2011 F1 Thread

[hrd-hr30]

A benetton with traction control does do wonders... and punting williams'

The multi year fuzz winning run was, like i said, a culmination of running around Fiorano endlessly and big dollars. A year in year out over developed car.

Which is why i and much of the f1 community took so much happyness in Fernando winning the '05 WDC in such a comparatively less well funded and resouce rich team.

ah yes - the year Senna famously listened to all the cars for signs of traction control and came away claiming the car that won the race was cheating... When the FIA took ECU code from the 3 teams on the podium in San Marino (Benetton Ferrari and McLaren), they found traction control code in all their ECUs. Which is why they only gave them all a slap on the wrist. Schumacher kept on winning after that, infact taking his first pole at the very next race and continuing that trend for a further two races after that as well. So he didn't only go well because of illegal traction control. In fact you could easily argue the crackdown only hurt those other teams more, for some reason... hmmm

And he still won the WDC despite being stripped of 2nd place in the British GP for ignoring the black flag, and later being banned from 2 races for that same offence, despite it being a team order to stay out and ignore the black flag and not the driver's decision, the team was still allowed to field a car driven by someone else.

It was also the year McLaren got busted with illegal automated gearshifting btw, but were not fined. And Benetton with the fast fuelling rig, also got no penalty.

It was a good year!

Ferrari winning streak was the culmination of more than money and testing. Ferrari has always poured the money in but never had such dominance before then, nor since that core team left... Toyota poured in massive amounts of money in just one other example that you can't simply buy a winning streak.

mmm 2005. The year of the no tyre change rule. And the year of Pirelli dominance.

Edited August 15, 2011 by hrd-hr30

[wolverine]

^^ thanks

[ctjet]

That whole senna hearing the traction control story is such rubbish, I dont think anybody but the very simple believe that crap. And the word 'illegal' is used a bit liberally in formula 1. Flexi wings are 'illegal' but here we are. Renault mass damper suddenly became 'illegal' after 18 months of scrutineering and FIA approval. The FIA finding something new on F1 cars and then banning them doesnt always make it illegal in the first place.

And the example of Michelin equiped cars dominating is yet another example of 'the package' being far more important than the guy driving it. Ferrari had the choice of switching much like anybody else. They chose not to, and it cost them badly. Bridgestone were basically designing a tyre to suit ferraris needs and to hell with what the rest wanted. Ferrari as a result had no chance of being able to out-test Renault, Mclaren, Willams etc throughout the season. The sheer amount of feedback for future development that Michelin was able to amass crushed bridgestone.

Once again, the overdeveloped tyre was the dominant one. The only thing that brought Ferrari/bridgestone back was a joint cry that the michelin's were flexing in such a way under high speed loading that they were receiving an unfair advantage, and the FIA magically agreed.

Ferraris win streak wasnt 'only' about money and testing, but i think that it played a much more significant role than either of the drivers would ever play

[ctjet]

[ctjet]

[wolverine]

I can see that being a cool T-Shirt for SAU'ers going to the F1.

[djr81]

ah yes - the year Senna famously listened to all the cars for signs of traction control and came away claiming the car that won the race was cheating... When the FIA took ECU code from the 3 teams on the podium in San Marino (Benetton Ferrari and McLaren), they found traction control code in all their ECUs. Which is why they only gave them all a slap on the wrist. Schumacher kept on winning after that, infact taking his first pole at the very next race and continuing that trend for a further two races after that as well. So he didn't only go well because of illegal traction control. In fact you could easily argue the crackdown only hurt those other teams more, for some reason... hmmm

And he still won the WDC despite being stripped of 2nd place in the British GP for ignoring the black flag, and later being banned from 2 races for that same offence, despite it being a team order to stay out and ignore the black flag and not the driver's decision, the team was still allowed to field a car driven by someone else.

It was also the year McLaren got busted with illegal automated gearshifting btw, but were not fined. And Benetton with the fast fuelling rig, also got no penalty.

It was a good year!

Ferrari winning streak was the culmination of more than money and testing. Ferrari has always poured the money in but never had such dominance before then, nor since that core team left... Toyota poured in massive amounts of money in just one other example that you can't simply buy a winning streak.

mmm 2005. The year of the no tyre change rule. And the year of Pirelli dominance.

It was a horrible year. Drivers died and an alleged champion "won" after running an illegal car & then deliberately running into his challenger after he screwed up. I remember watching the Adelaide race. It was all I could manage not to throw a stubby at the tv when Schumachers smirking face revealed he realised he had backed into the championship.

There is so much wrong with your post that I dont have a clue where to start. They only gave Benetton a slap on the wrist because they could not prove the code had been used. They demonstrated it was there, it was illegal, it was hidden. They final bit - proving it was used they couldn't make a case for. Not that anyone doubts it was used.

Black flag? So it is ok to ignore a black flag when Tom Walkinshaw says so?

Anyway there is a difference between innovation that needs clarification from the governing body and blatant cheating. Just like there is a difference between static deflection for testing and dynamic deflection on the circuit.

The whole Benetton/Ferrari/Schumacher thing is tainted by dodgy behaviour & actions that were massively against the interests of the sport.

If, for example, Ferrari were so bloody brilliant why did they alone need to have the power to reject new rules? It is easy to win when you write the rulebook. As far as I am concerned they can piss off to Ferrari world and run a one make championship infront of no one.

Edited August 16, 2011 by djr81

[NickR33]

between the great arguments and the brilliant photoshops I'm enjoying this thread even more than an actual F1 race!

[hrd-hr30]

meh, that crash in Aus has 2 sides to the story, even moreso than most other crashes. Schumacher's light brush with the wall just before would not have instantly known he'd damaged the car so badly. And more importantly, Schumacher would have closed the door in exactly the same way whether his car was damaged or not. Hill made a desperate lunge knowing he had to beat Schumacher to win and was probably too hasty. Suck it up princess. At least it wasn't a premeditated crash taking out his only championship rival in the first corner...

They also found traction control code in the 2 other teams (Ferrari and McLaren) ECUs inspected. It was probably in all the teams ECU's as it was a late rule change to ban driver aids. The point is whether it was used or not. And that applies equally to the other teams, not just Benetton & Schumacher. That's why the FIA didn't punish any of them.

The driver is employed by the team. If the team tells you to stay out and keep racing while they sort out the issue with the officials, that's what you do. Being stripped of your second place and then getting a 2 race ban for it was a little excessive, particularly int he circumstances where the FIA did not follow their own proper procedure for informing the team of the penalty.

You're right there's a big difference between innovation that needs clarification from the governing body and blatant cheating. Innovating engineering that makes a wing pass the tests for legality yet provides an on-track advantage is an example of what the sport is all about. Implementing a system to change gears for the driver when all driver aids are banned, is blatant cheating.

Edited August 16, 2011 by hrd-hr30

[tweety bird]

lulz

Booking tickets for Aust. GP next year.

anyone want in?

$1300 will get you brabham 4 corner package tickets with all that crap wolverine said he is getting (they extended it) accom at crown promenade (casino,baby!) and flights.

you can get some change if you go for tight arse flights.

yes i'm interested

from pf1

Michael Schumacher is adamant he will remain with Mercedes GP next season despite rumours claiming he's on his way out.

Earlier this month, Corriere dello Sport published comments in which Schumacher reportedly stated that he was "the problem", didn't know if his "mindset is right for this team" and was considering his future.

His manager Sabine Kehm was quick to deny the reports, saying that ""Michael has not spoken with anyone from the Corriere dello Sport."

Now the seven-time World Champion has spoken himself, insisting he will be racing for Mercedes GP in 2012.

"I'll certainly be racing next year, that is definite," the 42-year-old said at a Mercedes' function.

But whether he races beyond next season remains to be seen. "We will have to see how things develop and how much energy and fun is still there," he said.

Schumacher also spoke of his team's title prospects for next year's Championship, admitting beating the likes of Red Bull, McLaren and Ferrari to the crown may be a step too far.

"It would be presumptuous if one expects us to fight for the title next year, at the moment we are too far behind," he said.

Schumacher, who has yet to finish in the top three in his comeback, is currently 10th in this year's Drivers' standings, a massive 202 points behind Championship leader Sebastian Vettel.

good i'm happy now.

[djr81]

meh, that crash in Aus has 2 sides to the story, even moreso than most other crashes. Schumacher's light brush with the wall just before would not have instantly known he'd damaged the car so badly. And more importantly, Schumacher would have closed the door in exactly the same way whether his car was damaged or not. Hill made a desperate lunge knowing he had to beat Schumacher to win and was probably too hasty. Suck it up princess. At least it wasn't a premeditated crash taking out his only championship rival in the first corner...

Well I never saw it as a desperate anything. He saw Schumacher off line and slow & stuck the thing up the inside - same as any other driver would do. As you would expect him to do. Schumacher turned in on Hill. No it wasnt premeditated. That came later on JV.

The driver is employed by the team. If the team tells you to stay out and keep racing while they sort out the issue with the officials, that's what you do. Being stripped of your second place and then getting a 2 race ban for it was a little excessive, particularly int he circumstances where the FIA did not follow their own proper procedure for informing the team of the penalty.

If they dont penalise the driver then any penalty becomes nothing more than a tariff on winning. At the end of the day it is his responsibility to follow the instructions, ie the black flag.

You're right there's a big difference between innovation that needs clarification from the governing body and blatant cheating. Innovating engineering that makes a wing pass the tests for legality yet provides an on-track advantage is an example of what the sport is all about. Implementing a system to change gears for the driver when all driver aids are banned, is blatant cheating.

The problem now is the engineers are basically hard wired to interpret the rules in two ways:

What do we need to do to pass the regulations/test.

How do we circumvent the regulation to achieve what we want anyway.

The sad part about F1 these days is there is very little innovation left. Mostly just aero development and packaging. And commerce.

[hrd-hr30]

he was on the normal racing line before and during the accident with Hill. Hill made the lunge because Shumacher was not quite up to speed after coming back on the track. Hill looked to the outside on the short straight then decided on a lunge up the inside.

He was always going to be penalised for ignoring the black flag (unless Benetton got their way) but to be excluded for 3 races is a bit steep.

All motorsport is about gleaning any little advantage you can out of the regulations. Even in club level motorsport. If the part fits the letter of the regulations, or can be argued to fit a reasonable interpretation of the regs, that's all that matters.That's motorsport, even at club level.

Edited August 16, 2011 by hrd-hr30

[djr81]

All motorsport is about gleaning any little advantage you can out of the regulations. Even in club level motorsport. If the part fits the letter of the regulations, or can be argued to fit a reasonable interpretation of the regs, that's all that matters.That's motorsport, even at club level.

Yeah my point was not about the tenths you sweat blood over to improve your lap time. It was more about the big new ideas that we used to see in motorsport that sadly have gone the way of the dodo. No one is suddenly going to reinvent something as fundamental as ground effects, or bung a gas turbine motor in something, or run a 4WD F1 car or come up with a paddle shift gear change or pneumatic valve springs or anything interesting anymore. Instead you get countless iterations of ever more complicated front wings & the like. Hell the most interesting technical development this year was where Renault put their exhaust pipe.

[MacGillaZ]

Poppy Cock!!!

Just cause you don't know what's being developed doesn't mean it's not there ... I wouldn't be surprised if there's quite a bit of diff/engine/suspension control stuff going on outside of the rules, though material development for the engines/brakes/etc is forever going on as they keep being made to last longer and longer, which is ghey!

There's a reason why old f1 cars are effectively mothballed for a couple of years before they get let out in public for general consumption, to keep the ideas and plans they have at least a partial secret, but as we all see F1 teams employ smart/crafty peoples so things generally get found out sooner than later.

The Primary finger should be pointed at the FIA trying to 'reduce visible costs' for parity supposedly. It just means the same amount of money gets spent on 'less visible' parts or development centres for the continued testing/development of the cars.

[NickR33]

Yeah my point was not about the tenths you sweat blood over to improve your lap time. It was more about the big new ideas that we used to see in motorsport that sadly have gone the way of the dodo. No one is suddenly going to reinvent something as fundamental as ground effects, or bung a gas turbine motor in something, or run a 4WD F1 car or come up with a paddle shift gear change or pneumatic valve springs or anything interesting anymore. Instead you get countless iterations of ever more complicated front wings & the like. Hell the most interesting technical development this year was where Renault put their exhaust pipe.

I guess the developments these days are more to do with materials and software rather than the more visible mechanical experiments of the old days... I'm sure the rulebook was a lot shorter with much more freedom back then though

it was amazing to see the 2000-2008 Ferrari F1 cars all lined up next to one another and see just how much aero developed over those years... if you see them next to each other in that way the overall difference could be seen as that big change your referring too... but then again the days of 6 wheeled cars is long gone and that's a little sad

too many variables, I'd hate to be the one to decide what the restrictions where going to be... you'd always be unpopular with somebody

[djr81]

I guess the developments these days are more to do with materials and software rather than the more visible mechanical experiments of the old days... I'm sure the rulebook was a lot shorter with much more freedom back then though

It is more to do with countless iterations & refinements than new ideas - I guess development rather than design. I mean I am sure somewhere someone is working on a really innovative new software package for their active diff but really who cares?

it was amazing to see the 2000-2008 Ferrari F1 cars all lined up next to one another and see just how much aero developed over those years... if you see them next to each other in that way the overall difference could be seen as that big change your referring too... but then again the days of 6 wheeled cars is long gone and that's a little sad

No mroe 6 wheelers. As an aside the popular conception of why Tyrrell had one is just wrong - they didnt cut down on the frontal area of the car. They reduced the front aero lift from an exposed tyre. But anyway.

My thing is if you lined up all the 2011 F1 cars & had them painted the same colour would anyone be able to tell them apart? If you put up a series of Ferrari's 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010. Which do you reckon would look most alike?

too many variables, I'd hate to be the one to decide what the restrictions where going to be... you'd always be unpopular with somebody

It used to be that Ferrari had a veto on any new rules. Which is why for so many years the stuff coming out from the FIA made no sense. In hindsight it is now very clear what was going on.

[Marlin]

If you put up a series of Ferrari's 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010. Which do you reckon would look most alike?

That's a good way of making me actually think about it, and realise how the design side (at least visually) is stagnating.

[djr81]

That's a good way of making me actually think about it, and realise how the design side (at least visually) is stagnating.

For what little it may be worth.

[Marlin]

Yeah I thought it quite obvious that the last ten years has brought the least change.

[hrd-hr30]

aesthetic peak in 1990 IMO