The FIA have today confirmed that the blown diffuser row has been settled, with all teams agreeing to continue running blown diffusers to the Valencia regulations. No other rule changes in this area will be imposed during 2011 while their complete banning is set for 2012.
Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
djos wrote:and the Fun police strike again!! ever since the FIA started banning interesting tech with lame interpretations of the rules (eg Renault TMD = active Aero!!) F1 has been in a constant race to the bottom of the Hi Tech pile!
The engine mappings that blow the diffuser are not particlarly 'interesting tech'. Blowing the diffuser itself is fair game, and certainly not illegal. But turning the engine in to a leaf blower, sorry, not 'interesting tech' at all.
We disagree but hey in F1 at least the engineers can come up with cool new ideas (until they get banned) - as much as I enjoyed CART in the 90's it was never as interesting as F1 from a development perspective and I fear that the FIA is sending F1 down the road to boredom by banning anything unconventional and then mandating green-washing tech that really doesn't improve the racing (KERS).
In a note sent from F1 technical delegate Charlie Whiting to the teams, he made it clear that with immediate effect teams will no longer be allowed to change engine maps between qualifying and the race.
Such a move will effectively prevent teams from running an extreme engine map for qualifying - such as one that produces more exhaust blowing or burns more fuel – and then reverting to a safer setting for the grand prix itself.
So, what I understand is you cant change from quali to the race, kinda like starting the race on the tyres you qualifyed on right?? so depending on the wording of the rules, once you start the race you can change the setting to a more economical one.
why does the FIA prevent technical achievements... its a load of poop...
I guess its also proof of how ferrari always get their way...
djos wrote:and the Fun police strike again!! ever since the FIA started banning interesting tech with lame interpretations of the rules (eg Renault TMD = active Aero!!) F1 has been in a constant race to the bottom of the Hi Tech pile!
The engine mappings that blow the diffuser are not particlarly 'interesting tech'. Blowing the diffuser itself is fair game, and certainly not illegal. But turning the engine in to a leaf blower, sorry, not 'interesting tech' at all.
We disagree but hey in F1 at least the engineers can come up with cool new ideas (until they get banned) - as much as I enjoyed CART in the 90's it was never as interesting as F1 from a development perspective and I fear that the FIA is sending F1 down the road to boredom by banning anything unconventional and then mandating green-washing tech that really doesn't improve the racing (KERS).
I would argue KERS does improve the racing, you just can't see it working. The biggest problem with KERS is the expense, that's why DRS is favoured, it's cheap.
djos wrote:and the Fun police strike again!! ever since the FIA started banning interesting tech with lame interpretations of the rules (eg Renault TMD = active Aero!!) F1 has been in a constant race to the bottom of the Hi Tech pile!
The engine mappings that blow the diffuser are not particlarly 'interesting tech'. Blowing the diffuser itself is fair game, and certainly not illegal. But turning the engine in to a leaf blower, sorry, not 'interesting tech' at all.
Maybe not overly interesting but used in an interesting way.
As I said, blowing the diffuser is great, nothing wrong with moving the exhaust exits to a place where they make the whole car more efficient.
F1 is not green. And it never will be. It's direction needs to be seen as trying to make itself green, not the opposite. With all the other things going, F1 doesn't need to make itself a target for green activists.
I thought this is kinda odd, they've been able to manipulate engine mapping since the beginning of the use of ECU. In fact a team probably use more than a couple of maps in the race to suit different type of running. Not to mention ones that compensate for weather or safety car....
I wonder also how this will affect reliability in general....
Diesel wrote:F1 is not green. And it never will be.
No, but it can pioneer green technologies. In fact, I would say it is an excellent vehicle for doing so./quote]
Absolutely, and it must pioneer these technologies. It must not been seen to be running technologies which go completely against this though, i.e. leaf blower engine maps.
Diesel wrote:I would argue KERS does improve the racing, you just can't see it working. The biggest problem with KERS is the expense, that's why DRS is favoured, it's cheap.
I would argue that it doesn´t. Why? it trades itself off since both guys are allowed to use it. Therefore there is no advantage in KERS. It´s the same thing with or without so as far as improving racing, KERS doesn´t do anything.
DRS works, it improves the show (depending on who you ask) and creates overtake opportunities since one guy has an advantage.
I think it would be way more interesting if we used the DRS rules like activation zones etc and applied that to the KERS system instead and removed the DRS wing.
I'm just wondering does this mean that they'll have to use one single map throughout the whole race too? If so it'll be interesting to see how drivers cope at the start (given that they have special engine mappings to get off the line effectively) and how they deal with fuel consumption during the race...
Yeah I agree, I don't get the Quali/Race engine map thing at all, what extra information are we missing?
They all currently run a launch engine map, locked out for 90seconds, to get off the grid, are they now going to have to try and start the race on a locked-in Q3 engine map? The cars have numerous maps to select from based on race conditions, car issues, is that all gone? If not how can any restriction operate?
As for off-throttle, I did note that in his briefing Renault's James Allison is at great pains to always use the phrase "fully off the throttle" when discussing the new blown diffuser restrictions.
By rule they aren't allowed stops in the pedal travel, but the pedal doesn't have to be linear does it, only pedal fully-on and fully-off must correspond to maximum and minimum engine throttle, and minimum equating to idle and the new 10% limit.
Why not stick a long pedal in there, same tight response at the top, and then a long lazy fall-off at a few percent throttle to continue to blow like a maniac before never in the race ever arriving at "fully off". Fully off is clearly still there, just not much used. (Drivers clomping about with customised heavy right boots will probably be our first clue).
So does the FIA now look to regulate fuel and ignition parameters all across the throttle range, up and down, across all engines? Sounds messy.
Diesel wrote:I would argue KERS does improve the racing, you just can't see it working. The biggest problem with KERS is the expense, that's why DRS is favoured, it's cheap.
I would argue that it doesn´t. Why? it trades itself off since both guys are allowed to use it. Therefore there is no advantage in KERS. It´s the same thing with or without so as far as improving racing, KERS doesn´t do anything.
DRS works, it improves the show (depending on who you ask) and creates overtake opportunities since one guy has an advantage.
I think it would be way more interesting if we used the DRS rules like activation zones etc and applied that to the KERS system instead and removed the DRS wing.
It's down to the drivers, KERS is much more tactical, and you only need to look at the way Lewis used it in China to understand how it isn't simply "no advantage gained".
DRS rules applied to KERS won't work, it would just get too complex. The biggest improvement they could make to KERS is make it so that the actual battery capacity is only worth one lap. Drivers never appear to actually be in a situation where they have no charge, they only hit FIA imposed usage limit. It would work so much better if the batteries only lasted one lap and the driver had inifinte usage of KERS throughout the lap.
But it still doesn´t change the fact that when you press the button, i can too.
I just figure out where you are using it and then i´ll counter with it.
It´s only an advantage if the other guy doesn´t have it or know what he´s doing.
How would it not work? It´s the same thing, "press a button" in a certain zone.
Agreed, i would like to see more open rules about KERS. I would probably go as far to say that they can do whatever they want in terms of power and longevity.
Obviously safety comes first.
It's only effective to counter with if you press it at the same time, so as you say you would need to work out where it's being used by the other driver. But then the other driver could save his, and wait for you to run yours out.
It would work much better if the batteries weren't so big, 160% batteries is silly in my opinion. The only restriction on KERS should be how much power it can output, and the size of the batteries.
DRS rules applied to KERS wouldn't work because there's no way to tweak it per track. Also, you would have all of those cars not in the 1 second window carrying the weight of KERS, but not able to use it, putting them at a massive disadvantage.
Diesel wrote:DRS rules applied to KERS wouldn't work because there's no way to tweak it per track. Also, you would have all of those cars not in the 1 second window carrying the weight of KERS, but not able to use it, putting them at a massive disadvantage.
Sure you could tweak the activation/detection zones just like today.
But i saw your other point there and in a sense i agree due to the weight penalty but on the other hand it would be the same as today since all have this weight penalty.
