Imminent F1 shakeup?

[FoxHound]

Alan McNish on BBC this morning:

"McLaren do have a few aerodynamic updates, but the focus is now shifting to next year as the gap to front is too big to overcome, a new direction and concept is required".

So it's alright for aerodynamics to have a caste iron seasonal advantage, but not engines?

[Cam]

Can i just say also regarding the whole thing about "you can´t improve performance of an engine in these regulations"

It´s false. You can improve driveability and improving driveability improves performance.
You might not have more raw horses but more horses hit the ground.

I don't think anyone said it was false. What was suggest was that a PU down 100hp, could not catch up.

I do like your quote about putting the horses down better. Yes, I agree with that. Adding horses, probably not.

Edit: actually, I probably should have worded my original theory like that. Would have save 3 pages of posts. Thanks!

[bhall II]

Alan McNish on BBC this morning:

"McLaren do have a few aerodynamic updates, but the focus is now shifting to next year as the gap to front is too big to overcome, a new direction and concept is required".

So it's alright for aerodynamics to have a caste iron seasonal advantage, but not engines?

Meh, McLaren changes direction as often as my brain changes its level of sanity. Which is to say, pret-ty damn frequently.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's right for any advantage in F1 to homologated for longer than a race.

this is getting really ridiculous right about now, I think this thread is kept open only for 1 simple reason, so the nonsense doesn't spread to other topics

I agree with this wholeheartedly























until tomorrow.

[FoxHound]

That sword cuts both ways Ben,

What stokes my ire is the seperation of PU's and aero. Both are of limited scope development wise.
The ICE units are all fairly even this year, its the Hybrid and Software developments that are making waves.
As far as I'm aware, software is open and the Hybrid bits have been changed since the freeze.

I'm all for competition. I detest homologation. Yes its advantageous to those that start the year with an advantage. But as I said from the very outset, is this any different from 2009 onwards? Not in my view.
BGP001 both titles in spite of limited funding for development for the season.
RB6.
RB7.
RB8.
RB9.

In those 5 years of fairly stable regs, we saw some teams close the gap.
I understand that in this first season, at the 8th race(Silverstone) Red Bull are 0.4 seconds off in race pace according to the Free Practice commentary on BBC.
This from over a second initially.

So it begs the question (again, and again). Why throw toys out the pram this year when its been like this since '09?

[Sevach]

Alan McNish on BBC this morning:

"McLaren do have a few aerodynamic updates, but the focus is now shifting to next year as the gap to front is too big to overcome, a new direction and concept is required".

So it's alright for aerodynamics to have a caste iron seasonal advantage, but not engines?

Really????
Mclaren can do whatever they want with their aero, they are voluntarily "giving up" on this season, not because some regulation stunts their aero development.

[FoxHound]

Alan McNish on BBC this morning:

"McLaren do have a few aerodynamic updates, but the focus is now shifting to next year as the gap to front is too big to overcome, a new direction and concept is required".

So it's alright for aerodynamics to have a caste iron seasonal advantage, but not engines?

Really????
Mclaren can do whatever they want with their aero, they are voluntarily "giving up" on this season, not because some regulation stunts their aero development.

Mclaren cannot "do anything they want" with aero any more than Renault can with its V6.
Edit: And why would Mclaren voluntarily throw the towel in now? If Aero development in these regs are as profound as some suggest...why would a team as capable and competent as Mclaren bypass the next 60% of the season when they are running Merc PU's?

[bhall II]

That sword cuts both ways Ben,

[...]

Even though I think your argument is kinda getting in your way a little bit - chassis development is, indeed, limited in scope, but, within that scope, iterative changes from race to race have thus far been unlimited for all teams since Day One - I mostly agree with the point you're trying to get across. Despite the sport's confounding, dogged determination to highlight only a single area for meaningful performance differentiation at any given time, it's pretty much bullshit for a team to loudly complain when its feast turns to famine after that area changed for all teams, at the same time.

I, for one, have been trying to throw my toys out of the pram since '06, when "homologation" first reared its ugly, little head. But, this year's version of it seems particularly onerous due to the radical nature of the change and the highly limited time given for teams to do anything productive with it in the real world. The V8s weren't homologated until the penultimate race of the '06 season, whereas the V6T PUs were homologated well before the teams had even packed for Australia. That doesn't hardly seem right, yanno? Especially since each manufacturer is undoubtedly spending gobs of money on PUs to be homologated before the first race next year. If the idea was to reduce spending, the solution is absolutely senseless.

That's F1, though!

[Cam]

The best thoughts often occur in the shower....

[FoxHound]

Its a convoluted debate that's for sure. But then when points were made and then ignored, it splintered into a mire of shite.

But yea, I'd agree with most of your sentiments.

It should also be factored in that the ability to take advantage of the rules, from the outset, can be advantageous season after season.
When you've prepped for a specific set of regulations that bans in season testing, this can be even more of a "frozen" advantage.

The impression may be different, but the dice is still loaded.

[bhall II]

The whole thing is --- dumb. But, as fans of F1, we're in the business of dumb.

Hey, these engine rules don't make whole lot of sense.

"Right, we'll change the skid blocks for you straight away."

[FoxHound]

To summarise:

Imminent F1 shakeup?

Yes, No, Maybe.

But its gone be dumb. Just like it always has.

[FoxHound]

http://www.f1today.net/en/news/maldonad ... o-engines?

"It felt as if I suddenly had two engines in the car. Based on the data we have, the difference between the old and the new engine specification is 60 horse power," he exclaimed.

So again, I have asked you to demonstrate your position - that a team can make gains

[Cam]

I'm only going to play this game, one round, as it bores me. You bore me. There is simply no challenge by continually stating the obvious. I actually loose brain cells reading these posts.

Same article you quoted:

According to world champion Sebastian Vettel, however, Maldonado might be wrong to set his sights too high.

Red Bull has been at the cutting edge of Renault's efforts to up its game in 2014 after a disastrous winter, but Vettel says the gap to Mercedes has stayed the same.

"Right now the gap is very big and we haven't really closed the gap since race one," the German told Britain's Sky.

"Obviously we have tried lots of stuff to improve, but they (Mercedes) are doing the same thing."

No one has ever denied that improvements cannot be found. No one. The point was and still is, that a PU with a fundamental deficiency, cannot be developed to close the gap to a PU with a massive advantage. Ready, read closely now, 'close the gap'.

Accessing horse power that was already there but untapped, does not equate to "boom!".

Finding horsepower over and above what was previously available, through development, is. That has not happened here.

So yeah, boom, headshot.

[bhall II]

[Cam]

Oh, see bhall, you and I have our moments. This one I shall cherish. Thank you.