Any Formula One fans here??

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Senna is a remarkable piece of film-making. It's really a masterpiece when you consider how compelling and coherent it is despite almost exclusively relying on source footage w/o narration. Also, Senna and Raikkonen have to be up there in terms of best interviews.
Ah, now I get it, thanks buddy.
I used to have to wait WEEKS for the F1 results, yup R&T. Really no other source for me at the time.
I remember I was working as a bartender when news came that Ronnie Peterson had been killed.
It really bugged me. Baseball fans typically don't mourn the death of their heros during the prime of their careers. I still get shivers when I see a picture of Francois Cevert
The first one to really hit me was Gilles Villeneuve.
And Massa's concussion from flying debris a couple of years back actually hit me harder than Schumacher's skiing accident.
I liked Massa almost as much as Raikonnen, a classy classy act, he wuz robbed of a Driver's title.
 
Last edited:

beecee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
3,569
Reaction score
2,413
You'd chuckle. My daughter would watch a lot of starts with me. Bored after a few laps.

She became a Vettel fan because he was young and cute.

Imagine a 4 year old rattling off Alonso, Raikonnen, Schumi, Rosberg, Weber...(one of my modern era faves), etc, really made my wife shake her head.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA

Brucebubs

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
1,552
Location
Eden, Australia

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Blocked with grapefruit pips?

Too funny!
But for those unaware, one of the longstanding sporting regulations (as opposed to the technical regs that govern construction details) is that there must be a certain amount of fuel left in the vehicle at the end of a race (think it was a litre?) to allow for testing of said fuel for conformity to fuel regs.
After all it would be pretty easy to simply juice a fuel formula for better octane which would kind of defeat the purpose of setting a formula for engine builds in the first place.
So if Ferrari's fuel wasn't conforming I'm sure they would have been called on it already.
Pips and pulp apparently are legal.
 

Brucebubs

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
1,552
Location
Eden, Australia
I remember years ago when an F1 team was in trouble for having 'marbles' rolling around in their fuel tank.
It was thought they were using some additive in their fuel that did not readily mix well and the loose marbles aided in keeping the fuel mix stirred up.

I also read last year during the heated exchange between Red Bull and their engine supplier Renault that Red Bull insisted on using their own fuel and oils in their Renault engines - Renault stopped short in laying blame directly on Red Bull for the engine failures but did put it out there.
 
Last edited:

JohnW63

Enlightened Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
6,293
Reaction score
2,217
Location
Southern California
Guild Total
4
I've been watching since about 2002. Hung around race tracks, here, in So Cal in the early 70s. My Dad owned a Brabham BT23 for a little while. I sat in it once.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
I also read last year during the heated exchange between Red Bull and their engine supplier Renault that Red Bull insisted on using their own fuel and oils in their Renault engines - Renault stopped short in laying blame directly on Red Bull for the engine failures but did put it out there.

OH that's interesting, I read that RB insisted on mounting the Kinetic Energy Recovery Module differently than Renault's design due to mounting location limitations in their chassis, which led to overheating.
This was towards the very end of the relationship and Renault was the source.
Their saying that it was a major design contravention WAS tantamount to their saying it was RB's fault.
Wonder if the different oil was due to the higher operating temps?
In any case 2 changes like that don't mean just 2 extra ways for things to go astray, but more like 4 since odds of failure increase exponentially not arithmetically.
As for fuel regs I'm also reminded of the BAR "scandal" of the mid '00's:
"Third: BAR's petrol tank modification
BAR was banned from two races in 2005 after its car was found to have an auxiliary fuel tank that meant it could run under the weight limit. When the second tank was full the car met the FIA's weight requirements, but when it was drained it was under the minimum limit. The stewards ruled that it could not be guaranteed that the car was running at a legal weight at all times, and said BAR should have checked with the FIA before running the extra tank. The team was banned from the Spanish and Monaco Grand Prix."
 

Brucebubs

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
1,552
Location
Eden, Australia
I lived in Melbourne when the Australian Grand Prix was moved from Adelaide to Melbourne and I happened to be listening to a pre-race radio broadcast from the track when they interviewed a F1 tech. He stated that all F1 cars are built slightly under the weight limit so the engineers can move 'balast' around to aid car balance.
So what do they use for weights?
Small and heavy.
Depleted Uranium.
I kid you not, the team has a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars just for balast.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
So what do they use for weights?
Small and heavy.
Depleted Uranium.
I kid you not, the team has a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars just for balast.
With all the emphasis on budge limiting the last few years that might have changed since then (I'm pretty sure they still use ballast but probably have to figure out how to reduce expenditure), which I get in one sense.
It helps make it easier for the little guys to compete against the guys with the really deep pockets.
Examples are the change in engine allowances for a season:
Back when I started watching regularly in mid '90's, there were basically no restrictions on how many engines a team could field in any given race weekend and it was like at least one qualifying motor for each car and a race engine and a backup for each one too. So like minimum 6 engines per team like 16 to 18 times a year.
Think about that.
That was just engines.
There was time and materials used for unlimited in-season testing, too.
THAT I miss, it was one of the things that gave you hope that your favorite could catch up over the course of the season if they started out a little under-competitive.
Since then we saw the era of reduction to 8 engines per year including qualifying, and I since then I think it was last year that brought in a cap of 3 engines for all year for all purposes: Practice, qualifying, and race(!!!).
If you go over your engine limit grid penalties start kicking in.
Gearbox change penalties kick in if your gearbox breaks in qualifying and you swap it out.
Given that one of the FIA's missions is the improvement of the everyday consumer breed through competition, I kind of like that.
Here's another new 2019 rule:
INCREASED FUEL ALLOWANCE
What’s the change: Drivers may use up to 110kg of fuel – previously 105kg – in the race.
Why has it been made: To allow drivers to use the engine at full power at all times. They should no longer have to worry so much about conserving fuel – and will hence be able to push harder, especially in the closing stages of a Grand Prix.
That I don't like. The fuel consumption strategy was another variable that would favor the most skilled driver. Kimi for example was a master of that. And the uncertainty created when a driver might have to decide whether to stay ahead of an overtaker at risk of running out of fuel is more exciting than simple flat-out racing, too.
oh, speaking of ballast, here's anew one:
Car and driver+fuel +ballast are now measured separately to help equalize weight difference between drivers. Huh. So ballast is still there but there's effectively a cap on it now, driver plus ballast cannot exceed 80kg.
For the real gearheads among us, did you know you can download the Sporting and Technical regs directly from the IA website?
https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110
The first set I ever skimmed had introduced the driver's survival pod and described the testing method to ensure compliance.
That's why Alonso was able to crawl out of that car that had been compressed to the size of a Lazyboy recliner.
The first couple of times I dove in, I was amazed at how deep that stuff goes.
And how much fun the engineers must have coming up with their work-arounds.
:glee:
Sadly however I fear we may be witnessing the end of an era, given Liberty Media's goals for the sport:
"Liberty Media wants to revamp the business model and create closer racing"
Ugh.
For that I can watch Nascar.
Did they forget that when a driver laps the field it means they get "equalized" when they have to snake their way through the pack again?
I say let 'em dominate and lap the field.
I think that's way more impressive that trying to equalize the cars.
Read more: https://autoweek.com/article/formul...meet-london-lay-2021-groundwork#ixzz5kc43Xkdi
 
Last edited:

Brucebubs

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
1,552
Location
Eden, Australia
In 1998 I was invited to display my 1969 Datsun 2000 roadster with many other classic cars at the Melbourne Grand Prix.
Cars were left there overnight.
In return we were all given two 4-day General Admission passes.

CHQccqpl.jpg
 

JohnW63

Enlightened Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
6,293
Reaction score
2,217
Location
Southern California
Guild Total
4
Nice Datsun. I friend in High School had a 1600, I think it was. We learned how to polish a red car to make it red again, on that little guy.
 

JohnW63

Enlightened Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
6,293
Reaction score
2,217
Location
Southern California
Guild Total
4
Back on topic... I'm OK with the ballast/weight change. That way larger drivers can compete better. The way it was the smaller the driver, the more ballast they could use and put in better places on the car. The bigger guys had to keep their weight down and still have less moveable ballast.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Back on topic... I'm OK with the ballast/weight change. That way larger drivers can compete better. The way it was the smaller the driver, the more ballast they could use and put in better places on the car. The bigger guys had to keep their weight down and still have less moveable ballast.
Yeah, Schumacher was one of 'em, had to lose weight beginning of every season, and worked out religiously several times a week.
I even recall media discussion about the dangers of dehydration and unhealthy weight reduction measures on the par of drivers needing to keep the car below the limit.
Much like thoroughbred racing jockeys, the sport favored the slighter of build for a long time.
And nobody who doesn't follow the sport realizes just how much conditioning these guys have to do just to be able to last the 2 hours of a race, it's not much different than running a marathon, especially on the neck muscles because of cornering G's.
And the braking G's in F1 are the highest of any form of motorsport, although my next favorite form, demolition derbys, run a close second:

demo%20derby.png
.

:glee:
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
A-n-n-n-d today on Autoweek:

FORMULA 1 REACHES 1,000 RACES: HERE'S SOME MAGICAL NUMBERS FOR THE SERIES
F1 celebrates No. 1,000 at this week's Chinese Grand Prix
A tidbit:
"When Ferrari threaten to leave the sport in what seems like an almost annual event nowadays, the history books show just why this can never be allowed to happen. The Italian manufacturer is by far and away the most successful team in the history of the sport with 16 championship titles to its name -- almost double that of second-best Williams (9)."

https://autoweek.com/article/formul...-1000-races-heres-some-magical-numbers-series
 

tommym

Member
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
894
Reaction score
315
I gave up on Formula 1 decades ago when it became apparent that these cars were not the ultimate race cars at all. There was too much bickering about new technology and the resulting unfair advantage it gave to the some of the more affluent teams. I guess you have to have rules to level the playing field, but I always felt that Formula 1 should have been a showcase for whatever now technology the car manufacturers could come up with.

I've gone back to grassroots drag racing; simple, no rules, run what you brung.

Tommy
 

beecee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
3,569
Reaction score
2,413
I gave up on Formula 1 decades ago when it became apparent that these cars were not the ultimate race cars at all.

I do agree with you to an extent save for that. These cars are insane, they are the ultimate, but they are throttled a bit by the regs

There is a better version of this video out there. There are some pretty fast GT cars in this video


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C0838B5C0B03B1265EDAC0838B5C0B03B&FORM=VDQVAP
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
I gave up on Formula 1 decades ago when it became apparent that these cars were not the ultimate race cars at all.
Tommy
I do agree with you to an extent save for that. These cars are insane, they are the ultimate, but they are throttled a bit by the regs

I see 2 misconceptions here:
First, that the regs are (or more correctly, were) intended to stifle the development of "unfair advantages".
Let me reiterate F1's mission was always to stimulate development of technology that could be translated to street cars, and it's done that quite well over the years.
The "Formula"/tech regs are changed periodically with just that goal in mind.
The "Formula" is the engine displacement/cylinder count/induction method(s) definitions constituting the envelope within which engine designers ( the "manufacturers" Tommy mentions) are challenged to wrest the highest and most reliable output obtainable.
The reason the formula changes is to encourage development of different categories of power generation oin response to real world needs.
There was an era of "turbos" when fuel crisis were mandating high output from small displacement.
There was even an era when makers could choose between big displacement/no turbo or small displacement with turbo.
Entirely analogous to what was going on in the real world in the late '70's during the "oil crisis"
Cylinder counts have changed along with maximum allowable displacements.
Maximum rev limits have come and gone.
All of that translates to development of reliability and efficiency in arrange of street applications: 4,6,8,10 and 12-cylinders have all been Formulae over the years.
All of 'em are still used in regular manufacturing today, with 6 being the current Formula spec and most common real world "performance" count, as well.
NEVER has there been a limit on how much power can be produced.

I guess you have to have rules to level the playing field, but I always felt that Formula 1 should have been a showcase for whatever now technology the car manufacturers could come up with.
The second misconception I think Tommy has is that Formula One isn't a showcase for "whatever new technology the car manufacturers could come up with."
It is precisely that, it's just that they have to develop it within the confines of the current formula, just as they have to consider the practicality of possible creations vs real world usefulness.
Also let's be clear that most F1 vehicles are the product of a chassis maker who buys an engine from an engine manufacturer.
The only maker who makes the entire vehicle all by themselves is Ferrari.
This means the chassis makers are the ones responsible for aero and suspension (including braking) developments.
Again within the confines of the current Formula.
Ok, it's true there at attempts to level the playing field when outrageous new technology is introduced.
There is after all a commercial element to entice makers to participate, because it's absolutely a net loss business and the returns are seen in the prestige for engine makers resulting in sales of street models.
And when any one maker thoroughly dominates, audiences yawn and go home.
It's true that in the last 10 years the regs keep getting tighter and tighter in an attempt to keep costs down and racing closer, and yet every year the cars get faster.
And the benefits of reliable increased efficiency, and suspension and braking refinements show up in the incredibly reliable modern street car.
I've gone back to grassroots drag racing; simple, no rules, run what you brung.
Tommy
I humbly submit a dragster (even in Street Outlaws spec) is in no way comparable to an F1 car in either handling (real world application) or durability (again, areal world application) or simply braking.
And by that definition I say they're nothing more than highly-specialized one-trick ponies.
Entertaining? Sure.
"Real race cars"?
Not in my book.
BUT if your definition of the ultimate race car IS a machine dedicated to one purpose only, getting from point A to measured distance point B in the shortest time possible, then we can agree to simply have different opinions .
I just realized you may be talking about the folks who like to take their street-legal cars to the drag strip, just to see what they can do with basically stock machines with maybe mild engine/tire/ transmission enhancements.
OK, I actually like that form of drag racing too, even though I still don't think it's the highest form of racing.
But at least those car aren't one trick ponies.
Getting back to "regs", let's take a couple of extremely outside-of-the-box developments that were technically legal when introduced:
TyrrellP34-Peterson-Canada1977-600x300.jpg

From here: http://www.snaplap.net/tyrrell-p34/
"By exploiting the loopholes in regulations, Gardner started developing the new six-wheel concept in 1973. The whole idea behind a radical six-wheel layout was that six tires instead of four would have a bigger rubber ‘finger print’ than the regular cars, more grip and no understeer. The four wheels with smaller diameter tires in the front would manage better steering and would also have a lower profile for better aerodynamics"
As it turned out they were somewhat of a handful to drive and only won one GP in any case, but the real question was: "Is there really any potential for a real world application of this technology?".
Highly doubtful and so although they were allowed that year, ultimately:
In 1983, the FIA prohibited cars with four driven wheels from competing. Later, the Formula 1 regulations required four as the maximum number of wheels allowed.
Read between those lines. It also rules out "tricycle" arrangements, known to be highly unstable, for example.
Here's another:
Brabham's notorious "vacuum car":
http://en.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/70504.html
Brabham-BT46B.jpg

"Niki Lauda secured his first win for Brabham, his new team, at the Swedish Grand Prix but it was a victory surrounded by controversy as it came in one of Formula One's most innovative and short-lived creations - the fan car.
Lotus boss Colin Chapman had revolutionized the sport by running skirts on his Lotus 79s which stuck the cars to the ground, i response, Brabham designer Gordon Murray wheeled out a car with a fan on the back to use the air to help the car grip the road better....Within 48 hours the car had been banned for the next three races while tests were carried out, but it never reappeared in a grand prix, making it an expensive £200,000 gamble. Lauda admitted the car was "unpleasant to drive … it understeered massively, all the more so when you took your foot off".
Read more at http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/70504.html#iwfGJm8tK37osw3c.99
desktop-lg
Once again I say, was there really any potential for a real world application or even a need, there?
So we haven't seen anything that exotic for quite a while.
Most of the controversial stuff is all about aerodynamics these days.
And whether or not Ferrari's is actually spiking its fuel with grapefruit juice.
I don't care, as long as they win in Shanghai, legally.
:biggrin-new:

There is a better version of this video out there. There are some pretty fast GT cars in this video
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C0838B5C0B03B1265EDAC0838B5C0B03B&FORM=VDQVAP
Have to admit there've been periods when I've preferred closed wheel/closed cockpit road racing to F1, it actually is closer to real world driving, after all.
It's definitely my second favorite form of racing and might even tie with F1, still.
 
Last edited:
Top