German GP

allan · Post 31 Jul 2006, 14:53

please guys, stop acting silly....
ferrari won and deserved that win, i wonder what would u say if the scuderia is the one who had that dumper,"F***ing cheaters, they should be banned from competing in the races","THAT'S WHY THEY WON ALL THOSE CHAMPIONSHIPS".
btw,maybe Ross Brown bribed charlie before that race, because that damper was so complicated that it took ferrari all that time, from brazil 2005, to try to find out how that fat piece of metal worked,and they couldn't, what idiots..

right?????

wazojugs · Post 31 Jul 2006, 16:30

I am not blaming Ferrari for anything with regard to the mass damper its the FIA that i have a problem with implementing a rule change before a 3 week test ban.

Read James Allen review of the German GP and even he states it as he is quite biased towards Ferrari in his commentating.

Ferrari won in convincing style.

Lightspeed · Post 31 Jul 2006, 18:44

The thing that puzzles me with the ban of the mass damper is that Renault have had this on the car for over a year now

Apparently, Ferrari too made use of a very developed mass damper themselves. As did several other teams. So it is unjust to say that FIA was being unfair to Renault.

Check out this snippet from an article about its banning :

An innovative damper system pioneered by Renault and adopted by several other teams, including Ferrari, has been banned by the FIA, autosport.com can reveal.

With so little to separate the competitiveness of Renault and Ferrari in their battle for the world championship, this week's surprise outlawing of 'mass' dampers could have an impact in the outcome of the title fight.

Mass dampers are simple mechanical devices that comprise of a weight, believed to be around 9kg, mounted in a spring. They improve a car's performance by dampening out tyre bouncing frequencies throughout corners and therefore keeping grip levels more consistent.

Renault were believed to be the first to use the device, although they have never officially confirmed that they were running with it. Red Bull Racing, Williams, Ferrari and most recently McLaren have subsequently developed their own systems.

.... the FIA has claimed that the devices are illegal because they are 'moveable aerodynamic devices'.... its movement influences the aerodynamic performance of the car we feel that mass dampers of this sort contravene Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Regulations and we no longer consider their use permissible

__

manchild wrote:I'd also blame Michelin. Front tyres seam not worn-off enough when replaced which means that they have bad grip (not enough friction with tarmac).

Haha! Care to explain why Jenson's Honda, also running Michelins beat Renault sooo clearly ??

DaveKillens · Post 31 Jul 2006, 18:55

Welcome back Princepessa, I'm looking forward hearing how much fun you guys had.
When an official like Whiting has personal relations with certain team principles, it leaves the door open for speculation as to his decisions and motivations.
The spitir of the aero rule was to make sure that wings could not alter their angle of attack, that flaps and other things sticking out in the wind couldn't change angle or position. Whiting took that rule and applied the letter of the rule to remove a device buried deep within the bodywork. And the funny thing is, if that damper isn't there, or worked improperly, the car was no better.
The timing of this rule really is weird, it does raise a lot of question marks. There are many devices over the years that have been liable to the same interpretation, but never banned in such a way. The sliding side skirts are a very good example. They were tolerated, and the reason they don't live today is because of the rules on ground clearance .. not moveabe aero devices.
Personally, I believe Whiting threw his integrity and impartiality into question by this move. I rarely fall for conspiracy theories, but the nature and timing of how this rule was applied stinks.

manchild · Post 31 Jul 2006, 19:19

Lightspeed wrote:Haha! Care to explain why Jenson's Honda, also running Michelins beat Renault sooo clearly ??

Because he was on 3 pitstops just like Kimi, wasn't he?

Lightspeed · Post 31 Jul 2006, 19:41

So cant we say Reanult screwed up 'cause they got their strategy wrong ?

Lightspeed · Post 31 Jul 2006, 19:57

Found this :

Renault claimed that the loss of the system (mass damper) was not the reason for its comparatively poor showing in Hockenheim and instead blamed blistered tyres for Fernando Alonso and Giancarlo Fisichella’s fifth and sixth-placed finishes.

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36870

That throws some conspiracy theories into the bin.

Hungary has been a Michelin favouring circuit over the years, so i am guessing that Renault will make a comeback. As Alonso said, the tyres for Hungary are different from the ones for Germany.

Principessa · Post 31 Jul 2006, 20:22

For pictures of the German GP of Tomba and me check: viewtopic.php?p=34419#34419

Saribro · Post 31 Jul 2006, 20:45

manchild wrote:
Lightspeed wrote:Haha! Care to explain why Jenson's Honda, also running Michelins beat Renault sooo clearly ??
Because he was on 3 pitstops just like Kimi, wasn't he?

Nope
http://www.formula1.com/race/result/pitstops/762/8.html
Button only made 2 stops.
Kimi was the only one on 3 stops I think. Tiago had a drive through penalty so shows up as 3. I know Ralf had at least 1 accident-related stop, and considering 6 laps between stop 2 and 3, I'm assuming a 2 stop plan for him, with 2 accident/malfunction related stops.

manchild · Post 31 Jul 2006, 20:46

Lightspeed wrote:That throws some conspiracy theories into the bin.

Not having mass damper affeced ballance of the car and just as in Monaco 2005 bad ballance of the car caused rear tyre demage. I'm not saying that it was main reason because I still think Michelin was to blame.

Regarding numebr of pitstops... Than it looks like no-keel suspension cars (Mclaren, Honda) were functioning better on Michelins than Renault. Can suspension explain their better performace?

Tom · Post 31 Jul 2006, 21:12

Ralfy:
Pitstop 1#: Hitting DC on the first lap (dark mutterings...)
Pitstop 2#: Schedualed stop
Pitstop 3#: Drive through, speeding at the end of the pitlane
Pitstop 4#: Schedualed stop

I can't spell

Scuderia_Russ · Post 31 Jul 2006, 21:42

wazojugs wrote: Tom Rubython. the maverick publisher of F1 Business magazine is not slow to point out that Ross Brawn and Charlie Whiting have been drinking buddies in the past.

How the hell do you know that Flavio doesn't join them and the party all takes place on one of his yachts?! Because it doesn't make as interesting or scandalous a story, that's why.

RacingManiac · Post 31 Jul 2006, 22:57

Lightspeed wrote: Hungary has been a Michelin favouring circuit over the years, so i am guessing that Renault will make a comeback. As Alonso said, the tyres for Hungary are different from the ones for Germany.

I thought that as kinda odd as Ferrari with their quite incapable 2005-Bridgestone actually captured a pole here last year.......

allan · Post 01 Aug 2006, 00:56

remember that renault didn't score at hungary last year,due to unusual oversteering as i remember, even though i wanna see them come back to add some extra excitment......

m3_lover · Post 02 Aug 2006, 17:37

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type ... O_ID=36886

is this a made up story?