[E90SLAM]

.

[meko]

Originally Posted by sxyblue

I don't understand why the fuel flow rate is even an issue. The FIA set a fuel limit per race/car, why does it matter what rate the teams choose to use as long as they can get through the entire race and have enough left for sample due to the regulation requirements. Seems pretty offing stupid to me

This 100%. Everyone start with same amount of fuel. If half the race is behind the pace car great. When you go green, turn the wick up until you blow up. If you dare push the car good for you. Same fuel, use it how you want to. This is silly stuff. You are making a spec series if you predetermine flow rates.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Its all part of the strategy . Its expected that teams will be able to start some races with less than 100kg of fuel. I don't see the problem with the change to hybrid technology, its accelerates its development which feeds down to road cars plus makes good racing. The fuel flow restriction stops any one (more efficient) engine from dominating the series - the last thing F1 needs is another 4 years of one team having a massive technological advantage.

[ptack]

I think a great deal of the penalty has to do with the way Red Bull handled the issue. Given Vettel's problems, it looked pretty obvious that the reason Riccardo was able to stay in the front was because they wouldn't/couldn't run according to the rules. If every other team ran within the flow-rate limitation, Red Bull can't say they should be an exception and keep 2nd place.

[E90SLAM]

Would be interesting if there a "favorable noise" in the contract.
At first the title made me thought "lack of hot girls" on the paddock!

http://en.espnf1.com/australia/motor...ry/149751.html

Australian Grand Prix organisers claim their contract may have been breached because the Formula One cars were not loud enough.

Andrew Westacott, Australian Grand Prix Corporation (AGPC) chief executive, said after the race that the rule changes had impacted on the "sexiness" of the event and as a result fans did not get what they paid for.

AGPC chairman Ron Walker has contacted Bernie Ecclestone and made it clear organisers are unhappy. He is likely to have found a sympathetic ear. Ecclestone has repeatedly made clear his unhappiness with many of the raft of rule changes.

"One aspect of it was just a little bit duller than it's ever been before and that's part of the mix and the chemistry that they're going to have to get right," Westacott said. "Ron spoke to [Ecclestone] after the race and said the fans don't like it in the venue.

"We pay for a product, we've got contracts in place, we are looking at those very, very seriously because we reckon there has probably been some breaches."

Westacott, who listed among his gripes the fact he did not need earplugs even in the pit lane, warned that European spectators were even more likely to be unhappy with the much quieter spectacle. "Previously, it shakes the bones," he said. "I'd be confident we'll have a different sound next year."


Read more at http://en.espnf1.com/australia/motor...eWtjqMbg2JS.99

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by ptack

I think a great deal of the penalty has to do with the way Red Bull handled the issue. Given Vettel's problems, it looked pretty obvious that the reason Riccardo was able to stay in the front was because they wouldn't/couldn't run according to the rules. If every other team ran within the flow-rate limitation, Red Bull can't say they should be an exception and keep 2nd place.

I can't see how their appeal can be upheld as "regardless of the team's assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA."
They were told they were outside the flow limit but took no notice.
It could also be that RB were having to run their Renault engine quite rich to stop it from running too hot which combined with having to try to keep pace with the Mercedes forced a too high flow rate.

[KingOfJericho]

The cars all sound like they're going so slowly around the track. The sense of speed is hugely diminished compared to the high pitched scream of the previous motors.

[954Stealth]

I'd think it would be easy to produce an artificial sound instead of the whine we are hearing now. It's probably perfectly fine on person, but doesn't translate to television well. The sound overlay could even be part of the production contract and not a modification to the cars themselves thereby making this even easier.

[DieGrüneHölle]

Yup, it just isn't translating well on tv. It is hard to translate speed on tv. The Le Mans prototypes are vitually silent on tv, but I saw them at Cota last year. The Audi LMP1 sounds are almost sci-fi. Will Buxton and Ted Kravitz have said the new cars do sound good in person. They are not as loud, but they have some new unique sounds. Can't wait to see them later this year.

[solstice]

The complaint from the Australian GP orginzers seems to be specifically about the sound at the event. It sounds even worse on TV but no doubt the much lower rpms and turbos has made a huge change in the experience on the ground as well.

The spectators perception of power, speed and danger is strongly linked to the sound and it's greatly diminished in the new cars.

[E9TOU]

I've been reading some comments from people who attended the GP and they've all been saying the sound, in person has been very disappointing. Personally, I like the new sound because I like the deep throaty tones, but I know this doesn't translate well for the "spectacle" aspect of F1.

All in all, it was a great opening race. I was disappointed in Hamilton's retirement and also Massa but that's racing. It definitely looks like the Mercedes powered teams have the advantage at the moment. The mid-pack racing yesterday was pretty awesome with Button getting in some perfectly timed pit stops. Also, Bottas coming from behind (twice!) speaks well for Williams this year. As for RBR, they're guilty -- they knowingly violated a rule even when warned throughout qualifying and the race. Even if the sensor was faulty, all other teams complied with the rule and so they should have too.

[mike the snake]

I heard that comment by one of the announcers.

What I took from it was this: The people in charge, making the decisions and rules, don't care one bit about what the drivers, teams, manufacturers, and especially the fans think, or what they want.

Yes, maybe things are shaken up, and the racing might be competitive, but there's infinite other combinations of changes that could give the same result.

Racing, and F1 to me is about excess, and awesomeness, it's about stuff we DON'T see on our regular cars.

My biggest gripe though is the sound. V6's sound like crap, unless spun to 20,000 rpm, where anything sounds good. Turbocharged V6's limited to 15,000 rpm, and only actually spun to 10,000 rpm just sounds even crappier.

Anyone that is further than 50 feet from trackside, has trouble even hearing the cars at all. All the people on building tops, on their yaghts in Monaco, and especially those who watch on TV I think be/are disappointed with the new sounds of F1.

Originally Posted by solstice

Hehe, nbc had a special on the changes for this year and one comment stod out. It was something like:

"Biggest change ever for F1, the top goal used to be to entertain but now it is to be a leader in fuel saving technologies"

Pretty much sums it up for the cars but not the racing. It's more entertaining then in a very long time.

[Back N Black]

I have to say that one of the best benefits I have found in recently purchasing a BMW is this thread. Happy to find some fans. Looking forward to the whole season.

[superpenguin]

Compare this....

With this...

[solstice]

Originally Posted by superpenguin

Compare this....

With this...

I feel sorry for all enthusiasts who missed out on attending a live race during the NA era of F1. It truly is an awesome sensation of power and speed that set F1 apart from everything else. I feel much less inclined to attend a race today. In that regard Bernie and Co. have a point, no doubt.

[jaco]

The FIA's fuel conservation goal is so hypocritical to me. The series fly's 6 747's around the world to these races burning millions of gallons of Jet-A.

Give the teams engine limits but not fuel limits. The teams will police themselves since keeping fuel weight low is so critical.

[David70]

Originally Posted by sxyblue

I don't understand why the fuel flow rate is even an issue. The FIA set a fuel limit per race/car, why does it matter what rate the teams choose to use as long as they can get through the entire race and have enough left for sample due to the regulation requirements. Seems pretty offing stupid to me

I agree, "here's your fuel, you need to finish with enough to sample, use strategy and technology to figure out how and when to use it". Would make it more interesting and they would still need to figure out ways to conserve it. Turn it up at the end of the race if you still have some in reserve. Would be interesting to see cars catching others toward the end because they have some left.

Originally Posted by jaco

The FIA's fuel conservation goal is so hypocritical to me. The series fly's 6 747's around the world to these races burning millions of gallons of Jet-A.

Give the teams engine limits but not fuel limits. The teams will police themselves since keeping fuel weight low is so critical.

I don't think the point is to save fuel in the race but to develop technologies that can be applied to normal cars (not sure how realistic this is). V-8 non turbo's, especially in the rest of world, are irrelevant to almost all production cars and turbo's are showing up everywhere. I think at one point they considered a turbo 4. As far as the "show" they need to figure out ways to make it better as the sound is a problem.

What about the noise makers that companies are putting inside cars now, applied to the outside of the F1 car. Maybe riding along with a big amp and speakers.

[thebishman]

The noise of the v10s screaming down the Indy main straight was unbelievable. Truly made the hairs stand up all over your body. The noise I heard from the TV this past weekend can only be described as flatulent. Nothing 'sexy' about it, and if the fuel regulations are castrating the cars via reduced rpms, well that's another disgrace.
Bish

[SenorFunkyPants]

The fuel rate is about two things:
To force the engine manufacturers to improve engine efficiency.
To provide a mechanism to cap engine BHP output.
Everyone except RB ran the whole race within the flow rates and made good time over the race distance.
The flow rate wasn't the problem for RB, it was their arrogance in thinking the rules don't apply to them.

[BudVlad]

“The whole regulation, to me, seems a bit of a joke,” Ecclestone told British newspaper, The Mirror, after Daniel Ricciardo was stripped of his Australian GP second place finish on Sunday for a fuel flow rate violation. “We are not running for endurance. If something is controlling the amount of fuel you are using during a race, there is no need to say how much fuel you can have at the start.

"If you use too much you are going to run out of fuel. It seems to be that simple and if it isn’t, it should be.”

Ecclestone also reiterated his dislike for the new turbo-charged V6 engines and said again that there was no need to ditch the V8s: “The right way to go about it is not to have this engine in the first place,” he continued. “It’s the non-endurance championship - there is something called Le Mans for that.

“We are in the entertainment business. Many of the public haven’t got the slightest idea about the engines. If you went into a grandstand last year and asked how many cylinders the cars have, how many people would have known? They don’t know and don’t care.

"They want to see a race, not a technical achievement. The public liked the engine we had last year. There was no need to change.”

[mike the snake]

I never thought I'd agree with, or like what Bernie had to say, but he's dead nuts right on those comments IMO.

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by BudVlad

“The whole regulation, to me, seems a bit of a joke,” Ecclestone told British newspaper, The Mirror, after Daniel Ricciardo was stripped of his Australian GP second place finish on Sunday for a fuel flow rate violation. “We are not running for endurance. If something is controlling the amount of fuel you are using during a race, there is no need to say how much fuel you can have at the start.

"If you use too much you are going to run out of fuel. It seems to be that simple and if it isn’t, it should be.”

Ecclestone also reiterated his dislike for the new turbo-charged V6 engines and said again that there was no need to ditch the V8s: “The right way to go about it is not to have this engine in the first place,” he continued. “It’s the non-endurance championship - there is something called Le Mans for that.

“We are in the entertainment business. Many of the public haven’t got the slightest idea about the engines. If you went into a grandstand last year and asked how many cylinders the cars have, how many people would have known? They don’t know and don’t care.

"They want to see a race, not a technical achievement. The public liked the engine we had last year. There was no need to change.”

I agree with Bernie to a certain extent only.

F1 is ALSO about technical achievement! It suppose to be leading automotive technology through motorsport. I disagree that F1 is entirely "Entertainment business". He did successfully promote F1 around the globe, but also came up with artificial idea of random sprinklers to make races more interesting.