Yesterday saw an impromptu field trip to catch the new Renault in action. I don't think today will be quite as exciting, but we can try our best.
- The rumblings that Renault weren't happy with the rear diffuser on the Toyota and Williams seem to be taking some weight now, as the FIA are apparently aware. Of course, that doesn't mean anything. They may or may not be taking action, but it's certainly going to make me look at the pictures a little bit harder.
- The Rome GP bid is supposedly not going to threaten the current Italian race at Monza. I guess it does follow that a popular driver/team gets a couple of races in his home country, but do we really want Monza and Rome in the same calendar?
- There's talk that Honda have requested a bailout from the British government. I don't want to speculate about that at all, but I'm curious about the general idea. Would a government ever do it? What is in it for them? Would the taxpayers let them?
That'll do it for today. Please keep us abreast of any breaking news in the comments, and I will see you there.
one more bit of renault news to start the day off.
apparently the team / airport invited local councillors to observe the testing. one would assume this is related to previous noise complaints from nearby residents.
We had Imola and Monza for years, now Imola has gone they've had to replace it with something. After all, according to the poison dwarf, Ferrari are special and need as much help as possible.
No thanks. Then again, we shouldn't be giving it to the other car companies either.
If Honda Racing can't survive without government hand outs then they can either go and talk to Bernie nicely, or curl up and die quietly.
Also, why would the Government prop up a racing team when they wouldn't prop up Silverstone?
Have you seen the latest post in the James Allen blog? http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/some-good-news-for-f1-tv-viewers/
Apparently we're going to get to hear team radio from all the teams, including Ferrari and McLaren. Also, cars will be weighed post quali and their weight published. That's going to spoil the fun a bit isn't it if we can make an educated guess as to their true speed and likely pit stops etc.
So what would they call it... the Vatican City GP?
Seriously No. Italy shouldn't get two races back. Not until at least Canada, France, and the US are back on the calander. If we are going to run a second race in Italy, bring back Imola.
Sorry but with the needs coming from health care, schools, police, military, and other basic services; Why should the people of Great Britian have to pay because Bernie and Honda had a crappy business model? It is already morally repugnant that Bernie takes money from autocrats around the world to run his little race cars on their tracks with nobody in the stands.
Really, the buck has to stop somewhere.
I like Honda and hope they find an owner, but the idea that the government should bail them out from themselves is revolting. Than again... I am not a British citizen so it isn't my quid on the line.
I have never understood why teams want to make their radio available to the public. All it does is let the opposition know if they have a problem or they have to talk in code to aboid that and we don't then have any info anyway.
Think of Michael Schumacher's race at Barcelona where he drove with only 5th gear for a large part of the race. Even though the on screen telemetry showed that he was only using one gear everyone assumed that was a fault. Eventually he figured out how to drive round the problem but imagine how different it could have been had he got straight on an open radio channel and announced to the world that he had a problem.
I wonder if government grants would count under Max's budget cap scheme.
But for some reason, it hasn't happened yet, them talking in code. Most of the teams DO talk strategy on the radio even now - it's just that it seems FOM decide not to air it, and air most of the other stuff.
So is batracer down for everyone else?
I would hardly class trying to save 600+ skilled jobs that bring in vast amount of money for the local economy of Brackley and surrounding towns, plus knock-on effect in the supply chain if they disappeared revolting.
for any other team i'd agree. but we shouldn't have to bail out fry's incompetence. if frank williams was in a similar position, no problem. honda? no way.
So it's ok for hundreds of families to suffer due to one incompetent boss who the majority of people dislike? It's not a popularity contest!
I don't think anyone would ever argue that people losing their jobs is okay.
williams didn't p*** millions of dollars down the drain chasing "green" issues did he? honda are in the position they're in because massive incompetence at the management level (both in the uk and japan) for many, many years and they should all be held accountable for that.
not at all. but f1 is a business and sometimes businesses fail.
it's not nice, but the british people can't be expected to bail out every boss who made a rubbish decision (or ten).
Certainly the management shouldn't be rewarded with a management buy out.
here's a question then. i take issue with honda receiving any help. i think i'd also object if mallya or mateschitz went cap in hand to downing street.
but if williams or mclaren were in trouble i'd be more open to the idea. i guess because they at least appear to be doing a decent job at the board level.
anyone disagree? should we bail out force india, renault or even ferrari (who probably source many f1 parts from the uk)? who does or doesn't deserve our support and who would you be willing to help out?
I agree, but behind the banks, the automotive industry is incredibly important in the UK. In the pecking order I would rather see the money go to the true manufacturers (Nissa, BMW etc) before the Honda F1 team - but I can see how important the Honda team are and the ripple effect it would cause if they went belly-up.
They can't obtain the credit at the moment to get themselves back up and running and sort out their mess, but it's not as if a government loan wouldn't be paid back one way or another (maybe).
Very true. I just hope that nearly all of the 700 people find jobs in F1 if BrackleyF1 doesn't find a buyer...
there's no guarantee they could do that. we're not even confident they'll be fit to race in melbourne. bernie could pull the rug from under them before april and every penny would be down the drain.
he may not do that, but is he offering any guarantees? and is it fair on the other teams who have kept their houses in order?
Where though, with all teams cutting back on running costs and shedding jobs?
if they're good people, they should be okay. they'll find something else in the long term, right?
if they're sensible people, they'll have savings put away for a rainy day.
Isn't Bernie giving Williams £14.5m due their sponsorship issues to ensure they make it to Melbourne or am I making that up?
And I would say that it is fair on the other teams. I'm sure they would hope for the same if the shoe was on the other foot. F1 needs as many teams as it can muster, why would anyone want to sponsor a team or event with only a handful of cars participating?
subway are taking on more people. seriously though, talent will always out. i would guess there were a couple of people working at honda who shouldn't have been. probably in the aero department.
hopefully those people will exit motorsport and never return, the rest will be picked up by the strongest teams, or maybe will set up small businesses providing knowledge, talent and parts to other teams or something?
i've no idea, but government money isn't the answer imho.
if f1 has a viable business model, and there's money to be made, people will join / continue in the series. it's up to bernie to provide that.
volvo are reported to be coming back to btcc. there's money around, it's just that it's being spent more wisely.
Brumos keep win despite penalty
Huh? The car ran 12lbs underweight and they get to keep the win? Over 24hours the few tenths per lap saved must have made a huge difference?
That's not a good way to do things - as the article said, they also do that in NASCAR and it kinda defeats the point of the penalty...
But as the article says, the series is run by NASCAR now so it's not really surprising when they're now using some of their rules and regulations.
But do you agree that Brumos should keep the win?
I personally think thats the stupidest thing i've ever heard!
I'm not sure if this is right, but the results ive found show that 1st place was 0.167 seconds ahead of second place, 5 seconds behind 3rd place and 10 seconds behind 4th place....
No-one can say that 12lb (5.44kg) won't make a difference over 735 laps!!
In most businesses people costs are the largest costs.
When F1 talks about cost cutting they usually mean people.
Sadly you can't keep all these people employed and reduce costs. It is, essentially, a zero sum game.
I really dont want to see another team go under, and 700+ jobs lost (don't forget the suppliers)
However I cannot see the logic in tax payers money being used to prop up an F1 team.
Does the ex-honda team really have a bullet proof business plan? What happens in three months time when the money runs out again?
Even IF they do manage to put together a viable sponser package to keep the team running - are they going to keep all 700 employees? No way.
I didn't see the govement bail out Woolies, and that company employed twice the number.
yes. but the penalty was way too lenient. they should be banned from the next race or two.
we've long argued that fans should know who won the race when they leave the track and have confidence that the winner will still be the same person by the time they get home.
by all means kick them out of the championship, but the winner was the guy who stood on the podium holding the trophy.
Yes, that is right - and it was Montoya in the second place car.
A high number of yellow flags played a part in providing the close finish (run by nascar remember)- but Montoya could not keep the Burmos car behind, which was SOOO much faster in a stright line.
Montoya was caught in traffic at the wrong place, and the Burmos car was past.
Yes, very well said.
Oh boy, "The Rottweiler" is in the F1 news again, and not for something good.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73070
do they have any business plan? i heard fry has a whiteboard office that reads as follows:
phase 1: buy f1 team
phase 2: ?
phase 3: profit!
a damn good point.
Unless the F1 teams can give something of great significance back to the community at large (in the form of products or services), I don't think any of them should be bailed out. Disclaimer - I'm not thinking from an F1 fan-taxpayer's POV here, I'm just thinking from a regular taxpayer's POV.
I would disagree with this one. It's unfair to let them keep the win when they didn't play by the rules and the ones behind him did. This especially applies with technical infringements, which can't be determined immediately.
it would appear motorsport is thriving:
"Le Mans 24 Hours organiser the ACO has received 82 applications for entries for this year's race."
"The ACO is left with 67 cars chasing the remaining 40 places in the race."
link: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73066
the only thing stopping people from breaking rules, is the fear of being caught and the threat of sanctions following that. the penalties need to be big enough to deter would be infringers, but i don't see why confusing fans is also necessary?
Fine 'em $100 million, take away all their points, but let the results stand.
gascoyne wants payment:
"Force India's former Chief Technical Officer Mike Gascoyne is suing the team for damages of more than £2 million over his dismissal at the end of last year, autosport.com has learned."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73070
fia medals analysis:
- "Brabham under the ownership of Bernie Ecclestone would have won no Drivers’ Championships."
- "Stirling Moss would have been the first British World Champion."
- "Nelson Piquet would have lost all three of his World Championships."
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/f1_medals.aspx
You'd think it was, no? Things are usually not what they seem.
Or maybe Le Mans' relatively low cost (esp. compared to F1) is helping it weather the recession. The LMS and ALMS on the other hand, not so much.
"Audi, Peugeot, Aston Martin, Oreca-Courage and Pescarolo have been confirmed in the LMP1 class"
quite a few big names in there, i guess the race is a one off though.
Franck!!
yup, some arent doing the LMS this year, just making a Le Mans debut
I would suggest because Woolworths was dying on it's backside for at least a decade before the recession came along anyway. The automotive industry as a whole was profitable. Yes, I know there's a case here for saying well Honda F1 weren't, but they're seeking funds from this new government package intended to bail-out those in the car industry.
The banks were bailed-out as they are the lynch pin to the whole economy. No banks. No economy. As I mentioned before, the car industry is more important that a rubbish mis-managed retailer which didn't really know what it was doing and lived off it's name for many years. If the government stepped in and helped them out then where would it stop?
heard klien is also confirmed.
no-ones said if they're in the same team yet though.
Not sure what you mean by that?
typo. refresh.
i agree. however hondaf1 is not the car industry. it exists on the periphery, at best.
for want of an example, the honda car plant in swindon currently employs 4,200 workers. nissan have 5,000 people in sunderland. huge companies, both making products and exporting goods. all great for the economy.
should the government lend a hand there? maybe, maybe not. but what the heck do a racing team really bring to the country?
And those 4,200 workers have just been laid off for four months...
Prestige, pride, research & development, technology...
But you're right ... Honda and Nissan deserve the money far more than BrackleyF1.
Have you seen the new LMP1 Aston? Very nice!
The ACO have kept a close eye on costs when the economy was in good shape, and have worked hard to keep the race financially viable. They know that the bulk of their grid are from private teams rather than manufactures.
When times are tough - advertising is even more important. But it still needs to make financial sense.
The problem is that when you have a race such as Daytona (24h) and Le Mans, where a single race is more important than the rest of the championship...Disqualification from the next race is no penaulty at all if you already have the big prize.
Woolworths needed new management and a new direction ... But the Honda F1 team has been spending millions for years with no results to show for it - that is not a viable business at all.
I mentioned before that I thought that if the government were going to help out the car industry than I would put Honda F1 at the bottom of the pecking order with regards to any funding available. As I would argue that there are more people involved both working at the plants along with a larger number of suppliers who only live off demand from the manufacturers than at an F1 team.
And what do a racing team bring to the country? Well, admittedly not on their own, but the motorsport industry is more successful in the UK than any other country with three-quarters of the world's racing cars coming from the UK and over 1% of our GDP is earned through motorsport. So maybe there is a case to keep any UK based F1 team afloat at the moment?
No, Woolworths needed a miracle. The firm were losing millions year on year out by relying heavily on Christmas trade to try and keep it going. They excelled in nothing and lost out to supermarkets or more specialised stores. Their management changed hands several times over the past five years or so to zero success. Recession or not, the writing was on the wall for Woolworths a long time ago.
Honda F1 as a business model was entirely different. They existed merely as extension for a highly profitable firm to promote their brand around the world. Bit like comparing a spoon to an orange.
tough call. it's not like everyone is upping and leaving for italy on mass or anything, but i guess the country will be worse off without them. i still think bad business plans / businessmen should be left to natural selection.
I never thought I would ever see the day when I would be defending Honda :-D
cor blimey! crash.net have had a redesign:
http://www.crash.net/formula+one/news/142453/1/ferrari_modify_f60s_illegal_exhaust_outlets.html
still looks unprofessional. and ferrari finally found a hacksaw :)
:D
mclaren to a renault?
What's your opinion on crash.net?
I've never really warmed to them, though I do subscribe to their feed. But their news is typically 24/48hrs behind everybody else. The new layout looks too cluttered for me!
couple of times we've quoted them here, the stories have turned out to be false. i've seen worse though :)
the old one looked a mess. this is much tidier. there's an awful lot of animated advertisements going on there though!
just for kicks:
Lewis turned up at the O2 in London to see Nicole Scherzinger singing with PCD on Wednesday night, earning a massive smacker on the lips for “his” generous gifts of 50 red roses and a diamond necklace worth £100,000.
The only problem was the gifts were from a male member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, not Hammy. Whoops.
link: http://www.autoracingdaily.com/news/formula1/saudi-sheikh-trying-to-steal-f1-stars-girlfriend/
The ads are really dodgy and the layout means the stories are spread all over the page. I generally just read the short bits from the feed...
Bourdais still waiting on Toro Rosso
No pictures of people cheering or popping champaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagne corks on French forums today then...
Honda deny they are seeking any government bail out...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73054
Even if they decided to apply, they would have to demonstrate a solid, profitable business case for the future, which given the state of F1 and the wider economy would surely be very difficult.
I feel for the workers at Brackley, but a bail out is not the solution. The sort of money on offer would be nowhere near enough to make a significant difference anyway.
I'm certainly no fan of Nick Fry, but I think putting the demise of Honda F1 all on him is a bit harsh. Given the decline of Honda road car sales, and the fact that they have just today shut down their UK plant for 4 months, it would probably have taken 2008 Championship utter domination to have kept them in the sport.
Ollie's take on the 'medals' research done by the FIA (BlogF1)
i generally use them for national racing news rather than the international stuff
agreed. except for the last bit. all it would have taken is for f1 to be a profitable business, and they could have justified staying put.
taking part in f1 would save jobs and wouldn't have to be an embarrassment the company could do without.
making f1 profitable for anyone other than himself is bernie's biggest challenge. i doubt he gives two hoots though.
"What it isn’t though is market research. And that is what I really want to read. It is all well and good getting an intern to sit down at a computer and run through all the championships applying Bernie’s scheme, but that doesn’t tell us what you, I or indeed the FIA want. "
that man be spot on!
Agreed. However, he missed the best line of the FIA's article though:
“Brabham under the ownership of Bernie Ecclestone would have won no Drivers’ Championships.”
which makes the FIA article a thinly-veiled dig at the Moppet...
when Bradley Lord showed me round the Renault factory a couple of years ago he said that Renault make very little profit.
plus, for their results and expenses compared with the moto gp team you cant blame them for pulling it
F1 teams are not supposed to make a profit, they're supposed to put all the 'profit' they make back into developing the car to make it faster...
says who?
Why would you operate any other way? Think about it... If team X has to develop the car to be faster than team Y then they will put all available resources into doing it. If team X failed to beat team Y and made a profit losing, what good is that to the team? You would think that if they were serious about winning, they would have to operate that way to make sure they were faster, right?
Samsung operate in the same way - they put as much profit as possible into R&D - that's how they keep making bigger and better products...
i think from a manufacturers point of view they'd be happy if they get a ROI in money and results
maybe. but then they'd be super happy if they did all of that and made money too :)
Wouldn't you make more money by winning more prize money if the car was faster though?
"as much profit as possible" is fine. that's not what you suggested a minute a go though.
in a downturn "as much as possible" could be nothing at all. right now i bet samsung are reviewing their r&d spend. if f1 allowed teams to make money (and right now it doesn't), they could assign profit where they see fit.
i guess that depends on what colour your car is :)
I am assuming that any money 'made' is instantly put back into the budget for R&D - therefore no profit would be made. A profit could still be reported for the previous fiscal year, I guess. That's what I meant earlier.
I should also add that I know nothing about Finance or Economics...
all you need to know is that neither add up when it comes to f1 :D
replace the word f1 with bernie ;)
sorry :D
hehe. they're the same thing really :D
How many teams in F1 make a profit? - Probably only McLaren & Ferrari in terms of sponsorship & Prize money vs operating costs?
It is of course difficult to measure the effect of advertising spend - i.e. how many cans of Red Bull are bought as a result of its F1 Programme? Or how many additional cars did Honda sell because of F1?
Certainly Honda were not trying to make a profit or break even in their F1 activities. The Honda board would never have sanctioned earth dreams if this was the case.
All of which makes this the worst advertisemnt for any book I have ever seen....
http://www.kpi-book.com/service-book.html
WOW!
:D
very true.
the team formerly known as honda have nothing to advertise. they've got to make a profit or find someone who doesn't mind loosing one.
its not always about that, how many mclarens or ferraris do you think are sold because of the team? not that many more i doubt. for something like Moto GP or BTCC where the bikes/cars look similar to what your actually buying in the show room so it may have more of an effect. for f1 and LMS and the big series like that its more about brand awareness, getting the name out there. yes it will have an effect on the sales but for the manurfacturers that make the cars typical fans will buy...
Ferrari and McLaren are different in that they sell road cars to enable them to go racing - their business model is unique, and we can't compare it.
Frank (Williams), Ron, Flav etc have made alot of money out of F1 over the years.
As for the 'team' - it is not so much a case of making a 'profit' - but income from sponsorship and prize money etc needs to match outgoings, and this has not been happening at all recently.
Look at Force India - all of the money the VM has poored into the team, and they are still at the back of the grid.
Hi all, after yesterday screaming at iTunes and saying I'd never buy another Apple product, today I was screming at the local council for banning spc.com. Those evil bar stewards and microsoft for being incapable of creating a decent program on anything, and crashing at the worst possible moment. Damn these computers.
But apparantly its 'judgement day' at my football training, who's in the squad for the rest of the season. The only one confirmed, is me. Mainly cos I'm the only one who's kept the damn team afloat, and I so happen to be the only keeper. ;) Enough about my life, F1 time.
It's still better than it was before,
Still hoping for Sato.
Wow, what a finish to the BAT race at Spa! Selidor beat me to the line by 0.092 seconds!
Oh just for the love of god, 2nd place and I crash.
I am Takuma Sato.
To concur, just crashed into someone in my public game.
Bloody hell RG, that sucks. You were flying :(
I went for a one stop and maxed most of my settings, it done nothing. Too heavy on fuel.
Scott, fancy Grid this evening? Let me know if/when you're on XBL.
I think you have at least three 'financial models' that are viable in F1:
1 - the teams that go racing for racing, all their purpose and horizon is inside F1. They are like big examples of the small teams running in any local series. Their profit is, by definition, zero (excluding the salaries, of course). Example: Williams
2 - the teams that sell cars outside F1 to make enough money to race in F1. They started like the teams in 'model 1' so they actually go racing for racing, but diversified their incomes to more than advertising. The profit of the team is negative, taking money from the profit of the 'public branch'. Examples: Ferrari and McLaren
3 - the teams that race in F1 to advertise their parent companies and sell anything from beverages to cars. Their purpose (that of their parents, actually) is outside F1. Their profit can be anywhere between minus infinity and infinity, depending on their real purpose. Example: Any constructor, RedBull
Off course, of those three only teams in models 1 and 2 are bounded to F1, they can't exist without it. Teams in model 3 are those that come and go depending on the financial/advertising needs of their parent company. Sadly, those are also the majority in today's grid...
Sure, what time?
Don't mind mate, I can do it now if you like. Though if you can't do it now, say at.......half 8 tonight?
OK, half 8 it is :)
Sure Scott, I'll see if Luke can join us. What's your favourite cars to drive? And tracks too.
I like the GT1 cars, touring cars and F3. Fave circuits are Spa, Istanbul and Milan.
So is batracer down for everyone else? {Alex Andronov - 92 comments ago}
I haven't been able to get BATRacer working since early yesterday morning :( It went down halfway through the set-up for my public game and hasn't come back up since.
I would disagree on a number of your points
Model 1 - Williams do aim to record profits for the group - and did that fairly successfully up until recently - registering a profit of $60m in 2005, before reporting a combined loss for 2006/7 of $88m. Williams do also have operations outside of F1. notably recently their part ownership of Williams Hybrid Power and their supply of chassis to the new F2 series.
Model 2 - I am not sure that Ferrari & McLaren sell road cars so that they can be in F1. McLaren obviously make extremely low numbers of road cars themselves, and Mercedes fit more accurately into your 3rd model. Both McLaren & Ferrari F1 operations are, as I understand in profit gernerating in their own right.
I have never understood why teams want to make their radio available to the public. {Steven Roy - 98 comments ago}
It's also a bargaining chip - the teams can claim they're being more open (without being that much more open than they were before) in exchange for political favours. McLaren and Ferrari, having the most political power, held out longest.
williams didn’t p*** millions of dollars down the drain chasing “green” issues did he? {me - 84 comments ago}
That would probably make the British government more sympathetic, not less, since it too has a "green" agenda and (arguably) is also more talk than action on the subject. But that debate could get slightly controversial.
But their profits are secondary to winning. Winning comes before profit; if they win, the profit will follow.
Enzo himself said that they only sell Ferrari road cars to make money to go racing. As for Ferrari and McLaren's profits, it's secondary to winning.
On what basis do you think a loan will be paid back when the best information we have is that the team is closing down within weeks? We have no evidence of any buyout by the management or anyone else.
Didn't know that, so Williams is leaning towards model 2 more than I though... Then probably better examples would have been Midnardi, Jordan, Prost (it's not a chance that all are not longer in F1...)
That was certainly the case for Ferrari at the beginning: Enzo actually said 'the difference between them (the constructors) and us is that they race to sell cars, we sell cars to race'. I agree that in the case of McLaren is more for engineering 'fun' than money.
When I refer to Ferrari not making a profit I refer only to the 'Reparto Corse', the racing branch of the group. They are not self-financed, they get money of the cars Ferrari sells (besides the sponsorship). Also, I'm not taking Mercedes as part of the 'McLaren team' in this discussion, I only treated them as the engine suppliers. McLaren existed before and will probably survive the Mercedes involvement in F1 (at least, this Mercedes incarnation). In the same way, I also don't count Fiat as the parent company to Ferrari, just as one of their sponsors.
Some of us have been involved in industries that disappeared and been made redundant a few times. Ability is irrelevant if 90% of the jobs you are qualified for no longer exist and savings disappear very quickly when you have zero income. Despite that the government should not be bailing out an F1 team.
Yes he is giving them a payment they are due ahead of schedule but we know Williams will exist in three months time.
They should have been disqualified for that but I guess it is the usual nonsense that once a result is declared it should not be changed because it looks bad. Stupid logic.
should we bail out force india, renault or even ferrari (who probably source many f1 parts from the uk)? who does or doesn’t deserve our support and who would you be willing to help out?
I'm somewhat against the idea of any for-profit organisation getting handouts from the government unless it is carrying out some part of the government's role (to give an example that an F1 team may be able to cite if it was configured appropriately, helping to train people with low skills to enter the world of employment). Then appropriately-sized handouts can be given out on condition that the work that assists the government continues at or above the same level. Unless done very carefully, generic handouts simply encourage the bad habits that got the organisation into trouble in the first place. We need healthy organisations. Organisations that repeat their mistakes because they were able to receive a handout do not supply that need and eventually contribute to future recessions. At least if an organisation that could not change its ways falls in one recession, its staff can go on to create/join better organisations that will help get the economy moving again in a more sustainable way.
If the organisation can demonstrate that it has learned from its mistakes and it is carefully monitored to see that it has learned, then I would cautiously approve a hardship grant or loan (whichever is deemed more appropriate by the government and the organisation to be helped). This lack of learning is why I was dubious about the banks receiving so much support; I didn't see many hints that they'd accepted that hiding risks when trading with one another or giving out loans to people who could not afford to repay them were bad ideas.
I can't translate this principle into "I'd help team A but not team B" because I do not know which teams would be in a position to use a government grant or loan well if given one.
The other thing I would say is that those F1 teams primarily based elsewhere should apply to their own country for assistance rather than the UK. Even though they are helping to boost the UK economy, their contribution is primarily to their home economy and it is their government that should decide whether state funding of some sort is appropriate.
So let them stay in a race they won illegally despite it being the biggest race of their season and ban them from 2 less important races.
Looks like he has a case to me
I wonder if government grants would count under Max’s budget cap scheme. {Steven Roy}
I'd assume so.
sure thing. but you lived to tell the tale. people have to adapt to changing circumstances all the time.
While I like the idea of Jim Clark winning 4 titles which reflects his status far better than the two he won the idea of the dastardly Pironi winning the 1982 championship would be too much to stomach.
ban them from the same race next year?
How many times since the war has the motor industry been bailed out by governement? The reason they are in trouble is grossly incompetent mangament and massive over-production. Their business model like the financial sector just assumed that there would be a bull market for ever and there was no disaster plan.
Are we going to bail them out again in 6 years time?
check.
I could see the point if it was Lotus but not Honda. Why should the government finance a company that the shareholders refuse to put mney into it?
and if they win the championship this year by the number of points they got by winning that race illegally? what then?
if they’re good people, they should be okay. they’ll find something else in the long term, right? {me}
Not necessarily. The skill sets of many of them will be heavily optimised towards the jobs they are currently doing. If an F1 team or similar organisation doesn't take them (and remember the sector is shedding jobs at this point), then they'll struggle. Once people have been out of work for a couple of months, the more regular sectors of work tend to write people off unless they can claim they were training or something - and most training courses start in September rather than February or March.
They'll probably be OK in the long run, but there's no guarantee, or even close to one.
ferrari, australia, 2007?
taking away constructors points is fine, so that sorts the team out. you can ban a driver from the next race and that'll sort his championship out. tis easy.
next year, the team are banned from competing in the most prestigious race of the year. again, everybody knows where the stand.
the only time it makes sense to take change the winner of the race after the fact, is if you're deliberately courting controversial headlines... see spa '08 :)
It shows. Why would you declare a profit, pay tax on it and then invest it all on R&D when you could invest it all in R&D, declare a slight loss and pay no tax? Why give money to the tax man that you could have spent on R&D?
if they’re sensible people, they’ll have savings put away for a rainy day. {me}
If they're like most people, they'll have had to spend the majority of their pennies simply servicing the mortgage and reasonable costs of living. There might not be that much put away, though they'll scrape through for a few months if they go on benefits and don't have a large amount of fixed costs.
How many McLarens would have been sold if they had not had a successful racing team? A lot less than they eventually sold. There is no way without the racing team being there that Gordon Murray could have managed to get suppliers to do the things they did.
Isn’t Bernie giving Williams £14.5m due their sponsorship issues to ensure they make it to Melbourne or am I making that up? {Dank - }
He is giving Williams that money because it wasn't their fault that many of the other teams haven't signed. Because Williams has signed, it's still part of the informal "TV advance" system. It's not new money for Williams, it simply means it won't get that £14.5m when the other teams get round to signing Concorde.
What did you do at the start of the race RG? You were 2 seconds a lap faster than me.
subway are taking on more people. {me}
They'll be looking for people with previous retail and/or cooking experience and given the state of the job market, they'll have plenty of choice (though it does imply that the catering staff at ex-Honda will be fine - I'm sure some of the Subways will be within travelling distance ;) )
It's good to read this sort of optimism (especially since I'm in the dole queue myself), but 7000 jobs between 2 million people doesn't go quite as far as the Brackley crew might like :(
It is funny we are talking about this. I am just finishing a report covering the long-term economic forcast for Washington state. Most of the economist in the report state believe that this resession will last throughout 2010, and may go into 2011, 2012, or possibly into 2013 in all of the global markets. That doesn't sound good for the sport with a few teams already a little to close to the edge.
It's funny but the banking and automotive problem is sort of like what Formula One is going through now. You had people working with resources that they neither had nor sustain. You had some people that risked the long term security of their business for short term, record gains. Some people were more guilty of this than others, but everyone now is paying the price.
Bernie is in a big hole right now because he risked the long term security of the sport for short term profits in his deals with CVC. Honda sacrificed their long term security by a short term feel good PR campaign. Look where they ended up.
Formula One is just as much about managing and knowing your resources. That is the real secret behind Ferrari and McLaren sucess. That why I loved Jordan Grand Prix because they were so good at getting what they could out of what the resources they had. When the manufactures came into the sport, it really put the sport in jeparody because it added teams that had resources that they neither had nor could sustain.
the cars weren't illegal then; they only became illegal after the FIA issued a clarification before malaysia.
as much as possible, if something illegal happened in Race 1, they should be penalized in Race 1, and not wait until Race 2 - after all, you have to be fair to those who finished behind him as well. Only if, for example, the guy didn't finish Race 1 do you then penalize him in Race 2.
Huh? The car ran 12lbs underweight and they get to keep the win? Over 24hours the few tenths per lap saved must have made a huge difference? {Gavin Brown}
That sums up my reaction very well.
Absolutely not. If you don't make profits you go out of business and will win nothing. You can't raise finance if you don't make profits and you can buy capital equipment without finance. They may be more interested in winning than making profit but the reason McLaren has been more successful than Williams over recent years is because Ron found a way to make profits and grow the business.
The interesting thing was that I remember watching a video of the finish on Youtube and I distinctly heard Leigh Diffey say either the car was ailing or they were perilously tight on fuel and they just had to get it to the finish. Running an underweight car would certainly have helped them out in fending off the charge of Montoya who only finished 3 seconds behind don't forget.
I know a lot of good people from the electronics industry who have never had any kind of decent job since that industry started dying off in the UK.
Oh boy, “The Rottweiler” is in the F1 news again, and not for something good. {Scott Woodwiss}
You're right, that's not good. And there I was thinking that when there was nothing from either Kolles or Gascoyne left, it was because the split was amicable...
It's difficult to comment on this, though after what we saw a few days ago about FI being slow by F1 standards to pay invoices, it doesn't surprise me that Gascoyne has had trouble getting money out of them.
This is not a good day to be a Force India fan.
Same logic. They keep the victory and get the benefit from publicity, sponsors etc and ban them from a race they may win. The car was illegal and they should not be allowed to win in an illegal car. They should be banned and Ganassi should have the win and the benefits that go with that. What do Ganassi gain by Brumos being banned next season?
But if you win nothing, you won't profit. Jordan did well first before they ever made profits. They had a brilliant 1991, but ended up in debt after that season. And when they stopped doing well as a whole in 2002, they stopped making profits too.
You have to win first and foremost before even thinking about making a profit. Before then, all gross profit has to go back to the team, so you're left with zero net.
I think most of what you say is correct Dan but Bernie personally is not in a hole because he got a couple of billion for something he paid 300 million for a short time before.
the only thing stopping people from breaking rules, is the fear of being caught and the threat of sanctions following that. the penalties need to be big enough to deter would be infringers, but i don’t see why confusing fans is also necessary? {me}
Personally, I find leaving people who've broken the rules severely enough to have gained the win through rule-breaking with the win in their hands a lot more confusing than giving them an appropriate penalty. It's when people lose wins for a reason that makes no sense in the context of what they did, or when the penalty is completely wrong for the infringement, that I get confused by post-race movement.
Winning and the media attention from winning is enough incentive on its own for some people to cheat.
I disagree. You can't win without money. Look at Jackie Stewart's business plan. He set the team up so that it would be profitable or at the very least break even from day one. In his book he discusses a lot of the things he did to impress sponsors when he started because he knew the results would not be good enough on their own to keep them interested.
F1 teams are not supposed to make a profit, they’re supposed to put all the ‘profit’ they make back into developing the car to make it faster… {Gavin Brown}
Even then, they're not supposed to make such a loss that the parent company struggles to keep them afloat at the same time as the core business. At the moment, there are quite a few teams who are not really meeting that criterion.
So, if cool fuel had gone the other way, do you think they should have changed the results of Brazil?
But apparantly its ‘judgement day’ at my football training, who’s in the squad for the rest of the season. The only one confirmed, is me. Mainly cos I’m the only one who’s kept the damn team afloat, and I so happen to be the only keeper. {R.G}
Congratulations! Sounds like they'd have to be pretty thick selectors to not keep you in the squad...
We've just got one manager with a tough job of sifting through the players to see who is commited and good enough, theres 16 spaces and about 20/22 players.
11th.
Ok, so I run an F3 race with an F1, win the race and then I'll be disqualified for the next year. Let's say, Macao or some other master. Or win the Dakar with a 1000hp, 500kg car and get banned for next year. So what? I won this year! I get the publicity, the prestige, the name in the books...
Allowing an out-of-regulations car to win nullifies the idea of using regulations in the first place.
Absolutely. The results should have been changed because the fuel was illegal
It hurts to say it, but yes (Ferrari fan...). Fortunately, they found a handy loop-hole in the regulations :-)
that's just daft. clearly there has to be checks before a race. i'm not saying anything goes.
it's just that if the rules are so complicated that they cannot be verified in a reasonable space of time, then you either have to change them or accept the consequences.
not at all. cars can be continually checked throughout a race weekend.
I think Surendar sums it up perfectly. 'Gault could literally be on fire."
Hmm. I couldn't have carried on watching if that happened. We celebrated, we moved on. Months later, Raikkonen's championship is stripped from him, everything changes?
It would have meant everything I'd watched and believed had been a farce, so what would be the point in continuing?
sure thing. but you lived to tell the tale. people have to adapt to changing circumstances all the time. {me}
There are a large number of miners in my area who have either been completely unemployed or scraped along on a succession of very low-paying jobs after their industry disappeared. The last mine in my area shut nearly 15 years ago.
There's only so much adaptation people can do, especially in an enviroment where there were about 1 million more unemployed than there were vacancies even before the downturn began (if you include those on the likes of Employment Support Allowance who are obliged to look for work to claim a specific benefit at an enhanced rate but don't appear in official unemployment statistics because they're not on Jobseeker's Allowance).
sorry. i would have given up watching f1 if that had happened.
rules have to be applied with a little bit of common sense.
You can't verify engine size without stripping the engine. They could never have found Honda's dodgy fuel tank without taking the car apart. It was impossible to find Toyota's illegal inlet manifold without either luck or dismantling it. Racing cars are complicated and cannot be properly checked until after the race.
in fifteen years? i could of learned a new language in that time. i could of learned three for that matter. i don't have a huge amount of sympathy for people who aren't prepared to at least try and help themselves.
So you allow cheats to prosper. in this case the cheating may have been inadvertant but people benefitted from doing something illegal.
To me there are two ways to run a sport. You can follow the rugby model which says there is the line/the limit. Step on it and you are guilty and will be penalised. Or you can follow the football model where everything is grey areas and referees are constantly backing off from enforcing rules. As a result things that were once considered to be blatantly illegal are now an accepted part of the game.
You have to follow the rugby model. Motor racing is complicated and you have to accept that results can be changed after the event. Should people keep Olympic gold medals if they are found to have taken drugs? Or should we just ban them from the next Olympics?
of course they could. the fia knew it was there before they started looking for it. they had a tip off.
tell me what was achieved from waiting from until jenson scored a decent result?
That is a term that is used in football. it means foul play should be allowed.
i'd test them before they raced.
But if you win nothing, you won’t profit. Jordan did well first before they ever made profits. They had a brilliant 1991, but ended up in debt after that season. And when they stopped doing well as a whole in 2002, they stopped making profits too. {Journeyer}
But if Benson and Hedges had made their mind up whether they were funding Jordan or not at the start of 2002, they might have had better results in order to secure the finance into the future. Also, Jordan got away with making a loss in 1991 because in the previous few years Eddie Jordan had amassed a £5m nest-egg which got thrown in to help bridge the funding gap. It didn't remove the debt but it did give Jordan enough breathing space to negotiate with the creditors.
Whether a team tries the results-then-money approach or the money-then-results approach, the two need to be close together, otherwise neither will be sustained for long. I would argue that the latter is a lot easier than the former because sponsors are usually more patient than creditors, but unless a team can keep both happy, it will not have a long and happy life in F1.
They penalised the team more than had they 'found' it after he finished 20th. I think they should have followed up as soon as they had information but they had to take the car apart to find it.
Olympics or F1?
for drugs? both, before every race.
which they could have done on friday.
all they managed to do was corrupt the rules of a race, disrespecting the fans in the process.
"results" of a race, sorry.
Supposing they take something after the test. You can't test a race car before the event because someone could then put white powder in the fuel tank or swap a battery for a massively lighter one. You may think that is far fetched but there was a time when cars were only weighed at the end of qualifying rather than randomly during it. Teams used to call cars in with ten minutes to go for a rear wing change. One man would take the rear wing off but for some reason it took three men to hold the new wing while it was attached.
And the reasonable space of time includes the two hours after the race, because there are things you can't check before it. If during the race you drop 50kg of ballast, or change the front wing for one not inside the regulations, you can check it only after the race.
Well in the olympics, if you did that with a select and nobody had it, and then another guy won, surely you'd still have to test them to see if they are legit. And to be fair, that will be awkward surely
EJ invested $5 million in the first year and ended with a $5 million loss.
So, if cool fuel had gone the other way, do you think they should have changed the results of Brazil? {Christine}
If the fuel in the BMWs and the Williamses had been demonstrated to be too cold by the courts, then the correct penalty should have been levied, even if it had swapped the championship holder to one person who could not be blamed for the infraction to another. I still think the FIA was wrong to make such a hash of the regulation, though if it had implemented the rules correctly and communicated them to the teams in an appropriate fashion, I believe that BMW and Williams would have ensured their fuel was warm enough to comply. This is why I do not consider Raikkonen to have obtained the 2007 championship unfairly.
However, precedent in F1 means that even if BMW and Williams had been declared guilty, only constructor's points would have been lost. So Raikkonen would still have been champion.
Yes
He won the first race in an illegal car and in the ned won the championship because for the first time in the history of the sport the FIA accepted that someone else's guage had equal validity to its own.
I think Alia states it well, but understand that teams (esp. independents/privateers) will never make profits in the initial 5 seasons - that's impossible. Thus, good results are going to be needed first. All money will just be to improve the team, and not to make profit. Financially, a team's goal in the first five years is to be as close to winning as possible while breaking even.
but then they can take the drugs after the test but before the race?
and given that F1 teams always tweak the cars until right before the warm-up lap, you can't scrutineer the cars before a race, either. it will always happen after.
It takes days to make a drug test (at least in a responsible manner). Tour de France drug test result are issued usually two or three days after the corresponding stage, for example (and last year 'winner' was stripped of his victory after the end of the Tour).
All this fuss about government aid for F1 teams reminded me of the best description of F1 I have ever heard:
"F1 Cars are pieces of modern sculpture, propelled by burning money"
~Clive James.
Spot on, on so many levels.
but tinking of Clive - I found this on utube:
Brabham Invent Refuelling
and
Monaco 82
Both well worth a watch.
Monaco 82 the race no-one wanted to win
that’s just daft. clearly there has to be checks before a race. i’m not saying anything goes.
it’s just that if the rules are so complicated that they cannot be verified in a reasonable space of time, then you either have to change them or accept the consequences. {me}
There are checks. They're called scrutineering (and, in F1, parc fermé - the FIA can do a limited number of checks while the cars are in that state, primarily to ensure that the cars are not tampered with excessively). Even then, it is possible to do things during the race that calls the technical legality of the car into question. That's why there is post-race scrutineering.
Lengthy verifications are necessary in order to check some regulations. That's why F1's pre-weekend scrutineering is six hours long (10am to 4pm on the day before the weekend begins). If long checks are banned, that just means teams with methods of cheating that take a while to spot get away with misdeeds.
hehe. ace commentating!
which they could have done on friday.
all they managed to do was corrupt the rules of a race, disrespecting the fans in the process. {me}
Presumably the device was found in scrutineering on the Thursday before Australia, but even the harshest critics of the FIA suggest that it was only during the Malaysian race weekend that they figured out the device had an illegal purpose. Honda should have been penalised then and not in Imola after the device had been illegally raced in three races.
But I agree with you on the rest of the sentiment.
This is the Hockenheim punch up race isn't it?
Again (somebody already said it): Ferrari's car in Melbourne 2007 was legal. After that race the FIA changed their way to measure the bottom flexibility, which forced Ferrari to make it more rigid for the next race. They where only taking advantage of a loop-hole in the regulations at that moment (a clever one, actually), but the car wasn't illegal.
EJ invested $5 million in the first year and ended with a $5 million loss. {Steven Roy}
Trust me to hit the wrong currency button :(
If anyone is intrested, 2009 WRC started today with Rally Ireland. And guess who's top, yep, Seb Loeb.
http://www.wrc.com/jsp/index.jsp?lnk=405&season=2009&rally_id=IE
Oh yes - but also the old Hochenheim, Brands Hatch, Dijon and the Oct...Osc.. the 'Old A1 ring' (however it is spelt)
The car was illegal even if the FIA decided it was legal. It was the mass damper floor device that triggered the whole Stepney affair. he was responsible for ensuring the legality of the car and he decided that the devixe was obviously illegal. He wen to the Ferrari management and told them it was illegal and he would not sign off the legality of the car. Eventually it was agreed that he would seek clarification for Charlie Whiting. He wrote in detail explaining why it was illegal and never got a reply. He then informed McLaren who sought clarification and never got a reply.
The car then went through scrutineering with a blatantly illegal device fitted with the full knowledge of the FIA and passed then won the race. The FIA then decided the car would be illegal in future.
You have to ask why they didn't take that action up front when they were fully aware that people inside Ferrari were not convinced of the legality of the car?
i love this commentary :)
Oscherring. That doesn't look right, Oschteriising, oh I give in
The BBC need to get Clive James in to assist with the commentary in a few races.
Oesterreichring
i agree. brilliant stuff.
Wikipedia says
Osterreichring
It is Oste etc if you put two little dots (umlaut) above the O but if you don't know how to get the dots you put an e in after the O.
So it should be either Österreichring or Oesterreichring
Ah gotcha. Cheers
I would first ask where did you got that information. It sound to me more like 'FIArrari conspiration theory' than actual facts. Before the race the floor was inside the regulations because the regulations where not well written. After the clarification the rule was better written and the loop-hole disappeared.
Did the site just go down, or was it just me?
The floor was a mass damper and mass dampers were illegal. Nigel Stepney made the info public.
i didn't see nuffink, but i wouldn't put it past it.
That would be one guy only and don't forget that a lot of other teams ran this type of floor....
Are you suggesting that they were all wrong and Macca was right...
I guess you are...
But that's a matter of opinion Steven... not fact...
It all depends upon perspective...
Rather like the little boy out of step whose mother thinks he's the only one in the right?....
The floor was a grey area Ferrari took advantage of. After the rule was clarified, it was out-and-out illegal, so they had to change it.
No-one else had a floor that acted like a mass damper. The important question is not whether or not it was legal or not. The importnat question is why did the FIA not clarify the siuation when they were asked several weeks before the cars were shipped to Australia? When the guy responsible for the legality of the Ferrari says it was illegal why did Ferrari decide to race it? What changed between Nigel Stepney requesting clarification in January(I think it was January) and the week after the race. The FIA had the same information so the ruling before the race should have been the same as the ruling after the race. If it was legal before the race it should have remained legal for the rest of the season. If it was illegal the week after the race it should have been illegal beforehand.
Joe - can we leave XBOX for a bit since I'm busy with something. :)
technically we only have stepney's word on that though right? i'm not saying he's making stuff up, but it shouldn't be relied on has hard evidence yet, correct?
You must know it's more difficult to hold something steady while you put the bolts through the holes compared to removing them. At least that's the excuse I'd be using :)
'Mass dumper' is a general term that can be applied to many things, not all of them illegal (Actually, Renault's was not illegal until a clarification made it illegal...). You have to break a rule to be illegal, not the 'spirit of the rule'. The particular rule governing the floor said something like it has to flex less than X mm under Y kg of static weight. The problem was that Y kg wasn't a proper representation of the dynamic loads in an actual F1 car while racing, so the floor of the Ferrari flexed in race, but not in the FIA test. After the clarification, the FIA increased the Y kg (or made something equivalent) to make the test more relevant.
My point is the FIA had the same info before the race (several weeks before) that they had after it so why not rule up front so that the rule is clear? They cannot get the same infor from at least two sources seeking clarification and not clarify only to declare the car illegal after the race but let it keep the points.
No. He informed McLaren and McLaren said they requested clarification as well.
True but it used to take three of them to pick it up from the floor. There also used to be drivers who switched helmets late in a session. For some reason the helmet they were going to be weighed with seemed to give them difficulty holding their head up.
gotya. sorry,
The fact that they did clarify it only after the race was a miss on the FIA's part, not Ferrari's. If the FIA had declared it before the race, then the Ferrari would've been illegal. As it was, it happened after. We can't blame Ferrari for that.
I'll give the FIA the benefit of the doubt on this one. They may have needed time to assess how to clarify this matter. After all, they do take rather long in such things. It may not be ideal, but it is a consistent trait.
Very well said Dan. I agree that your Yankee tax Dollars are better well spent bailing out Amercan Banks and other finanical organizations who by illegal methods of fixing their books, got everyone, including Honda into this mess in the first place with that subprime loaning and credit-crunch crisis we are now all in.....
As much as we hate the American banks, the reason they have the gall to do what they did is because they control the economy. If they go down, the economy goes down with them. We don't hate the bank itself and its employees who are just doing what they're told; we should hate the corrupt people running them.
Is Honda F1's fate crucial to that of the economy as a whole? Not so much...
Yeah Scott, that's fine.
My thoughts...
i got bored, so i created a spot the difference. tis in drop.io if anyone wants to have a go. there are 10/11 differences.
Ooh, I'm first to watch the new Sidepodcast Diaries :D
I found 4 so far
BTW Scott, inspired by your GPW game with Minardi, I decided to start up a GPM2 game with a new team as Minardi in the 2008 season. Drivers are Justin Wilson and Paul di Resta. First qually at Melbourne
1 - Justin Wilson
2 - Heikki Kovalainen
3 - Lewis Hamilton
Unusual results
10 - Adrian Sutil
11 - Giancarlo Fisichella
17 - Kimi Raikkonen
GPW is actually the sequel of GPM2 so essentially we're kinda playing the same game. :P
9... grrrrr.... :(
I know that, I'm just amazed considering in my last one with BMW I didn't get past the 107% rule
Where did you get the mod for it?
I am up to 7
http://www.gpm2world.com
They do great stuff, recently managed to create the first ever track by modders, Malaysia
10! :D
just one more ;) i've had a look at it again and there are def 11. ;)
I am stuck on 7
Sudden burst of success and I am up to 9
:D
Bugger. :(
Possibly 11... not sure if it's an image problem or deliberate...
it's pretty small and not obvious so it's prob the same one ;)
bu obv i mean it's not obvious that is missing untill you look closely at it and it looks a little smudged.
Was white, now black?
Errrm... 12..........
I think the one I spotted for number 11 is a picture issue rather than an edit.
lol which one is it?
Hhhmm, the talk of various F1 games has made me think of F1 09. Think I'll have a look see if Codemasters have started their development blog on it yet. They should have done if they want it out for March. Don't see much point in getting it out for March anyway, it needs time to see which teams are quick and which aren't. Plus I'm too used to F1 games coming out in the summer anyway.
small white dot becoming black.
no that's no deliberate.... not that i even know where that is... :P
Like I said to you on MSN, we really need Sports Interactive (Football Manager developers) to get some kind of the F1 license like EA did earlier this decade to make a proper management f1 sim. They've been making them for 15 years or so and are hugely, hugely regarded with the genre and it'd be such a superb game.
So looking forward to the Codies one though. Grid is a little too arcadey for me as much as I love the game and havign a proper sim f1 game again would be a bit marvellous :P
Pizza's Here! WOOHOO!
Oh yeah.
Would also like to finally see http://www.gprm.co.uk/
Minardi update, 20 laps in, Wilson still leading, di Resta is 22nd.
Hasn't that been in Alpha for like 4 years now?
Something like that.
All the speculation on F1 09 is driving me mad. There's been nothing from Codemasters, though as not all the cars have been presented, that's fair enough. Still annoyed though. Ggrr. Grid will have to do for now :(
Disaster, Justin Wilson, 3rd place with 8 laps to go and the gear box goes kaput. If this was a team wall, everyone would be crying right about now. Unbelievable.
Final Result : 1st - Kovi, 2nd - Nick, 3rd - Kubica. 6th - Bourdais, 8th - Sutil
BAT racer runs complete
Oohh, found this:
<i>Lets put this one to bed. Right now, we can't talk about the F1 game thats in development. However, when the time does come, you can expect to see blogs, screenshots, developer chats and much more. If you check out the GRID forums, the Racing Studio was in regular contact with the forum members and even the Studio head honcho popped in to discuss stuff. Gav Raeburn has posted a few times here. Look for the user name 'Uncle Chewy'</i>
That has settled me slightly.
‘Mass dumper’ is a general term that can be applied to many things, not all of them illegal (Actually, Renault’s was not illegal until a clarification made it illegal…). You have to break a rule to be illegal, not the ’spirit of the rule’. {guille2306 - 44 comments ago}
The FIA said that Renault's mass damper broke Article 3.15, relating to aerodynamic influence, even though it had no exposure to any airflow. Presumably if Ferrari had a mass damper, then it too would be illegal, irrespective of the flexi-floor regulations. After all, the floor (unlike the McLaren solution that eventually got widespread use after being legalised) is not a sprung part in itself and therefore isn't supposed to have any degree of freedom in relation to the rest of the car. Otherwise the Renault mass damper was legal and should not have been banned.
At the time, it didn't register that the floor was acting as a mass damper and I therefore assumed that it was exploiting one of the FIA's all-too-frequent ambiguous regulations. But if it was a mass damper, then it was in breach of Article 3.15 according to the interpretation the FIA used to ban Renault's mass damper.
My BAT runs are done and setup is converted.
Understood. But then which is the limit? Why a wing that flexes doesn't fall in the same category? Can you transcribe the Article 3.15 (at least the important part)?
Quoting from the 2009 Technical Regulations (this rule has not changed wording in all the time I've been tracking it, except to add "the driver adjustable bodywork... ...Article 3.18" this year):
3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used in the pit lane), the driver adjustable
bodywork described in Article 3.18 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car
influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
The FIA claimed that the mass in Renault's mass damper was not rigidly secured to the sprung part of the car at all times, which is why it was banned. There was dispute over whether it influenced the aerodynamics because it was not exposed to air and did not appear, at least from supporter observation, to affect airflow. I remember doing a forum post at the time listing all the other things that contravened the FIA's interpretation of the regulation (credit to my brother for coming up with the items).
The McLaren mass damper was not banned because it was rigidly secured to the sprung part of the car, which is unsurprising considering that it was part of the suspension itself.
The Ferrari mass damper floor was not part of its suspension or any other sprung part of the car, so the McLaren defense doesn't work. I cannot see any way the floor could have acted as a mass damper without it contravening the second and third parts of Article 3.15.
There is no lower limit to Article 3.15 and technically speaking, the flexi-wing tests are duplications of part of its territory. However, they do form a specific purpose, in that they establish a definite black/white boundary for certain parts of the car. Remember that all cars flex to a certain extent through the airflow if they are going at a decent speed, so the blanket ban indicated by Article 3.15 would in practice be impossible to enforce consistently.
In theory, the FIA could ban anything that flexes. In practice, even the FIA realises it would look like a bunch of idiots if it did so, hence the additional boundary tests. But complying with the boundary tests does not in itself constitute compliance with Article 3.15 by the FIA's interpretation of that regulation.
By the way, here is the text of the Renault decision.
Scott,
Which set up is correct. The one I loaded or the one in the notes?
so... bernie runs f1 like fight club?
Sounds like it!
OK, I'll bit.
This current economic problem was caused by more things than just corrupt banks and loan institutions. It wasn’t a case of America causing a problem or were active in bring down the world economy. I know it is hard for Canadians to consider an idea which America isn’t at fault for but this was a global problem and crisis. The world markets over-speculated and didn’t have the assets to justify that growth. Everyone from China, to India, to Britain, to yes… even the United States bet on unsustainable global market growth. Everyone believed that it would stupidly last forever. We are paying the price now for to many bad loans and not enough in assets and savings on the part of many governments, many banks, many financial lenders, many businesses, and many individuals. The depression wave might have started in America with the sub-prime mortgages and banking collapse, but it wasn’t alone in it’s’ cause.
As for Honda, the banks didn’t kill Honda. Honda (like the rest of the durable goods sectors in the world) overproduced, over speculated, and went for short-term record sales instead of long-term prudent decisions. The reason why the auto industry is in trouble is because they did not see the writing on the wall. They over-produced when they should have cut back. They lowered their margins on their cars to the point where they weren’t making a profit off of them. They were looking a short term profits instead of long term gains through asset creation, bonds, and savings.
Clive James rules!
I featured that on F1Fanatic in the buildup to the German GP.
Cause I've got no idea how all that stuff works. You should realise that my point was that I thought a racing team would want to put every spare dollar into making the car go faster, not make money. If a mid-grid team did any better than break even and then declared a profit, it would seem to me like they weren't trying hard enough.
And Steven, be more constructive in your criticisms. We can't be all knowledgeable about everything - therefore we should rely on others to help explain their arguments, not just pick them apart.
Ok. But then is the word of Stepney about the floor being a 'mass dumper' against Ferrari and FIA saying it was just a matter of flexibility. Given Stepney's record, I'll stay with the 'official story' until somebody probes it wrong...
Hi,
I have a suggestion following on from the recent chat show you did.
How about getting each one of the panel to make 2 or 3 predictions for the coming season. You could then record them and see how they did at the end of the season. In other words "put your money where your mouth is"
Love the show
Byee
can do maurice, cheers.
looks like that was a bit of a popular show then. if we can restrict the length a little, we should do it again soon.
Good idea