2017 F1 Random Discussion Thread

iks · PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:38 am

You can hardly compare slightly higher cockpit sides with the halo.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:16 am

iks wrote:

You can hardly compare slightly higher cockpit sides with the halo.

A direct reaction to a small number of serious/fatal accidents, 'rushed' into the rules (much faster than halo, in fact!) against the protests of the teams?

They were also more than 'slightly higher'. There was a lot of complaining about - ironically enough - not being able to see the drivers or their helmets:

webbsy · PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:07 am

rallyman69 wrote:

The president of the Paul Ricard race track has said to French magazin L'Equipe the French that the track will change for the next French GP.
https://www.lequipe.fr/Formule-1/Article/Stephane-clair-le-trace-va-changer/815635

finally it looks like the track used today isn't it ?

I watched a replay of the ELM race there and my God my eyes almost started bleeding. It is even worse seeing the track in live motion than photos. What a bland souless and totally uninspiring place. There were zero spectators and the chicane they used along the mistral had a big curb on the inside that caused multiple spins....you can bet Max will be on the radio screaming for the most interesting feature of the track to be changed.

micha · PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:29 pm

gkmotorsport wrote:

Fabs wrote:

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11010144/f1-2018-will-halo-introduction-cause-teams-to-miss-winter-testing?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

FIA :thumbsup:

It's money and time they'd rather spend on winglets and vortex generators.

Professor Sid Watkins wrote:

After Imola in ‘94 Max (Mosley) formed the Expert Advisory Group. McLaren lent us a chassis, and we put a dummy in it, and crashed it in various directions at the MIRA test facility, to get data about what was happening to the head and chest. We learned that the seat belts stretched so much that normally the head hit the steering-wheel – or, in a lateral accident, the side of the cockpit.

Because of that, we introduced the high cockpit sides for 1996 – and every team except Ferrari complained to me about it! I’m always singularly unimpressed when people say a safety measure is expensive. One team principal said to me, ‘You’ve cost me a million pounds, to change the chassis’, and I said, ‘Well, knock it off your driver’s salary – it’s for him, not me...’

Plus ça change...

There must be some bs in Watkins' story as sauber voluntarily added the raised cockpits in 1994. So why would they complain when it gets mandatory?

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:29 pm

micha wrote:

gkmotorsport wrote:

Fabs wrote:

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11010144/f1-2018-will-halo-introduction-cause-teams-to-miss-winter-testing?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

FIA :thumbsup:

It's money and time they'd rather spend on winglets and vortex generators.

Professor Sid Watkins wrote:

After Imola in ‘94 Max (Mosley) formed the Expert Advisory Group. McLaren lent us a chassis, and we put a dummy in it, and crashed it in various directions at the MIRA test facility, to get data about what was happening to the head and chest. We learned that the seat belts stretched so much that normally the head hit the steering-wheel – or, in a lateral accident, the side of the cockpit.

Because of that, we introduced the high cockpit sides for 1996 – and every team except Ferrari complained to me about it! I’m always singularly unimpressed when people say a safety measure is expensive. One team principal said to me, ‘You’ve cost me a million pounds, to change the chassis’, and I said, ‘Well, knock it off your driver’s salary – it’s for him, not me...’

Plus ça change...

There must be some bs in Watkins' story as sauber voluntarily added the raised cockpits in 1994. So why would they complain when it gets mandatory?

Maybe he meant 'every (other) team except Ferrari. Maybe Sauber's interpretation was actually different to the eventual regs (likely, given that the padding was completely different). Maybe he exaggerated slightly to make the anecdote more interesting.

Personally, I think the third option is most likely, because Watkins liked to tell a good story. I think his point remains.

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:44 pm

Halo will become sort of a reason for driver to crash into each other after driver errors

"I wasn't able to see because of halo"

not that I would complain about it, actually I like a lot when this sort of thing happens

NVirkkula · PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:58 pm

gkmotorsport wrote:

NVirkkula wrote:

So since we're all very concerned of the drivers safety, I think it's safe to say that the safest approach for the coming season is to simply not have halo until we have enough data of it. And when it comes to being certain of safety features I don't care how many more years its going to take for the necessary simulations and data collecting, halo must not be rushed in and thus risk drivers safety.

How much data and research would satisfy you? The same researchers have been researching various potential structures since 2011, including halo, and have concentrated on halo since July 2016. They simulated (at least) 23 distinct incidents from this year back to 1995, using both the known data from the actual incident, plus modifications allowing for slightly different parameters. They explained their methodology in detail, and directly answered the most common criticisms. This isn't a knee-jerk change. It isn't a tyre chicane, nor is it knockout qualifying.

I think two or three decades of researching might do it.

Beezle · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:04 am

Has this been discussed yet?
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/09/05/b ... n-whiting/

webbsy · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:08 am

Even if they used the exact same configuration of the old layout they would still fuck it up somehow.

Also I just read that the engine limit next year is going to be 3 for the whole year. That is just farcical.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:13 am

NVirkkula wrote:

gkmotorsport wrote:

NVirkkula wrote:

So since we're all very concerned of the drivers safety, I think it's safe to say that the safest approach for the coming season is to simply not have halo until we have enough data of it. And when it comes to being certain of safety features I don't care how many more years its going to take for the necessary simulations and data collecting, halo must not be rushed in and thus risk drivers safety.

How much data and research would satisfy you? The same researchers have been researching various potential structures since 2011, including halo, and have concentrated on halo since July 2016. They simulated (at least) 23 distinct incidents from this year back to 1995, using both the known data from the actual incident, plus modifications allowing for slightly different parameters. They explained their methodology in detail, and directly answered the most common criticisms. This isn't a knee-jerk change. It isn't a tyre chicane, nor is it knockout qualifying.

I think two or three decades of researching might do it.

Do you know what... I can't complain, it's a legitimate answer

I didn't know until this week that raised cockpit sides weren't even seriously looked at until mid-1994, so probably had a year's development at the most.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:19 am

Cheeveer · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:54 am

Face-fucking-palm.

https://www.autosport.com/f2/news/13170 ... nts-revamp

Rant copy:

siggy · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:13 pm

Who the hell is Jacob Fredriksson?

But yes, the points system is ridiculous. Imagine Max still toiling around in lower categories. Team bosses don't want someone in the cockpit who isn't ready, so let them decide like it has always was.

Cheeveer · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:14 pm

siggy wrote:

Who the hell is Jacob Fredriksson?

But yes, the points system is ridiculous. Imagine Max still toiling around in lower categories. Team bosses don't want someone in the cockpit who isn't ready, so let them decide like it has always was.

that's me...

Main point is, you do not deserve to be an F1 driver just because you spent long enough time in F2, like Ericsson, Palmer, Maldonado, Haryanto, etc. You deserve to be in F1 because you were better than your peers. If you win a premiere class championship, like WEC LMP1, DTM, Super Formula or Indycar, you are obviously more worthy than someone who was mediocre in a junior class. So F1 teams should stop stare themselves blind on F2 and the other Euro based junior formulas. It undermines and diminishes F1's inherent value as formula one.

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:44 pm

does LMP1 will exist in a few years?

Gaara · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:55 pm

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:57 pm

but not with expensive hybrid engines and works teams I suppose

pimmy · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:15 pm

The Super Licence points system is completely screwed. The FIA have ranked all of their own championships above others, regardless of the level they're actually at. Apparently, European F3 is equal to, or higher than: WEC LMP1, IndyCar, Formula 3.5, GP3, Super Formula, WTCC, DTM, Supercars & Indy Lights. And "National F3" is ranked LOWER than F4, because F4 is an FIA category.

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:31 pm

FIA is just showing the reality that F1 must never be a priority, unless you have big money or one team funding your path to F1 (so you can never race because you're inexperienced)

codename_47 · PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:49 pm

LucasWheldon wrote:

does LMP1 will exist in a few years?

Prototype racing will, whether it is to LMP1 or another formula by then is another matter

TBK-Light.com

2017 F1 Random Discussion Thread

Who is online