The 2010 season
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
Andrea_Moda_Rules
Podium Finisher
I cannoot see how this could be an April fool, Unless ive lost my mind
Just means they will not be able to stick them on the sidepods and those strange sticky up things that have sprouted from the monocoque.
I think the FIA could open the homoglation regs just a little before china to let two little pieces of carbon fibre with a mirror on it without the earth collapsing in on itself with the shock.
Infact sounds like common sense to me, Ive wondered why FIA hasn't done this in the past especially Australia certainly wasn't the first time the mirrors issue has been brought up.
Just means they will not be able to stick them on the sidepods and those strange sticky up things that have sprouted from the monocoque.
I think the FIA could open the homoglation regs just a little before china to let two little pieces of carbon fibre with a mirror on it without the earth collapsing in on itself with the shock.
Infact sounds like common sense to me, Ive wondered why FIA hasn't done this in the past especially Australia certainly wasn't the first time the mirrors issue has been brought up.
snowy
Champion Elect
It does sound very believable and it is something that just about every sane person wants, however in the article there is no mention of ramifications, modifications, or just how these changes might impact on the aerodynamics of the cars.
It's a very cruel and deceitful April fool, if that is indeed what it is.
But they have left a rather large hole to see through or it is a very poor piece of journalism. 
It's a very cruel and deceitful April fool, if that is indeed what it is.
But they have left a rather large hole to see through or it is a very poor piece of journalism. 
snowy said:It does sound very believable and it is something that just about every sane person wants, however in the article there is no mention of ramifications, modifications, or just how these changes might impact on the aerodynamics of the cars.
It's a very cruel and deceitful April fool, if that is indeed what it is.
According to Ted on the BBC P1 commentary, the mirror story is in fact true. Several teams, including Red Bull, have to redesign the car so the mirrors are attached to the cockpit. A lot of teams, including McLaren, are OK and don't have to redesign as the mirrors are already in the correct place...
So despite thinking it was an April Fool's, the ban will become effective from the Spanish GP.
The two big losers stand to be Red Bull and Ferrari.
Cue the conspiracy theories...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82618
The two big losers stand to be Red Bull and Ferrari.
Cue the conspiracy theories...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82618
Brogan said:
I don't think there can be much in the way of conspiracy theories floated around when it's taken into context of how this change has come about. My understanding is that it was comments made by De La Rosa whose views are held in quite high regard by the governing body, which i guess stands to reason given his previous role within the GPDA regarding visibility issues from a saftey point of view which lead the FIA to make this rule change, quite a sensible one i believe. Given the fact that this does effect Sauber as well suggests there is no conspiracy in the subject. The other so called "loser" being HRT.
This was discussed during the free practice commentary and when asked about this change Horner did say that whilst they were designed to be outboard to assist with aero the effect they had was pretty negligable in terms of overall speed. Then again he has been know to talk alot of bull!
Slick, you've made the classic mistake of applying logic to a situation in F1.
No doubt there are already people claiming this is an attempt to slow down Ferrari and Red Bull to "improve the spectacle" by giving the other teams a chance.
I'm with you though, it would seem to be a safety issue.
However, the mirrors aren't that different from last year so why didn't the FIA do something about them then?
We saw plenty of incidents where 2 drivers were entering a corner and due to poor visibility there was contact.
Is this another example of unless someone reports it to the FIA and prods them into doing something they just ignore it?
No doubt there are already people claiming this is an attempt to slow down Ferrari and Red Bull to "improve the spectacle" by giving the other teams a chance.
I'm with you though, it would seem to be a safety issue.
However, the mirrors aren't that different from last year so why didn't the FIA do something about them then?
We saw plenty of incidents where 2 drivers were entering a corner and due to poor visibility there was contact.
Is this another example of unless someone reports it to the FIA and prods them into doing something they just ignore it?
Well Fernando tell's it straight for F1 in 2010 - if you want to see overtaking watch another form of motorsport. Is this the nub of the problem? The drivers have forgotten the meaning of Motor Racing?
intransitive verb raced, racing rac?·ing
1.to take part in a competition of speed; run a race
2.to go or move swiftly
In a competition of speed Fernando you have to get past the car in front to prove you are the quickest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article7084738.ece
intransitive verb raced, racing rac?·ing
1.to take part in a competition of speed; run a race
2.to go or move swiftly
In a competition of speed Fernando you have to get past the car in front to prove you are the quickest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article7084738.ece
You know me i'm all about classic mistakes and logical dumb statements 
So with that in mind here's another, i think your quite right with the report and ignore scenario and this was something far more prevelant in the previous encumbent's reign.
I Just get the feeling that now the FIA seem to be working far more "quietly" and flexibly in the right direction towards a more accepted common goal for the sport. Some of that to my mind is bourne out by the fact that they have delayed this change until Spain having had input back from the teams involved.
As for this manipulating the sport for the spectacle, definately not IMO but i take your point that there will be those of er... shall we say "less understanding" that see it that way when the question they should be asking themselves is why are Red Bull & Ferrari so much quicker in the first place.
I must stop being sensible
So with that in mind here's another, i think your quite right with the report and ignore scenario and this was something far more prevelant in the previous encumbent's reign.
I Just get the feeling that now the FIA seem to be working far more "quietly" and flexibly in the right direction towards a more accepted common goal for the sport. Some of that to my mind is bourne out by the fact that they have delayed this change until Spain having had input back from the teams involved.
As for this manipulating the sport for the spectacle, definately not IMO but i take your point that there will be those of er... shall we say "less understanding" that see it that way when the question they should be asking themselves is why are Red Bull & Ferrari so much quicker in the first place.
I must stop being sensible
Bernie's at it again.
If any of that nonsense ever happens in F1 then it will be the death of it.
Why do the people in charge just not get it?
Loosen up the design and engine regulations, get rid of mandatory pit stops for tyres or fuel, change the tyre compounds to give a true hard and soft tyre and let the teams do their thing.
With all the engines power matched and everyone using identical tyres and almost identical designs, is it any wonder the cars are so closely matched in performance there's no way they can pass each other?
http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/13792.html
If any of that nonsense ever happens in F1 then it will be the death of it.
Why do the people in charge just not get it?
Loosen up the design and engine regulations, get rid of mandatory pit stops for tyres or fuel, change the tyre compounds to give a true hard and soft tyre and let the teams do their thing.
With all the engines power matched and everyone using identical tyres and almost identical designs, is it any wonder the cars are so closely matched in performance there's no way they can pass each other?
Brogan said:
You mean like GP2 where the cars have no trouble overtaking?
I don't think it's the identical tyres or engines, so much as the designs are such that the car behind can't get close enough to over take. Once the aero grip goes, the driver of the car behind just doesn't seem to be able to get past.
snowy
Champion Elect
Has Vitaly Petrov highlighted a new and sinister vunerability with the McLaren and their f-duct? 
He had no difficultly latching onto the rear of Lewis' car even though he had botched the final turn, and he was subsequently unshakable. With the Mclaren's wing stalled, is it possible it was creating an even more comfortable and powerful tow for Petrov to exploit?
What would have been the consequences of Lewis unstalling the wing before the breaking zone? Would Vitaly have piled into the back of him?
He had no difficultly latching onto the rear of Lewis' car even though he had botched the final turn, and he was subsequently unshakable. With the Mclaren's wing stalled, is it possible it was creating an even more comfortable and powerful tow for Petrov to exploit?
What would have been the consequences of Lewis unstalling the wing before the breaking zone? Would Vitaly have piled into the back of him?
Muddytalker
Points Scorer
snowy said:Has Vitaly Petrov highlighted a new and sinister vunerability with the McLaren and their f-duct?
He had no difficultly latching onto the rear of Lewis' car even though he had botched the final turn, and he was subsequently unshakable. With the Mclaren's wing stalled, is it possible it was creating an even more comfortable and powerful tow for Petrov to exploit?
What would have been the consequences of Lewis unstalling the wing before the breaking zone? Would Vitaly have piled into the back of him?
It's something I raised before the start of the season, that less drag might in effect create a better vacuum behind the McLaren.
Following on from your suggestion of VP getting a better tow, were Lewis to 'unstall' the wing, surely that would just restore the dirty air buffer and so push Petrov back?
Additional: For those that remember it, it might be a similar effect to the Handford Device, which was designed to increase the 'hole in the air' behind a car.
Courtesy of www.f1technical.net
snowy
Champion Elect
It is very likely that it does have a similar effect as the Hanford:
But upon reflection perhaps it should have totally the opposite effect...
...because it is reducing drag down the straight...
But then again if it did increase drag... 
But upon reflection perhaps it should have totally the opposite effect... ...because it is reducing drag down the straight...
I thought perhaps that unstalling the wing would act like an air brake but your idea is far more interesting and I am wondering if Lewis should have thought of that before weaving his way into the attention of the stewards...Muddytalker said:
But then again if it did increase drag... Similar threads
- Article
