds with a bigger performance gap between them, this would make the strategy decisions more difficult and hopefully lead to more variety.

I don't know how the two different compounds will be demarcated for viewers. No decision will be taken on that for a while I don't suppose. In ChampCar the soft tyres had a red-painted sidewall, which wasn't as instantly visible as the white stripe, but white stripes on slicks, I should imagine, could create an issue with grip (as well as wearing away in a very short time).

Salti - grooved tyres in principle have to be a harder compound, because you've got five tread blocks moving around creating heat and this makes them wear faster than slick tyres (effectively a single tread block). However, Bridgestone have been told that the FIA don't want the cars to be significantly faster than they are currently, for safety, so I suspect the compounds used will still be pretty hard in comparison with what might be technically possible.

There's no need for Bridgestone to go adventurous on slick tyre development - there's no other supplier to beat, so effectively they'd just be wasting their money.

 

[Guest]

Thanks again Gordon