China last week: A rare race | FerrariChat

China last week: A rare race

Discussion in 'F1' started by trumpet77, Apr 24, 2016.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. trumpet77

    trumpet77 Formula 3

    Jun 13, 2011
    2,181
    Great Neck, NY
    Full Name:
    Robert Nixon
    The F1 website states that last week's race in China, with all starters finishing, was only the 6th time ever that this has happened. One of those was the Indianapolis race in 05 when all 6 cars that started finished!

    Full house - the rare occasions every car has finished

    I didn't think it was quite that rare.
     
  2. texasmr2

    texasmr2 Two Time F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Oct 22, 2007
    22,232
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Gregg
    Didn't you know it was rigged?
     
  3. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    Yep! In my almost 50 years of watching I've *never* (outside the Indy nonsense) seen them all finish. Even if we exclude accidents, they're pretty highly stressed, and that means they break.

    Go back "in the day", and we'd be lucky if half the field finished. With less than about 25% on the lead lap of course.

    Maybe suggests they're not pushing the envelope as they used to? Is it getting too "regulated" & "dumbed down" maybe?

    ? Huh ?

    I'd love to see some evidence there.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  4. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Italian_Grand_Prix

    Rewatched this one (entire 2005 season) the other day and it was also noted at the end of the race. Car breaker track, too!

    *Ah balls. It's in the link. Lol.
     
  5. ypsilon

    ypsilon F1 Rookie

    May 4, 2008
    2,518
    the Netherlands
    They are, remember, fuel flow is limited to 100kg/hr.

    Plus if I recall correctly, heard an F1 technician being qouted, saying that coasting during specific parts of a lap was actually faster than giving it the full beans on the full lap, due to ERS/KERS recovery.
     
  6. texasmr2

    texasmr2 Two Time F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Oct 22, 2007
    22,232
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Gregg
    Ian I knew I would regret not throwing in a...'j/k'
     
  7. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447


    When you restrict the engines, as the present rules do, you can achieve very good reliability once the gremlins are overcome. So, no surprise there are no breakage.

    Without restrictions, these turbo V6 should deliver 1500hp without a sweat. But since they are limited to 900hp, they can last a long time and be used for several GPs. Something that was unthinkable in the past.

    In the previous turbo era, a 1500cc turbo BMW engine could reach 1600hp on the test bed, and some were used for qualifs. Happy days !!!

    Forget about the energy recovery nonsense, the fuel flow limit and the cap on engines, for unlimited power, turbo is surely the way to go!!
     
  8. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    OK; Think I'd have thrown a smiley face in there! ;) I may take this whole mess too seriously at times, but comments like that "read" differently on line I guess..... I was "like, WTF dude!?"


    I've read that too. But, I would still note that, most of the time at least, going faster, no matter how you do it is more "stressful" to the car than going slower.

    I know I sound like a broken record here, but what they're doing with this technology/batteries etc is beyond stunning to me.

    A pipette fuel load & obviously no refueling. Battery charge/discharge cycles that would undoubtedly result in much "magic smoke" being released in most situations.

    Operating in a harsh, vibrating, hot, environment for hours at a time.

    Throw in "limited" communications these days and that they all reached the end really is quite an achievement.

    Where are they "limited to 900hp"?

    Sure, that's about their target in order to not need huge runoff areas and/or new tracks & the like, but if someone makes a "breakthrough" I don't believe there's anything to stop them making as much as they can, as long as they're within the regs. [How long said regs will remain static in such a case is another debate; Charlie is pretty good at moving the goalposts when "needed".... ]

    Indeed.

    However, it should also be noted that they were using 4-5 of those lumps per GP! It was fun stuff, but I believe unsustainable in the long term. In fact, I believe a lot of this "restrictive" stuff is as a result of that craziness - The guys in charge remember, and want to reign it in some. [Again, whether that's right or wrong in F1 is another debate.]

    Certainly agree turbo's are, generally at least, a great solution. However, I still recall the guys whining about turbo lag "back in the day". With these things, the turbo can be powered by the batteries so there is no lag.

    Energy recovery is a wonderful thing; why piss it out the exhaust (except noise of course! ;)) when you can recover it to increase power?

    Sure, like most here, I'd love a return to "unlimited, do whatever you want" style rules, but I honestly believe we'd have no more competitive teams than we have now; One or two would get it right, as always, and the rest would simply be making up the numbers for the show. With zero chance of moving forward unless they found a *monster* budget somewhere.

    I know I've been accused of wearing the rose tinteds, but I do think they're doing their best. As already noted, do they get it right all the time? Of course not, but they're still quicker than anything else, so I'll remain a fan.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  9. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    The rules are restrictive enough to limit the power around 900hp.
     
  10. crinoid

    crinoid F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 2, 2005
    9,414
    Full Name:
    LaCrinoid
    This thread is rigged.
     
  11. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    Mercedes is at 950hp, Ferrari very close to that. Renault (in the Red Bull at least) not too far off and neither is the Honda apparently.

    Don't remember who it said now but STR with old Ferrari units are said to have the lowest HP of anyone.
     
  12. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    Not for me, it isn't !!

    It's unnecessarily complicated to go racing.

    It just bring another type of boffins into F1 (after the dreaded aerodynamicists) and don't add anything to the sport.

    This sport will be killed by the cost of technology: mark my word !!!
     
  13. trumpet77

    trumpet77 Formula 3

    Jun 13, 2011
    2,181
    Great Neck, NY
    Full Name:
    Robert Nixon
    there must be some math equation that would say that for a V6 of size X, with only Q amount of fuel of formula R, and limited to Y rpms plus Z1 amount of hybrid energy from braking and Z2 amount recovered from exhaust, the maximum hp would be AAA.
     
  14. texasmr2

    texasmr2 Two Time F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Oct 22, 2007
    22,232
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Gregg
    +1
     
  15. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    I'm sure I've been hearing that argument over the almost 50 years I've been following it!

    "It's too expensive."
    "It's too technical for the fans to follow."
    Blah, blah.

    Yet it leads the world in automotive development, at least outside the ****ty, but powerful *diesels* at Le Mans.

    Personally, I'd rather have hybrid power than a diesel any day of the week.

    I'm convinced this hybrid technology, where we're not wasting all that energy *will* come to a showroom near you soon. (Already is to a degree of course.)

    Great stuff IMESHO.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  16. Fast_ian

    Fast_ian Two Time F1 World Champ

    Sep 25, 2006
    23,397
    Campbell, CA
    Full Name:
    Ian Anderson
    Also meant to note, F1 has always been, and hopefully always will be, on the "leading edge".

    As it should, indeed must, be in order to remain at least a little relevant.

    Complicated? Sure. It has always been so.
    Expensive? Sure. It has always been so.

    I'd bet that relatively speaking the days of using half a dozen lumps per weekend was more expensive.

    Cheers,
    Ian
     
  17. texasmr2

    texasmr2 Two Time F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Oct 22, 2007
    22,232
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Gregg
    Sorry as I did not mean to ruffle your feathers!! :D

    Better? :p
     
  18. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    Hybrid technology is ok in a street car, energy saving is ok too, but not when racing !!!
    I am not really certain that F1 should have anything in common with the cars in showrooms.
    Hybrid technology in racing has shown to be very expensive, and it doesn't add anything to the sport.

    Apart from the army of technicians in the pits, what has it done for the actual racing?
    More electronic systems, more equations, more expenses, etc...

    Now, it's just another arms race to do F1. The more it costs, the less there will be players.
    It's a simple at that. In the budget race, I am sure that Ferrari will blink before Mercedes in the long run, if the German stay the course.

    What is happening is a budget war that will kill the independents, and make the manufacturers think.

    I have been comparing F1 with air racing, because both my grand father and my father used to be involved in that. Air racing disappeared because of the enormous cost involved; in the end, not only private individuals couldn't compete anymore, but even aircraft companies couldn't afford it; only national air forces!! Where is air racing now?

    Compared to other mechanised sport (MotoGP, Off-shore racing, endures, etc...) F1 is becoming far too costly for the participants, and therefore they will go away. It's already a two-tiers series between 4 manufacturers and their client teams. The client teams barely survive (heard the latest from Sauber ?).

    Why? Because of the cost of unrestricted technology.


    BTW. Diesel imposed itself in endurance for a decade because of the ACO favouring them in its rulebook at the expense of petrol engine. Le Mans was so keen to attract at least one manufacturer in the early 2000 that it let AUDI dictate the new rules.
     
  19. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    Not true!!

    There was a time when teams didn't have to be constructors, but could buy a customer chassis. Others could easily build their own chassis.
    Some drivers were private entrants, with just a couple of mechanics.

    Also, there were readily available components like engines, gearboxes at affordable prices. Any good mechanic could assemble a car on his own, and teams ran with only a handful of staff.

    It was certainly less expensive then.
     
  20. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    Few teams ever did that !
     
  21. maulaf

    maulaf Formula 3

    Feb 24, 2011
    1,422
    Cape Town
    one for race, one for qualy, one for training. Times that by two cars and you are at six. Then throw in the T-car makes seven.
     
  22. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    about 1.2m per race weekend then.

    When we went to 1 engine per weekend it went to just 400K all in for both cars, and subsequently when we went to 1 engine per 2 weekends it was just 200K in engines per race.

    Quote from last year is that the price doubled, and went up by £20 million, so it's 40m for power units.

    1m per car per race.
     
  23. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    Very few teams did that on a regular basis.

    Although it became more common when the turbo arrived, because you could screw up the boost at the expense of durability then...

    Also, engines used to be rebuilt during the season.


    I agree that the same engine should be used for qualifs and race, but I don't think there is a need to limit the number of engines over a season.
     
  24. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447


    Prices have gone up because F1 is now a captive market, with customer teams hostage to 2 suppliers (Mercedes and Ferrari).

    Honda don't lease/sell its engine yet, and Renault wants to stop being a supplier.

    So, there is no incentive from Mercedes and Ferrari to review their prices. Ecclestone calls them a "cartel".

    In fact, it's the unnecessary technology that pushed the price up; something Mercedes wanted.

    It doesn't take a poncey hybrid system to give 950hp; screw a turbo on a small-block Chevy and you get there at a fraction of the price!
     
  25. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    It was almost the norm for the top 5 teams or so up until 2004 (IIRC that's when the rule changed to use less engines). All teams (exluding minardi and maybe another team) had huge money to spend due to cigarette sponsorship. Ferrari, Williams, Mclaren, Benetton, BAR wouldn't have an issue swapping engines every day.

    When sanity came and an engine per weekend, cost drastically dropped.

    Shame they had to start messing with the engines, really. Now, more than 10 years later are we getting near the same power figures again. I have little doubt that with rev limited V10s (say 17500), 3 liters, now direct injection and a simple ERS engine we'd have engines just as reliable, sounding glorious, be fairly close to how much fuel we're using now (20% worse at a guess).
     

Share This Page