F1 2016
- Thread starter 1%er
- Start date
1%er
Well-Known Member
I think the incident highlighted an issue that the FIA will have to address, I don't blame Nico and the stewards had all the data when making their decision. It was a drying track so it is a difficult call.
As I mentioned above I think they will make a double yellow a VSC mode, so the rule becomes objective instead of subjective. This time there were no marshals on track next time it may be very different
1%er
Well-Known Member
Vettel can't be happy being in 5th behind Danny Ric and Kimi in the points but I have a feeling that could change before the end of the season. Looking forward to Germany next week 
Its a beautiful day here so I'm off to the beach for a very long liquid lunch, see you next weekend
Its a beautiful day here so I'm off to the beach for a very long liquid lunch, see you next weekend
1%er
Well-Known Member
The Hungarian Grand Prix appears to have thrown up a number of issues with F1 current rule book. The radio rules have been questioned in many ways not least over what is a safety issue and what isn't among many other problems. The overtaking rule regarding a driver moving more than once, the double waved yellow flag rule and also the 107% rule. I have never know a race weekend where so many rules appear to have caused controversy.
I have a feeling the FIA will be busy over the summer break trying to sort them out. Some team bosses and drivers are now calling on the FIA to sort-out the rules so they are clear. We have discussed the radio rules here so I don't need to repeat that, but Ferrari say they can't understand how Max wasn't penalized having clearly moved twice on two differ occasions during his battle with Kimi, the double waved yellows has been discussed above and teams are also now complaining that the 107% rule has had different interpretations to different teams over the Hungarian weekend
.
I have to say it is good to see and makes a change that controversy in F1 that is about or wasn't caused by Bernie
I have a feeling the FIA will be busy over the summer break trying to sort them out. Some team bosses and drivers are now calling on the FIA to sort-out the rules so they are clear. We have discussed the radio rules here so I don't need to repeat that, but Ferrari say they can't understand how Max wasn't penalized having clearly moved twice on two differ occasions during his battle with Kimi, the double waved yellows has been discussed above and teams are also now complaining that the 107% rule has had different interpretations to different teams over the Hungarian weekend
.I have to say it is good to see and makes a change that controversy in F1 that is about or wasn't caused by Bernie
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
To be fair, it wasn't a brilliant spectacle, so a bit of fuss over the rules gives everyone something to talk about. The best part for me was the Kimi v. Max scrap, and it's no surprise that the guy who came off worse didn't like it.
While I sympathise with Kimi, it did seem to me that when Max changed direction for the second time he was returning to the racing line and aiming for the apex.
In that sense he didn't make two changes of direction to defend his position, he made one, then got on with the race.
If that baulked Kimi, well done, Max.
I have no idea whether that's allowed within the rules. But it would be harsh to say that Max, having moved right to block Kimi wasn't allowed to move left onto the racing line for the corner.
I can't recall the details of other blocking manoeuvres though, just the collision.
The 107% rule, as I recall, was to stop the dangerous situation of cars that were too slow to mix with the others. That's not the situation any more, and the rule could easily fall by the wayside.
The radio rules are bonkers.
The double-yellow rule does need clarifying. Nico's right that a brief but significant lift has always been enough in the past (and the "slow down and be ready to stop" part ignored). But it's never changed the outcome of qualifying before. All this does - as explained in detail by Hammy the Stirrer in the drivers' press briefing
- is highlight an inconsistency over the seasons by the stewards. Again, I have to say this variability makes F1 more interesting. Any time you allow 4 stewards to interpret the rules as they see them, you add some flavour and tone to the racing. Good, I say. Who said life was fair?
While I sympathise with Kimi, it did seem to me that when Max changed direction for the second time he was returning to the racing line and aiming for the apex.
In that sense he didn't make two changes of direction to defend his position, he made one, then got on with the race.
If that baulked Kimi, well done, Max.
I have no idea whether that's allowed within the rules. But it would be harsh to say that Max, having moved right to block Kimi wasn't allowed to move left onto the racing line for the corner.
I can't recall the details of other blocking manoeuvres though, just the collision.
The 107% rule, as I recall, was to stop the dangerous situation of cars that were too slow to mix with the others. That's not the situation any more, and the rule could easily fall by the wayside.
The radio rules are bonkers.
The double-yellow rule does need clarifying. Nico's right that a brief but significant lift has always been enough in the past (and the "slow down and be ready to stop" part ignored). But it's never changed the outcome of qualifying before. All this does - as explained in detail by Hammy the Stirrer in the drivers' press briefing
- is highlight an inconsistency over the seasons by the stewards. Again, I have to say this variability makes F1 more interesting. Any time you allow 4 stewards to interpret the rules as they see them, you add some flavour and tone to the racing. Good, I say. Who said life was fair?
1%er
Well-Known Member
Just to answer some of your points in the order you made them (not arguing the points)
Article 27.6 of the sporting regulations says "More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner."
Clearly the stewards agreed with you that Max was just moving back to the racing line and left enough room. The first incident was at at turn two when they had the collision, the 2nd was a little later at turn one when Kimi went off the track to avoid an accident.
On the 107% rule it appears from press reports that the rule was interpreted in two different ways for different teams according to some team principals. (iirc the first ruling by the stewards was challenged and they change their initial view only to then revert back to it after all, I agree that the rule is now obsolete and should be remove).
Article 35.1 of the sporting regulations says "During Q1, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest time set during that session, or who fails to set a time, will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Any driver accepted in this manner will be placed at the back of the starting grid after any other penalties have been applied. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner they will be arranged on the grid in the order they were classified in P3".
But the stewards decided because of the exceptional circumstances that Article 35.2 should apply (which is based on a 26 car field).
Article 35.2 of the sporting regulations says "The last eight positions will be occupied by the cars eliminated during Q1, the fastest in 19th position. The next eight positions will be occupied by the cars eliminated during Q2, the fastest in 11th position. The top 10 positions will be occupied by the cars which took part in Q3, the fastest from the position on the grid which was the pole position in the previous year or, on a new circuit, has been designated as such by the FIA safety delegate".
But one needs to bear in mind Article 17 of the sporting regulations which says "appeals may not be made against decision concerning, any decision taken by the stewards in relation to article 35.1". LOLOLOLOL so you can see why there was some confusion among the teams about how places were allocated.
Radio rules blah blah enough said on them already I think
The double waved yellow rule I believe does need and will be clarified, the rules say that under a double waved yellow the VSC will "normally" be activated, as I said above I believe that will be changed to "always" be activated. It must be remembered that double waved yellows can mean track personal on the track, a car stranded on the track or as in the Jules Bianchi incident, machinery on the track and should be taken as a very serious incident ahead (so while on this occasion I agree with the stewards who had all the data and the benefit of hindsight, I'd question if slowing down by 1/10th of a second and having a purple sector is with-in the spirit of the rules, my questioning the ruling is purely on safety grounds). This time nothing happened but next time someone may be killed, so the FIA must address this issue.
I hope quoting the articles has cleared things up
LOL
Article 27.6 of the sporting regulations says "More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner."
Clearly the stewards agreed with you that Max was just moving back to the racing line and left enough room. The first incident was at at turn two when they had the collision, the 2nd was a little later at turn one when Kimi went off the track to avoid an accident.
On the 107% rule it appears from press reports that the rule was interpreted in two different ways for different teams according to some team principals. (iirc the first ruling by the stewards was challenged and they change their initial view only to then revert back to it after all, I agree that the rule is now obsolete and should be remove).
Article 35.1 of the sporting regulations says "During Q1, any driver whose best qualifying lap exceeds 107% of the fastest time set during that session, or who fails to set a time, will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances however, which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race. Any driver accepted in this manner will be placed at the back of the starting grid after any other penalties have been applied. Should there be more than one driver accepted in this manner they will be arranged on the grid in the order they were classified in P3".
But the stewards decided because of the exceptional circumstances that Article 35.2 should apply (which is based on a 26 car field).
Article 35.2 of the sporting regulations says "The last eight positions will be occupied by the cars eliminated during Q1, the fastest in 19th position. The next eight positions will be occupied by the cars eliminated during Q2, the fastest in 11th position. The top 10 positions will be occupied by the cars which took part in Q3, the fastest from the position on the grid which was the pole position in the previous year or, on a new circuit, has been designated as such by the FIA safety delegate".
But one needs to bear in mind Article 17 of the sporting regulations which says "appeals may not be made against decision concerning, any decision taken by the stewards in relation to article 35.1". LOLOLOLOL so you can see why there was some confusion among the teams about how places were allocated.
Radio rules blah blah enough said on them already I think
The double waved yellow rule I believe does need and will be clarified, the rules say that under a double waved yellow the VSC will "normally" be activated, as I said above I believe that will be changed to "always" be activated. It must be remembered that double waved yellows can mean track personal on the track, a car stranded on the track or as in the Jules Bianchi incident, machinery on the track and should be taken as a very serious incident ahead (so while on this occasion I agree with the stewards who had all the data and the benefit of hindsight, I'd question if slowing down by 1/10th of a second and having a purple sector is with-in the spirit of the rules, my questioning the ruling is purely on safety grounds). This time nothing happened but next time someone may be killed, so the FIA must address this issue.
I hope quoting the articles has cleared things up
LOL
Last edited:
Indeliblelink
\......👁&👁......./
Bernie's Mother-In-Law has been kidnapped in Sao Paulo
F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone's mother-in-law 'kidnapped in Sao Paulo' - BBC News
F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone's mother-in-law 'kidnapped in Sao Paulo' - BBC News
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
1%er
Well-Known Member
This could turn out very bad as many kidnappers kill their victims, Kidnapping in Brazil used to be a massive problem and still is to some extent. It is one of the most common crimes but the numbers have dropped in the last few years. The police like to claim credit for that, but in the real world what was happening was that many families who suffered a kidnapping would then employ people to go after the kidnappers and kill them.
Almost all rich people employ bodyguards nowadays, when I take my son to school I see loads the bulletproof cars pulling-up and the kids being marched into school by armed guards, its become a status symbol to have a couple of blacked out Range-rovers one following the other with giants getting out looking like the mafia.
I hope it all turns out well.
Edit I was just talking to a friend who said Bernie left Budapest early on Sunday so this must be the reason why.
Last edited:
1%er
Well-Known Member
Rumor is that Apple inc. have done due diligence on Formula one and decided it isn't for them, so it looks like Liberty Media and the Stephen Ross consortium may be back in the bidding. What is interesting is that John Malone one of the biggest shareholders in Liberty Media is also the biggest shareholder in Formula E Holdings Ltd who own the electric formula.
Joining both series together would make good business sense.
Joining both series together would make good business sense.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
In a way I'm glad Apple passed.
It would only be a peripheral business to them, perhaps like the loss-leader aisle in Lidl. If you've grown up with F1 and can smell the fuel and taste the rubber, you want it to be at least as important as that to a new owner.
Liberty seems to be a deal addict, albeit in the media realm. It's hard to distinguish them from a venture capital player, but smarter people than me will see a difference.
I'm not convinced that a media organisation would crack the F1 whip any more sympathetically to the sport than the venture capital owners. At the moment Bernie flies the flag for the oily-rag enthusiast. Despite his shenanigans, I don't think he's forgotten the "sound and smell" factor.
When Bernie goes, though, it's inevitable that that era will come to an end. The thing is, I like that era.
It would only be a peripheral business to them, perhaps like the loss-leader aisle in Lidl. If you've grown up with F1 and can smell the fuel and taste the rubber, you want it to be at least as important as that to a new owner.
Liberty seems to be a deal addict, albeit in the media realm. It's hard to distinguish them from a venture capital player, but smarter people than me will see a difference.
I'm not convinced that a media organisation would crack the F1 whip any more sympathetically to the sport than the venture capital owners. At the moment Bernie flies the flag for the oily-rag enthusiast. Despite his shenanigans, I don't think he's forgotten the "sound and smell" factor.
When Bernie goes, though, it's inevitable that that era will come to an end. The thing is, I like that era.
1%er
Well-Known Member
James Allison leaves Ferrari
As if things couldn't get worse for Ferrari, the news today that James Allison their technical director and the man most likely to become the team boss has left the company. While I expected changes at the top with-in Ferrari I didn't think he would be a casualty. It may be that he has left the team to spend more time with his 3 children as his wife Rebecca died in March this year (his kids are 23, 21 and 17 and only the youngest is still at school, I don't think that is the real reason personally), but the statement from Ferrari doesn't say anything about that, it says they "jointly decided" he would leave. Earlier this year he sign a contract extension with Ferrari taking him through to 2018 but recent reports have also linked him with a move to Renault who are based in the UK.
At the moment it isn't known if James has moved for family reasons or if it because Sergio Marchionne has started sitting in on technical meetings at Maranello and is trying to micro-manage the team (as I mentioned last week and was also reported during last weekends F1 coverage). One thing is for sure, there will be plenty of F1 teams willing to employ his services after he has taken "gardening leave".
He will be replaces by Mattia Binotto who will become the new Chief Technical Officer of Ferrari F1, he joined Ferrari as a test engineer in 1995. He moved to the race team in 1997 and worked with Rubens Barrichello, in particular, before becoming chief engineer of race and assembly in the engine department in 2007. Two years later he became Head of Engine and KERS Operations and in October 2013 was named as Deputy Director, Engine and Electronics, taking on the role of Chief Operating Officer, Power Unit, the following year.
There is more to this story, so it is one worth keeping an eye on. Are the decks being cleared for the return of Ross Brawn?
The Halo will be decided upon tomorrow
Tomorrow the strategy group will decide if it is going to introduce the Halo cockpit protection system. This isn't a simple decision and could have massive ramifications for the sport. The drivers head is the most vulnerable area and currently it is only protected by their helmet. While the Halo wouldn't have saved Jules Bianchi but it may well have saved Maria de Villota (she hit a low-loader while testing an F1 car) and also Felipe Massa (hit by a piece of suspension from another car in 2009), also if successful in F1 the FIA may well make it mandatory in other open cockpit series.
During the Hungarian Grand Prix all drivers and the GPDA were given a presentation by the FIA that showed that "almost every single incident in which a driver's head was vulnerable in the last 20 years, the halo would either have reduced his risk of injury, or made the situation no worse". While some drivers have voiced negative opinions about the device, not least Lewis Hamilton, they all now appear to back the introduction of Halo.
Their are still some who are skeptical, Christian Horner has said Red Bull will vote against and Williams and Mercedes say they still have serious concerns. Bernie and Todt have not made their views public but as they both called for this type of device to be introduce it is thought it unlikely they will vote against. The vote need to have a two-thirds majority for the Halo to be introduced and with FOM and the FIA having 6 votes each and each of the 6 teams on the strategy group having one vote each, it seems likely that the vote will be carried.
What happens if the vote is lost? Well if the vote is lost and a driver has a serious injury or even death then the FIA and FOM would leave themselves open to a legal challenge, as they have clearly stated that there is a problem and they have also come up with a solution, but didn't implement it. While it may not be the most aesthetic solution, the FIA have said it is a solution, I'm sure that with all the design ingenuity in formula 1 they will be able to come up with a much better and more pleasing on the eye design in time, but we are where we are and I believe on safety grounds alone the Halo needs to be introduced for next season.
As if things couldn't get worse for Ferrari, the news today that James Allison their technical director and the man most likely to become the team boss has left the company. While I expected changes at the top with-in Ferrari I didn't think he would be a casualty. It may be that he has left the team to spend more time with his 3 children as his wife Rebecca died in March this year (his kids are 23, 21 and 17 and only the youngest is still at school, I don't think that is the real reason personally), but the statement from Ferrari doesn't say anything about that, it says they "jointly decided" he would leave. Earlier this year he sign a contract extension with Ferrari taking him through to 2018 but recent reports have also linked him with a move to Renault who are based in the UK.
At the moment it isn't known if James has moved for family reasons or if it because Sergio Marchionne has started sitting in on technical meetings at Maranello and is trying to micro-manage the team (as I mentioned last week and was also reported during last weekends F1 coverage). One thing is for sure, there will be plenty of F1 teams willing to employ his services after he has taken "gardening leave".
He will be replaces by Mattia Binotto who will become the new Chief Technical Officer of Ferrari F1, he joined Ferrari as a test engineer in 1995. He moved to the race team in 1997 and worked with Rubens Barrichello, in particular, before becoming chief engineer of race and assembly in the engine department in 2007. Two years later he became Head of Engine and KERS Operations and in October 2013 was named as Deputy Director, Engine and Electronics, taking on the role of Chief Operating Officer, Power Unit, the following year.
There is more to this story, so it is one worth keeping an eye on. Are the decks being cleared for the return of Ross Brawn?
The Halo will be decided upon tomorrow
Tomorrow the strategy group will decide if it is going to introduce the Halo cockpit protection system. This isn't a simple decision and could have massive ramifications for the sport. The drivers head is the most vulnerable area and currently it is only protected by their helmet. While the Halo wouldn't have saved Jules Bianchi but it may well have saved Maria de Villota (she hit a low-loader while testing an F1 car) and also Felipe Massa (hit by a piece of suspension from another car in 2009), also if successful in F1 the FIA may well make it mandatory in other open cockpit series.
During the Hungarian Grand Prix all drivers and the GPDA were given a presentation by the FIA that showed that "almost every single incident in which a driver's head was vulnerable in the last 20 years, the halo would either have reduced his risk of injury, or made the situation no worse". While some drivers have voiced negative opinions about the device, not least Lewis Hamilton, they all now appear to back the introduction of Halo.
Their are still some who are skeptical, Christian Horner has said Red Bull will vote against and Williams and Mercedes say they still have serious concerns. Bernie and Todt have not made their views public but as they both called for this type of device to be introduce it is thought it unlikely they will vote against. The vote need to have a two-thirds majority for the Halo to be introduced and with FOM and the FIA having 6 votes each and each of the 6 teams on the strategy group having one vote each, it seems likely that the vote will be carried.
What happens if the vote is lost? Well if the vote is lost and a driver has a serious injury or even death then the FIA and FOM would leave themselves open to a legal challenge, as they have clearly stated that there is a problem and they have also come up with a solution, but didn't implement it. While it may not be the most aesthetic solution, the FIA have said it is a solution, I'm sure that with all the design ingenuity in formula 1 they will be able to come up with a much better and more pleasing on the eye design in time, but we are where we are and I believe on safety grounds alone the Halo needs to be introduced for next season.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Rumor: Ross Brawn is on his way back to Ferrari
As would be expected after James Allison left Ferrari there are rumors in the Italian and Germany Press that Ross Brawn will be back at Ferrari before the end of the season. I guess if we see Ross at the German Grand Prix it will add to the speculation.
Comments in the Italian and German press are claiming that Allison has left having fallen-out with the boss of Ferrari Sergio Marchionne. It is reported that Marchionne felt Allison was too out-spoken and also that Allison believed Marchionne was setting "unreasonable targets" for the team.
Clearly there are massive pressures on the Ferrari team, not only because they find themselves just 1 point ahead of Red Bull in the constructors championship but also because they are also an independent company floated on the stock market and a lack of results will be reflected on their share price.
Personally I think they made a mistake employing Maurizio Arrivabene as team boss, he had little F1 experience and came from Philip Morris the tobacco company, it seems that a friend was chosen rather then the best person for the job and Ferrari are now paying the price. The team has made two very public strategy errors this season both of which look like they cost Sebastian Vettel victories. At both races in Melbourne and Montreal, Vettel was leading the race and Ferrari made bad strategy calls, they can also be asked questions about the races in Barcelona and Monaco. Allison was not at the track for some of those races and also wouldn't have been very much involved in the strategy calls even if he had been, so is he just a scapegoat because he speaks his mind? I think we will see more movement of top staff at the team before the 2017 season starts.
Halo and the strategy Group
It is being reported that regardless of how the Strategy group votes today the FIA will impose the Halo on safety grounds. The FIA has the power to enforce regulation on the teams if it is safety related. The FIA have claimed they have shown the Halo is "effective at reducing injury", so they could find themselves in a very difficult legal position if it is not introduced and a driver is injured or killed as a result of it not being implemented.
As would be expected after James Allison left Ferrari there are rumors in the Italian and Germany Press that Ross Brawn will be back at Ferrari before the end of the season. I guess if we see Ross at the German Grand Prix it will add to the speculation.
Comments in the Italian and German press are claiming that Allison has left having fallen-out with the boss of Ferrari Sergio Marchionne. It is reported that Marchionne felt Allison was too out-spoken and also that Allison believed Marchionne was setting "unreasonable targets" for the team.
Clearly there are massive pressures on the Ferrari team, not only because they find themselves just 1 point ahead of Red Bull in the constructors championship but also because they are also an independent company floated on the stock market and a lack of results will be reflected on their share price.
Personally I think they made a mistake employing Maurizio Arrivabene as team boss, he had little F1 experience and came from Philip Morris the tobacco company, it seems that a friend was chosen rather then the best person for the job and Ferrari are now paying the price. The team has made two very public strategy errors this season both of which look like they cost Sebastian Vettel victories. At both races in Melbourne and Montreal, Vettel was leading the race and Ferrari made bad strategy calls, they can also be asked questions about the races in Barcelona and Monaco. Allison was not at the track for some of those races and also wouldn't have been very much involved in the strategy calls even if he had been, so is he just a scapegoat because he speaks his mind? I think we will see more movement of top staff at the team before the 2017 season starts.
Halo and the strategy Group
It is being reported that regardless of how the Strategy group votes today the FIA will impose the Halo on safety grounds. The FIA has the power to enforce regulation on the teams if it is safety related. The FIA have claimed they have shown the Halo is "effective at reducing injury", so they could find themselves in a very difficult legal position if it is not introduced and a driver is injured or killed as a result of it not being implemented.
Last edited:
1%er
Well-Known Member
Being an open cockpit formula options are somewhat limited but Red Bull have come up with a couple of option that look far better than the Halo but apparently didn't do so well in testing, although I'm sure with some tweaking they could/would work.
I'm sure the teams will end up with a far better solution than the Halo with-in a very short period of time
This is an image from Massa's car camera as a spring from Barrichello's Brawn hit him in the head back in 2009 and I'm not sure the Halo would have stopped that, whereas the screen from the Red Bull design would appear to have been a better option in that situation. There is clear material on the market that can be formed and is also bullet-proof and with the correct mounting cage I'm sure would be equally as effective as the Halo in stopping objects including wheels and tyres from striking the drivers head. Give it time I'm sure they'll get it right.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Oh, the Halo's not happening next year.
Formula 1 halo: Bernie Ecclestone says it will not be introduced in 2017
Formula 1 halo: Bernie Ecclestone says it will not be introduced in 2017
1%er
Well-Known Member
Lets hope there isn't an accident in 2017 where the driver could have had better protection with the Halo, it seems the teams believe they can come up with a better alternative given more time, the Halo will be tested for the rest of this season and for practice during the start of the 2017 season.
Speaking at the pre-event press conference at the German Grand Prix and before the outcome of the Strategy Group vote was known, Vettel said: “We had a vote among the drivers and I think 90-95 per cent voted for it, so I don’t know why all of a sudden it comes up the way it does. We don’t like the looks of it but I don’t think there’s anything really that justifies death. I think we’ve always learned from incidences that happened on track and we’ve tried to improve; now that would be the first time I would think in human history that we’ve learned a lesson and we don’t change. I think it’s up to us to make sure it does happen otherwise I think we’d be quite stupid, the best solution for now is halo but there is further development to be done to make it even better".
Other press reports claim Vettel is wrong, Palmer said: “Most people I speak to are against it but don’t really voice it in the press, so I think there’s a bit of a divide; some of the older guys prefer it and the younger guys don’t”. Jenson then responded to Palmer saying "He’s [Jolyon Palmer] is incorrect and it’s very unfair for him to speak for other drivers as well because each individual should speak for themselves on a safety issue. We sat down for an hour with the guys from the FIA who developed the halo with Ferrari. It’s a great solution”. Nico Rosberg agreed with Vettel and said: “It’s very clear. The large majority are definitely for halo, a very large majority. We had the presentation from the FIA and you can only be for it. I understand people who have something against halo, I understand the purist and things like that, but nevertheless it’s the right thing to do".
It would seem from press reports that at least 5 of the current F1 grid of 22 drivers are against the Halo, they are Jolyon Palmer, Kevin Magnussen, Nico Hulkenberg, Romain Grosjean and Daniil Kvyat
Now the teams have more time I think the "aeroscreen" concept put forward by Red Bull will be more likely to be introduced in 2018. On the F1 show on Brazilian radio it was reported that Todt intends to take the issue to the FIA and discuss if they should insist on the introduction of Halo on safety grounds, they also spoke about the legal issues that could arise from the strategy groups vote, I'm not sure this is over yet.
With the exception of the period between the start of the formation lap and the start of the race, there will be no limitations on messages teams send to their drivers either by radio or pit board. It will be interesting to see how this pans-out, for sure it is good news for fans.
The Strategy group also agree to have standing starts for wet races. Although the fine details of the rule have yet to be finalised, the idea is that drivers will do a series of exploratory laps behind the safety car, when the conditions are deemed safe enough for the safety car period to end, the cars will line up on the grid for a standing start. It is believed all cars will be required to take the start on wets rather than being allowed to pit to change tyres.
On the 29th July 1973 British racing driver Roger Williamson in a March died in a fire at the Zandvoort Circuit in Holland, his second Formula One race. On his eighth lap, a suspected tyre failure caused his car to flip upside down and catch fire. Williamson had not been seriously injured by the impact, but was trapped under the car which was swiftly engulfed in flame. March was the team founded by Max Mosley and the first car James Hunt started racing in for the Hesketh Racing team also in 1973.
Last edited:
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
While watching FP3, I've just knocked up a little spreadsheet thingy that converts speeds in mph and kph into:
Furlongs per milli-fortnight.
Because it pleases me.
You'll want to familiarise yourselves, I'm sure. Here's a handy aide-memoire:
338 kph = 210 mph = 5,000 fpmf.
I commend it to the U75 Scuderia.
Furlongs per milli-fortnight.
Because it pleases me.
You'll want to familiarise yourselves, I'm sure. Here's a handy aide-memoire:
338 kph = 210 mph = 5,000 fpmf.
I commend it to the U75 Scuderia.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Might be tricky, since they're both measures of distance.I prefer inches per light year
This is better: 5,000 furlongs per milli-fortnight = 147 chains per micro-year.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
Bumped for those of us on free telly. VIP works, like 1%er says just close all the ads.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Good morning all
Funny you should mention all the British measurements I was explaining this to my youngest only last week, including the old money, it put him on tilt as he has only even known metric (interestingly it was some British bloke who invented the metric system, although there is some debate about it, I was told at school it was Bishop John Wilkins an English man but I see Google claims its Vicar Gabriel Mouton a French man)
