Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

If they police it heavily it could sway things quite a lot. In the middle of a race if they are losing time to the car ahead they wont know if its because they are taking life out of tyres or they are slow in a sector. I am all for it. Its like cycling, team radio has taken away so much from the sport with breakaways and chasing pack all abreast of what the others are doing....take the gamble and individual strategy out of it.

I think its a great move as the cars are no longer driven flat out lap after lap and its a race of reserved pace, which with pit radios makes it all prescribed from pit wall. This will be a rather large curve ball

I wonder if all we're going to get is a bunch of "codes", like the infamous multi 21, given to the drivers over the radio?

Make a rule, they'll find a way round it.

Yep or it will pop up on the steering wheel display

I wonder if all we're going to get is a bunch of "codes", like the infamous multi 21, given to the drivers over the radio?

Make a rule, they'll find a way round it.

Of course they will find a way around it. Foolish rules like this make fools of everyone.

"Fernando is faster than you" - is that now banned or just a statement of fact for Kimi?

ferrari or merc is my bet to get pinged first breaking this ridiculous rule

ferrari won't get pinged for it. they'll just do it and get away with it on a flimsy technicality.

i think the ban is a bit stupid. you can get around it so easily with a coded or appropriately timed message that the driver knows you're referring to his current corner as the one he needs to focus on.

The FIA’s Charlie Whiting has sent the teams a further technical directive clarifying what can and cannot feature in pit to car radio conversations from the Singapore GP onwards.

Seen by this writer, the document confirms that a lot of technical information will also be banned from appearing on pit boards.

In some instances, regarding tyre and brakes, the ban has been postponed until the Japanese GP.

In addition the FIA has specifically targeted “any message that appears to be coded.”

The FIA has confirmed that the restrictions “apply at all times the car is out of its garage during the Event,” which means all practice and qualifying sessions are included.

Messages not permitted (either by radio or pit board)

Sector time detail of a competitor and where a competitor is faster or slower.

Adjustment of power unit settings.

Adjustment of power unit setting to de-rate the systems.

Adjustment of gearbox settings.

Learning of gears of the gearbox (will only be enforced from the Japanese GP onwards).

Balancing the SOC ['State of charge', ie ERS battery charge level - AC] or adjusting for performance.

Information on fuel flow settings (except if requested to do so by race control).

Information on level of fuel saving needed.

Information on tyre pressures or temperatures (will only be enforced from the Japanese GP onwards).

Information on differential settings.

Start maps related to clutch position, for race start and pit stops.

Information on clutch maps or settings, eg bite point.

Burn-outs prior to race starts.

Information on brake balance or BBW settings.

Warning on brake wear or temperatures (will only be enforced from the Japanese GP onwards).

Selection of driver default settings (other than in the case of a clearly identified problem with the

car).

Answering a direct question from a driver, eg “Am I using the right torque map?”

Any message that appears to be coded.

Messages permitted (for the avoidance of doubt)

Acknowledgement that a driver message has been heard.

Lap or sector time detail.

Lap time detail of a competitor.

Gaps to a competitor during a practice session or race.

“Push hard,” “push now,” “you will be racing xx,” or similar.

Helping with warning of traffic during a practice session or race.

Giving the gaps between cars in qualifying so as to better position the car for a clear lap.

Puncture warning.

Tyre choice at the next pit stop.

Number of laps a competitor has done on a set of tyres during a race.

Tyre specification of a competitor.

Indication of a potential problem with a competitor’s car during a race.

Information concerning a competitors likely race strategy.

Yellow flags, blue flags, Safety Car deployment or other cautions.

Safety Car window.

Driving breaches by team driver or competitor, eg missing chicanes, running off track, time penalty will be applied etc.

Notification that DRS is enabled or disabled.

Dealing with a DRS system failure.

Change of front wing position at the next pit stop.

Oil transfer.

Wet track, oil or debris in certain corners.

When to enter the pits.

Reminders to check for white lines, bollards, weighbridge lights when entering or leaving the pits.

Reminders about track limits.

Passing on messages from race control.

Information concerning damage to the car.

Number of laps remaining.

Driver instructions from the team to swap position with other drivers.

Test sequence information during practice sessions, eg aero-mapping.

Weather information.

Pit to retire the car.

http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/09/15/f1s-radio-ban-full-details-of-what-is-and-isnt-allowed/

Some of them kick in at Singapore, others like tyre and brakes take effect from Japan.

Pretty dumb if you ask me. Implement strict 100kg fuel limts. Ban teams and drivers from talking about fuel during race.

You can't tell your driver when to back off to save fuel, but you can tell him when to push and not save fuel. huh?

No talk about ERS states and adjustments might mean people will retire due to problems with the system. Same goes for brake temp/wear but it's pretty easy to configure dash warning for that one and any driver seeing a rear brake temp/wear issue would know how to handle that. Not neccesarily so easy with ERS.

Edited by hrd-hr30

I wonder if the teams will start sending additional info to the drivers steering wheels or something, given the amount of technology in those wheels its probably possible for them to do that. I guess it could still be considered a radio transmission though so who knows.

The whole thing seems a bit ridiculous, especially with it being applied to the practice sessions as well.

The cars can't receive data they can only send it.

That's why the driver has been told in the past to change the computer setting on the steering wheel, the teams can't change it for them.

I think given the complexity of the cars and how new the power packs are, this year (at least) there needs to be information sent from the car. I might be alone here, but I think it would be pretty crap if 10 cars broke down in the one race.

I don't know if my point is really coming accross in what I'm saying but anyway. To me I think some data from the car is good, if it is only used to tell the drivers the car is overheating, exceeding required fuel economy. I dunno, I absoloutly see what people mean about the drivers needing to think while racing, but to me they are there to drive, and have enough to think about without scrolling through menu's telling them engine,ERS etc temps, fuel consumption, lap time (and delta) along with activating DRS, KERS (To a lesser degree this year albeit), and changing settings

I'm not against the ban on radio transmission/instructions that they are imposing at all though.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
×
×
  • Create New...