2008 Jerez/Algarve Winter Testing (8th Dec - 17th Dec)

[Jersey Tom]

again, apologies if this has been discussed before, but how much scope is there for development of the suspension arms? Are we likely to see 'w' shaped arms to help flow around and behind the front wheels?

They are still bound by the symmetrical 3.5:1 cross section ratio and 5-degrees nose\down attitude.

Despite this the wishbones will be one of the few area left to develop, expect teams to switch the arms through out the season.

And they say F1 is not a spec series??? What kind of actual development is possible when these ratios are enforced?

Wouldn't that mean that WIlliams' wishbones could fit onto the Red Bull?

My interest in this sport is just about flushed down the toilet with all of Max and Bernie's crap.

Jeez. People act like F1 should have nothing regulated at all.

What kind of actual development is possible? Millions of dollars worth, in suspension geometry and tire simulation.

And no, Williams wishbones will not fit on a Red Bull. Just because they have a fixed cross section aspect ratio or what have you means nothing of the chassis and wheelside pickup points. They can do what they want.

[Metar]

Yet if they'd listen to your schemes about how a slowest car can win the constructor's championship, Conceptual, exactly how many fans would remain?


We shouldn't have to accept that, but we can accept that applying fierce restrictions on the wishbones' aerodynamic function is justified: It's an area that would be extremely hard to develop (you'd have to simulate moving over bumps in the wind-tunnel), the gains are minuscule, and it supports the no-moving-aero rules.

[Conceptual]

dp

[Conceptual]

Yet if they'd listen to your schemes about how a slowest car can win the constructor's championship, Conceptual, exactly how many fans would remain?


We shouldn't have to accept that, but we can accept that applying fierce restrictions on the wishbones' aerodynamic function is justified: It's an area that would be extremely hard to develop (you'd have to simulate moving over bumps in the wind-tunnel), the gains are minuscule, and it supports the no-moving-aero rules.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you regurgitating your bile over my year end bonus points scheme? It must have REALLY shaken you to still be whining about it.

Man, what happened to the innovation aspect? I think that all of these regulations that you support have brought F1 to its knees. Point schemes, tyre schemes, medal schemes, regulations, restrictions, testing bans, and now banishment to a common parts, parital spec series that no longer is about what constructor can make the fastest, best handling, most reliable car, it is about making certain sponsors happy by guaranteeing them airtime. They know it is F1, and people will watch, no matter what they do.

But keep beating the year end consistancy bonuses into the ground, you may make sane people believe it wouldn't cure the problem.

[Metar]

What the hell are you talking about? Are you regurgitating your bile over my year end bonus points scheme? It must have REALLY shaken you to still be whining about it.

Man, what happened to the innovation aspect? I think that all of these regulations that you support have brought F1 to its knees. Point schemes, tyre schemes, medal schemes, regulations, restrictions, testing bans, and now banishment to a common parts, parital spec series that no longer is about what constructor can make the fastest, best handling, most reliable car, it is about making certain sponsors happy by guaranteeing them airtime. They know it is F1, and people will watch, no matter what they do.

But keep beating the year end consistancy bonuses into the ground, you may make sane people believe it wouldn't cure the problem.

I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you on the bolded paragraph - but the sad reality is that nothing short of a budget-cap, or said semi-spec series, will cure this.

And I'm yet to see one other user here who agrees that an end-of-year bonus system is a good idea..

[Michiba]

my post regarding the wishbones was more to do with if they have to be straight or not. If not, I can imagine a 'w' shaped wishbone with a vertical section which could be used as a turning vane. Not sure how feasible this would be though as I am a complete novice with technical related stuff, I'm here to learn

[walter]

Formula 1 racing used to reflect evolution and survival of the fittest. If you don't win, then you don't win! There shouldnt be any hand-outs, or regulations that help out the poorly designed, flawed teams. I say let the sport run its course and let the weak die out.

[AeroGT3]

i reckon the 09 spec looks perfectly fine at this angle
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/photolarge.ph ... catID=3667
i would expect the front wing to be more sculptured and the rear end-plate to be reduced

[CMSMJ1]

What the hell are you talking about? Are you regurgitating your bile over my year end bonus points scheme? It must have REALLY shaken you to still be whining about it.

Man, what happened to the innovation aspect? I think that all of these regulations that you support have brought F1 to its knees. Point schemes, tyre schemes, medal schemes, regulations, restrictions, testing bans, and now banishment to a common parts, parital spec series that no longer is about what constructor can make the fastest, best handling, most reliable car, it is about making certain sponsors happy by guaranteeing them airtime. They know it is F1, and people will watch, no matter what they do.

But keep beating the year end consistancy bonuses into the ground, you may make sane people believe it wouldn't cure the problem.

I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you on the bolded paragraph - but the sad reality is that nothing short of a budget-cap, or said semi-spec series, will cure this.

And I'm yet to see one other user here who agrees that an end-of-year bonus system is a good idea..

I agree Metar - the year end bonus is a gimmick.

It is gimmickry that has caused tihs issue. Once upon a time some people built cars, they tested them and then raced them. The fastest cars won.

[Conceptual]

What the hell are you talking about? Are you regurgitating your bile over my year end bonus points scheme? It must have REALLY shaken you to still be whining about it.

Man, what happened to the innovation aspect? I think that all of these regulations that you support have brought F1 to its knees. Point schemes, tyre schemes, medal schemes, regulations, restrictions, testing bans, and now banishment to a common parts, parital spec series that no longer is about what constructor can make the fastest, best handling, most reliable car, it is about making certain sponsors happy by guaranteeing them airtime. They know it is F1, and people will watch, no matter what they do.

But keep beating the year end consistancy bonuses into the ground, you may make sane people believe it wouldn't cure the problem.

I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you on the bolded paragraph - but the sad reality is that nothing short of a budget-cap, or said semi-spec series, will cure this.

And I'm yet to see one other user here who agrees that an end-of-year bonus system is a good idea..

I don't think that the people on this board are the final authority to actually make that decision anyways...

And the simple fix to get rid of restrictive regulations is to simply require that at the end of the season, all documentation of all cars becomes available to all competitors. That way, you avoid run-away championships, and the teams will refrain from spending millions to gain 2 tenths since they would have to give the secrets away at the end of the season anyways.

And if you choose to slam this idea of mine as well, maybe you should look at the FIA/FOTA rega that they just released. The teams have already agreed to share an enormous amount of information to cut costs. This would just lead to even more cost cutting, while preserving the innovative edge of the sport.

But, it is OK that you dont like my ideas, I'm not sensitive about it at all. But I would deffinately like to see some factual extrapolation as to why it would not work instead of just your "gut feeling".

I think the cost cutting measures that are proposed have just broken my interest, the same way that "Any Given Sunday" did with professional football (US).

I guess that I will just take solace that I have every race from 1988-2008 on my HTPC, so I do not require any new races from 2009 onward to still watch F1.

Thanks for your wonderful input however. I hope that something happens that is different than what is proposed. Maybe I will start to care again if it does.

[Metar]

Information sharing would be a great thing - within a limits, I don't think everything has to be open - especially if the fans get more information that way. Teams will still push for gains, I think, to gain the advantage that season - but indeed far less. Like NASCAR (and not a bad thing in this case): It's not forbidden, but it has become stupid to invest in the car's engine - just look at Toyota, who found more power for the Nationwide cars, and got them restricted more.


As for reasons why it won't work?

First off, not only will it reward a team that might be the slowest more heavily than the team that won and fought hardest: But also more than the midfield teams, who might be trying to be competitive. Instead, we'll see FIF1 and other no-hopers just cruising around, trying to conserve tyres, fuels and cars - and generally not racing. As I said, sweeping the economy-driving awards nets the team around 200 points: That's Constructor's Championship material!

Secondly, it's an unclear system. "Simple" viewers like their races to end at the chequered flag, not a week later when it's been determined who used the least fuel. The die-hard fans don't like that either, if you remember the Spa fiasco this season.

[Conceptual]

Information sharing would be a great thing - within a limits, I don't think everything has to be open - especially if the fans get more information that way. Teams will still push for gains, I think, to gain the advantage that season - but indeed far less. Like NASCAR (and not a bad thing in this case): It's not forbidden, but it has become stupid to invest in the car's engine - just look at Toyota, who found more power for the Nationwide cars, and got them restricted more.


As for reasons why it won't work?

First off, not only will it reward a team that might be the slowest more heavily than the team that won and fought hardest: But also more than the midfield teams, who might be trying to be competitive. Instead, we'll see FIF1 and other no-hopers just cruising around, trying to conserve tyres, fuels and cars - and generally not racing. As I said, sweeping the economy-driving awards nets the team around 200 points: That's Constructor's Championship material!

Secondly, it's an unclear system. "Simple" viewers like their races to end at the chequered flag, not a week later when it's been determined who used the least fuel. The die-hard fans don't like that either, if you remember the Spa fiasco this season.

You are taking the examples that I gave as the end proposition, when I clearly stated that it was not.

If there were bonuses for:

Most races won = 10pts
Most pole positions = 10pts

Things like that are NOT gimmicks, they are rewards for race-over-race consistancy. The other "examples" that I gave were just to illustrate that you could also use this system to control other aspects as well, but not necessarily in the manner that I wrote.

I think these bonuses are far preferrable to a Medal System that only rewards p1, p2 and p3.

But, of course, if you don't like it, it must be a bad thing.

[Metar]

But with the current points-system, the team with the most victories already gets the quite obvious bonus of winning more races. Why should there be an extra bonus added? Winning itself gains the advantage - perhaps there's reason to increase the points for 1st place, but I don't think an arbitrary bonus is a good idea: A one victory difference shouldn't get the same reward as domination that saw the nearest challenger score just a single win to your six. And in that case, obviously, having won more races means you've earned more points during these races - it's then the driver's job to deliver true consistency, not necessarily winning, but finishing in the points and preventing others from passing him by scoring many average-points positions.

[Conceptual]

But with the current points-system, the team with the most victories already gets the quite obvious bonus of winning more races...

...and still loses the championship with the most wins, right?

[Metar]

By a margin of a single win, and a single point - when one of those wins was taken from the opposing team.

Ferrari won more and were more consistent, and got the constructor's trophy. Hamilton scored, on average, more than Massa, and thus won. There's a thousand and one things that could be blamed for this result: Hamilton's three-stopper at Turkey could've backfired, Massa's Hungary engine could've survived, Hamilton's tyre might not have been punctured at Monaco, etc.. But when the margin is one point, I don't think we need to complain that "He won more", because a single win more, which was given from the other team, really doesn't make things unfair. A one-to-six situation, say, Kubica winning, might've been unfair. But this?

Massa won one more race (on paper), and he got two more points as a result - and on such a small margin, I don't see why this should be different. Perhaps we should increase that to another point, but an arbitrary bonus that disregards the difference - just one victory - would be less fair.