114 responses to “Daily #F1 News and Comment: Tuesday 19th November 2013”

1. Maybe a pattern of small strokes of tarmac and gravel keep the benefits of both safetywise and reintroduces the desired punishment?

   • I must admit, I was also thinking the same thing.

2. Le sigh …

   Don’t tell me you go for that silly shit, too… The gravel traps weren’t invented to ‘test the drivers’, They are meant to slow down the cars if they go off the track in an attempt to have drivers survive if they clatter into the undergrowth. The gravel trap is supposed to stop cars from smashing into the tyre walls, which are there to avoid impact with the armco, which is there to prevent impact with trees or spectators.
   The problem with gravel is, that if a car goes off sideways, it digs in and rolls. Ask Pedro Diniz or Alex Wurz – they’ll explain it to you. Later it was discovered that rough tarmac is even better than gravel at slowing down cars and they’ll not turn upside down if they’re nerfed off by side impact. That’s why we’re seeing it installed on modern tracks.
   The sponsor logos have nothing to do with it. Melbourne has been proving for years that you can paint a Foster’s logo on gravel just as well. It’s just that with hindsight gravel is the second best solution to slow down an out-of-control car. Rough tarmac has been proven to be better at it.

   • There are other ways of slowing people down rather than tarmac Danilo

     • Like what? Catching fences, like in the late 70s? Rough tarmac is the most effective method known at this time, so it’s only logical that it is employed where possible. For driver using it as an extension to the track, there are the stewards to poke him with the ol’ penalty stick. If the stewards are inconsistent, that’s hardly Tilke’s fault.

       • “If the stewards are inconsistent, that’s hardly Tilke’s fault.” <<< you're usually quite the surly bastard, but this is very, very true, and I'm sure you could effectively make the case for the FIA needing permanent, traveling F1 stewards to referee the entire season!

         • “you’re usually quite the surly bastard”

           I take that as a compliment, Joe 😉 Don’t get into an argument with me about your or Armstrong’s history though, it could get nasty :p

       • “I take that as a compliment” <<< good, that's how I meant it.

         Re. the stuff about Lance and/or me, well, those choices ruined my life and left me w/ nothing but a federal criminal record, so I'm not about to try to make a case for it publicly…

         • I know, Joe. I admire you for the guts to be open about it, but it doesn’t change the fact that I still loathe the practice and being open about it afterwards doesn’t make it undone. I could’ve become a competitive cyclist 35 years ago, but refused to take pills (grew up in East Germany) and was subsequently shunned for it, so I’m probably unreasonably bitter about it. My neighbour at the time, Bernd Dittert, did consent to take the pills just a few years earlier. He has now an olympic gold medal hanging in his living room. But I do admit though that I wish for more Joe Papp’s to break the omertá. Maybe this ulcer on cycling’s arse (the ‘juice’, not you 😉 ) would get eradicated in that case.

       • I couldn’t find a reply button on your latest comment to me, so let me just say that I appreciate what you’re saying and have a basic understanding of the negative experience of being a clean athlete “cheated” by doping (and not just dopers). I also understand the frustration of seeing a “cheater” still possess ill-gotten gains, even if just a medal. And even though my sporting sanction included the return of all trophies and prize monies, they could never take from me the memories of those victories, and that creates a unique point of potential bitterness for all the athletes (however few they might’ve been) who did not dope and were defeated by my teammates and me…

         I don’t want to claim that I “feel your pain” … but I do think I can understand very easily where the bitterness comes from…I’ve gotta go back to be right now, but yeah, thanks for being honest w/ me at least and not trying to be overly polite or deferential…cheers JP

   • What do the FIA regulations prescribe? I remember a recent interview w/ Tilke where he said that FIA requirements (safety) significantly influence the designing he can do. Are gravel traps not to be included in new circuit designs?

   • I totally agree with you DS.

     The reality is that for car racing the modern barriers and air fences are so good that the gravel traps should be dispensed with entirely and replaced with tarmac.

     However – as many circuits also host motorcycling events – gravel traps are safer for riders – which is why the are retained.

     • What about grass at the edge of the track, for ten or twenty feet, then tarmac? This would improve the appearance of the track also.

       • i think grass would make for dangerously low friction surface in the wet! whereas rough tarmac and even gravel slows down the cars. We really should read up on FIA circuit design guidelines, b/c I know i’m ignorant of the actual facts pertaining to this…

   • I agree but i also disagree. It’s just a fact that in the good old days there was more excitement due to unforseen dnf’s by leaving the track. Why was silverstone this exciting in 2013? Because there where things that gonne wwrong.im looking forward to next year because I think there will be a lot of mechanical failluere. (And grindpenaltys) some of you might disagree but if there is a dogfight and one has to give up with a huge trail of smoke comming from its back(like a honda) then you know machinerie is being pushed to the limit(and over) and thats whats f1 is about. I remember races with 8 or so cars not making it to the end. Not like now 24 start 24 finish. I mean if vettel had a dnf or 3 earlier this year it would be much more exciting. From our point of view

     • And thats why i dont like the kitty litter going extinct. It brought that little extra if a driver got tired or didnt focus enough. Now they run wide, lose 2 sec, and the race goes on.

     • That wouldn’t change a thing. Even with the gravel trap, Vettel would have won. The deadly thing about the man is that he did his last real driving error in the 2012 Brazilian GP when he clattered into Senna. He simply doesn’t make mistakes. Even Schumacher threw it into the wall at times. Except for exploding his car there wasn’t much stopping him this year. That makes for boring viewing, but if he manages the Brazilian GP without a driving snafu, we might see a season in which a driver hasn’t made a single major driving mistake. Add to that that the car in question is the best available and you have a devastating combination.

       • Driving ‘snafu’ love it DS I may use that one myself…..

     • ” … in the good old days …. ”

       I’m sick fed up of hearing this BS 🙁

       Firstly – a lot of them weren’t that good ……

       Secondly – it’s called progress.

       Are you seriously suggesting that we should go back to the GOOD OLD DAYS of drivers dying every year ?

       And there were far more DNF’s due to mechanical failures than off track excursions.

       Or we could lay landmines in the run off areas at all tracks ?

       That would add excitement ……..

       • … or the much revisited ‘Ben Hur’ style protruding blades from the wheel rims… 😉

         • What about giving all F1 cars the same fire power as 007’s Aston and tell em to go racing!

       • Maybe if we go racing in Somalia this would happen…

       • I also said that I missed the mechanical breakdowns.cars these days are to good, but hey thats my opinion.. and nowhere did i say that i want people to die. I just want driver errors to be punished like they used to be. That made f1 f1. Thats why monaco is so much fun. Anything can go wrong. And it sometimes does. And i have all the respect for f1 drivers and i know its a hard job but f1 is supposed to be the best and hardest motorsport of them all.

   • Totally agree – safety should not be compromised so that we can provide a “penalty” for running off track.

     So: The problem is that drivers can “overcook it”, run off track and rejoin with little or no loss of time (in fact, as we all know, often they run off track deliberately). And yet in places like Monaco, they don’t – simply because the penalty is too great (hit barriers, break car, leave race).

     Surely (surely) the solution is simply this: accurate GPS tracking of the cars with an automatic notification to race control when a car has all 4 wheels over the white line ANYWHERE around the circuit. Drive-through penalty is automatically applied (perhaps unless there is a “crash-avoidance” get-out clause, although I’m not convinced of this). Similarly, any qualifying lap with an off-track excursion just get cancelled. Immediately.

     This can’t be hard to implement. It seems so obvious to me that I must have missed something…..

     • Was going to suggest something similar, although I think really what you would need is a track limit sensor of some kind on the car, and instead of a drive through, maybe a loss of ERS for a lap. Downside is if you are avoiding debris or are forced off track by another driver, you could also find yourself without ERS to compound your misery.

       Really the answer should be similar to golf in that the further off the fairway you are, the worse the rough is and the more likely you are to lose strokes. In a similar fashion perhaps they could have several grades of asphalt that cost more time depending on how badly you muck it up, without compromising the safety of the current designs.

     • You’re right – you missed something Tim. It makes too much sense to be implemented by FIA.

     • “GPS tracking of the cars with an automatic notification to race control when a car has all 4 wheels over the white line”

       Not sure the GPS is that accurate… I could be wrong…

       • also, how would you apply penalties if the GPS failed on the car? very hard to police

         • Seriously? You think of all the untold numbers of complex electronics components and technology on an F1 car that something as basic and tried and tested as GPS is likely to fail?

       • Perhaps you are right with basic GPS, TJ, but do you think it is beyond the wit or abilities of F1 engineers to deliver accurate enough positioning technology for this?

         That’s not credible.

         • …as with most things…. ‘nothing is beyond the wit or abilities of F1 engineers’ or indeed administrators….

           …the problem is usually a lack of foresight and will

         • The US military have had this accuracy for decades.

           No need for the geniuses ( ha ha ) of F1 to re-invent the wheel !

         • Not when they’re throwing bombs, Manky.

         • LOL DS 🙂

           But the problem isn’t with the GPS – it’s the guidance mechanisms used on the bombs.

           It’s just a bolt on addition to a dumb bomb – and it isn’t very good …..

           but it is cheap – compared to a dedicated design, especially when you’ve got thousands ( or millions ? ) of dumb bombs lying around.

         • Gps is deliberately inaccurate as it is a military technology that is now being used for civil purposes. So the problem isn’t wether F1 engineers would be able to make it accurate enough, the ability already exists, the question is if they would be allowed to.

       • I think the GPS is accurate enough.

         You just have to look at the Gyrocam used in Moto GP. They send out a reference bike to log the track – then upload that data to the Gyrocam.

         The Safety or Medical car could easily do the same at GP’s.

         Or – as all cars have sensors fitted to detect false starts, which are extremely accurate – mm’s not cm’s – all you’d need to do is lay transmission cabling around the track limits ( where necessary ) – just as they have fitted on the starting grid.

         You know where the sensor is fitted in the chassis – you know the width of the car – QED you know when they’ve exceeded the track limits.

         • Hello everyone, I believe I need to introduce myself as this is basically my first comment (there was a small one before): I’m Ariel and I’ve been following his Honour since about mid season. I’ve learnt a lot from both the blog and the posts and had felt that I had little to contribute but I think I’ll manage 2 posts today.

           This regards GPS: according to the US government (I’m not american, btw, although I will probably sound and write like one) the accuracy for GPS receivers is of about a 1 meter. If you use “augmentation systems” you can achieve a few centimeters (not explicitly defined). The problem is these systems do not have real-time capabilities, outside of the US, at present. F1 would have to create it’s own augmentation system. There are no actual restrictions to civilian receivers although military receivers make use of a secondary signal that compensates for ionospheric degradation of the GPS signal.

           It might be more accurate and cheaper to place sensors on the wheels and along the edge of the track.

         • Hi Ariel – good to hear from you….

           I thought the GPS system wasn’t accurate enough – but thanks for the confirmation…

           …the sensor solution is a better idea….

         • Yep, Ariel is right. The US military dumbs down the GPS system for civilian use; at full usage it’s very accurate.

         • ….we could also upgrade the F1 ‘dumb bombs’ to smart ones then…..

     • I like it, think a drive through is bit harsh, maybe the rev limit could be lowered for 1 full lap starting when they cross the line or remove the boost off the car for a lap, say 1st time they loose the ability to have the turbo to be spun up early or the KERS part of the power unit disabled, again for 1 lap. This could be triggered by race control (not auto incase of mitigating circumstance) so race control tell the driver they have a penalty next lap and as they cross the timing line the appropriate power is shut down with a signal from race control. This is so it doesn’t just lose power off when the driver is not expecting it. There could easily be track limit sensors fitted to cars if GPS is not sensitive enough. I think that a simply cutting the boost (not the turbo bit just the battery drive) would work great, that would cost around 7 to 10 seconds lap time depending on how good the internal combustion unit is.
       Or no DRS the next time you would be eligable (with a sec of car in front)

       • That’s a reasonable argument. However, I would advocate for more.

         If a driver strays off the track at Monaco: broken suspension, end of race.

         If there was a gravel trap beside the track: car bogged down, end of race.

         Based on that, 20 seconds or so isn’t so harsh. It seems to me that you either DO race on the track or you don’t. Should there be any grey area? Timing is to the thousandth of a second, why should the track be “measured” to the nearest metre or two? Doesn’t seem to make sense to me – particularly as it is applied in such a haphazard way…

         • … maybe a travelling convoy of trucks/747’s loaded with TecPro barriers would do the trick….

     • what do you think of a pressure system like the strips on a bus to signal a stop request? This strip should be located on the outside of every corner. It should be measured so that when the outside tyre is on it, the inside tyre is one the white line of the track boundary. This sends an electric signal to race control and automatic penalty assessed. Not sure if that would be either drive through or 15 second time added. Time added would be immediate and reflected immediately at race end.

   • I’m late to this party, but having read through all comments, and examined the photo, I’ve a couple things that are significantly different from what others have shared here.

     First, I’ll ask a question… Why does The Judge believe the asphalt run-off serves no purpose? As DS points, it’s likely to prevent roll-overs, or worse, if there is a brake failure or stuck throttle event, then it prevents cars from skating across the top of the gravel to spear the barriers and armco. I ask this question because I’m not sure if The Judge’s claim is merely rhetorical, if it is a reasonable claim to make.

     Second, Grosjean’s off at this turn last year was described as ‘almighty’ and it is assumed it was due to overdriving, (as opposed to a mechanical issue, such as brake fade, KERS failure, etc.). Was he overdriving?

     More importantly, when we examine that photo, it appears most likely that there was a penalty suffered by Grosjean if he had a big oops moment off track there. The penalty would’ve likely been 1 to 2 seconds in lap time. What was the actual penalty in time? (A time sheet will show that.)

     Most importantly, if it is true that Grosjean went off because he went in there too hot on that lap, (or a similar driving error there), it is incorrect to assume that he would have beached his car last year if gravel traps were extended, as the Judge proposes, to the track edge. A driver’s calculation of how hard to push the limits at any particular point of a track often accounts for the run-out and run-off areas. If there is no run-off area whatsoever, (a la most of Monaco, for example), a driver accommodates for it by taking fewer risks. If there is a reasonable run-out area like in this turn it enables more courage and experimentation. If there is a gravel trap at the edge of the track, drivers accommodate by taking fewer risks (less courageous creativities!).

     I unfortunately don’t have video of last year’s race, nor the time sheets, nor his post race PR or interviews about the race. But it would be good to better understand the actual problem that the Judge described.

3. Re. HEIKKI:

   “Having had a rather disastrous race, Heikki Kovalainen extended his streak of pointless races to an incredible 61. Luca Badoer would be proud.”

   I am a fan of Kovalainen, but this unfortunate reminder hits hard…ouch. Of course, the time he spent w/ Caterham didn’t help as they STILL don’t have 1 point, let alone a string of points finishes!!!

   • I know. It wasn’t meant to hurt Heikki fans, more like a reminder how such a decent driver was burnt off in 3-tier teams. Much like Timo Glock. 🙁

   • When Luca Badoer got “the Chance” at Spa 2009 he ended up last crossing the finish, in the same race as Kimi won the race with the same dog of a car. Incidentally in that race Romain Grosjean was a disaster, and amongst other mayhem hit Heikki Kovalainen’s McLaren.

     Kovalainens great mistake at McLaren was to accept the “Niceman” role, when Lulu go all the development parts and Heikki received the “petrol laden car strategy”. Also he contracted with an agent, who didn’t know f**k about F1, with disastrous results.

     When latin drivers (bank money, telecom money or petrodollars) complain about the car or how the team has fiddled with tire pressure, Heikki notes as a reason for a not optimal result, a “rusty driver or perhaps technical problems”.

     The ethos is “do not to blame others”.

     • adde, I really enjoyed your comment and have up-voted it accordingly.

       “When latin drivers (bank money, telecom money or petrodollars) complain about the car or how the team has fiddled with tire pressure, Heikki notes as a reason for a not optimal result, a “rusty driver or perhaps technical problems”. The ethos is “do not to blame others”.”

       Yes, it was very, very refreshing – surprising, even – to hear Heikki admit that he is human and may have delivered sub-optimal performance (in the sense, like you said, that he admitted to being rusty).

       “petrol laden car strategy” … lol! THat’s funny! C’mon people, rate adde’s comment up! hehe.

       btw: who was heikki’s agent back then? I figured you could tell me rather than Google…

       • Thank you Joe, but just stating facts… 😉

         Heikki had a known honest man as manager until 2009, when he lost his manager to a “strategy” in Singapore, to which Alonso never was proven to have been in the know. Flavio Briatore received a life time ban (which later was mitigated) and Heikki lost his wily manager.

         Then Heikki did his own managering, which off course is a piece of cake for a young guy from the Finnish beyond behind of Northern Carelia, where you du not do written contracts, but shake hands. When he found out that he was a babe in the woods, he then in early 2012 contracted with a Mega-Agency called IMG, for which this was a breakthrough to F1. They took the tough line in a world they didn’t know and didn’t understand, which led to a breakdown for Heikki and landed him on his ass, without a seat in F1. They didn’t invest, but played a gamble. Thorough contractual work from Heikki’s legal advisor/s, in regard of the management contract might have given him a chance. Now he was signed up by IMG as a wildcard, without any investment from his agent. Obviously that relationship was shortlived.

         Heikki won Schumacher a number of years ago at the Race of the Champions, but Niceman alone in the wolf eats wolf world of F1 has ruined his career.

         • Thanks for the fascinating background, ‘adde’… but my memory suggests that actually on the circuit HK never really lived up to expectations. Back then it was often declared that HK was happier on the golf course than the race track…
           I can see how ‘agency’ problems might not have helped him (and being Mr. Nice might be a disadvantage) but can you really claim that this alone “ruined his career”…?

         • You are right in that he underperformed compared to what was expected. However, my point is not in discussing his merits or demerits as a driver, but to point out how the managers, or a lack of them, and the contracts, not only with the “stables”, but also with the managers, influence the career of a driver.

           Having a manager who would have been able to gather more than paltry sponsorship money after 2009, would at least have landed HK somewhere else than at Lotus/Caterham after McLaren.

         • I agree… all these things can certainly influence anybody’s career. I had a (managing)agent a while back but their only influence was companies preferred to deal with an agent – if I tried to deal myself I was asked if I wasn’t good enough to get an agent…
           When mobile phones arrived I refused to have anything to with them and a company director asked if I wasn’t earning enough to buy one… So I had to buy a mobie just to get my next job…
           I’ve had a lot of laughs in my life… 😉

4. re rule-changes: If I understand the rear wing bit right, does that mean we’re gonna see rear wings mounted on a central pillar like on early 90s champ cars? I still hope that at least one team does away with the hideous airbox and produces something that looks like a ’93 Lola or Penske champcar. Those things were absolutely beautiful. 🙂

5. A strip of low friction material around the outside of bends with high friction tarmac run off beyond…job done

   • low friction material would cause pilots to lose control over the vehicle, like wet grass. Why would that help? Unless you want to force DNF’s it wouldn’t make the least bit of sense.

     • I know what he means, though. There should be some kind of surface that incurs more of a penalty for an off-track excursion than just a wider line and slightly dusty tyres. How about ‘rumble strips’, or a tarmac so abrasive that whilst it would stop cars smashing into the barriers it would also shred the tyres enough to incur the penalty of a tyre change.

       • That’s technically infeasible. If the tarmac is abrasive enougth to force a tyre change after 2 laps, it would explode them after 18 laps. We need to keep in mind that drivers don’t take the run-off route entirely voluntary at times. Pastor Maldonado has a bit of a history of squeezing people off the track. Imagine you’re Adrian Sutil and the gorilla from Venezuela nerfs you into the runoff. As a reward you get ruined tyres. Not entirely desirable, is it?

         • I meant an abrasive tarmac on the run off-areas…

         • That’s what we already have, dobzizzle. It’s not like the tarmac in the run-off areas is smooth as a baby’s arse. It’s rough to slow the cars down if they slide, but can be run without much tyre penalty if you miss the corner. If you were squeezed off, you can rejoin the race without much of a penalty, if you use it to cut the corner and gain an advantage, it’s the steward’s job to penalize you.
           It’s basically the best solution, it just has to be implemented properly.

     • agree. there must be some material technology out there to create very low grip area two car widths wide. this should go one car width from the white line track boundary. then you can have your rough safety Tarmac. this will punish the drivers for being so carefree with corners these days knowing they will just come back to the track without penalty – in fact with advantage sometimes.

       • ” …. there must be some material technology out there to create very low grip area … ”

         It’s called TEFLON !

         🙂

         • It’s called grass.

   • ….sounds expensive but I like it….

     …what about oil????

     • Oil sprinklers?

       • LOL, talk about safety cat bait xD

       • interesting variation on Bernie’s silly ‘water sprinklers’ from a few years ago! lol…

6. Or here’s a novel idea as DS pointed out –

   the stewards impose a penalty for exceeding the track limits ?

   • ….surely not… that would be far too sensible…..

   • That would make entirely too much sense, Manky

   • Yeah! They could even utilise cameras set up around trackside to record.

7. i just cant understand how someone can prefer a parking lot over something else.

8. Just curious about the batteries a bit, am I the only one thinking that integrating the batteries, which will burn forever without being able to be extinguished (Tesla Model S I’m looking at you), into the fuel cell may not be the brightest of ideas from a safety standpoint. Particularly if you take into account the fact that the fuel cells themselves are flexible and that has been a major improvement in safety in reducing leaks, and apparently the batteries will not be flexible.

   Perhaps there are technologies that mitigate my concerns but I just can’t help feeling that regulations that require design solutions where batteries and fuel tanks are to be part of the same structure should maybe be rethought a bit. At least until they can figure out how to extinguish the batteries in the event of a fire.

   • Good point, they get hot just through being used so if they overheat even without igniting you could get a problem. Hope someone with so good tech knowledge can shine a light on this.

   • Matt – I think the article is badly worded.

     Maybe it should have said in the area where the fuel cell is located – i.e. a separate compartment.

     I guess the author thought that would be the most logical place – near the C of G – low down to help lower the C of G etc.

     However, reading the regs – there’s nothing to stop it being mounted below the gearbox, or in the nose of the car either.

     I guess it all depends on the designers & engineers preferences ….

     • Or maybe RB will mount it in the teatray / splitter – and use the battery as a ” mass damper ” ?

       😉

       • But will it flex??? LOL Maybe the RB actually stands for Real Bendy and the case will actually flex when it heats up but will be rigid when tested off the car.

         • ” …. will actually flex when it heats up but will be rigid when tested off the car …… ”

           Well they had a plastic in 1856 that could do that – so ……. 😉

9. I for one am less bothered than others by this, but Stewards being fair and consistent is the best solution, but realistically we can’t expect them to see every single instance, and also we have clearly seen there is no consistency.

   As has been said already, a circuit of wire on the track extents (that is both sides) and sensors in the centre of each car; one under the front where the suspension meets the the body work and one at the back where the axle is. If the car crosses the buried perimeter wire, then pop- your lap time is invalidated. If it happens during a race, a delta time for the next two sectors/a drive through etc is automatically added pending steward approval… they stewards would be expected to verify, and would basically just look for mitigating circumstances… like being forced off and purely taking avoiding action, to over ride the incident.

   Be a lot cleaner.

10. With regard to the ‘facebook’ voting thing, it could be prone to manipulation through fake accounts, and many have complained about this, but I actually think that would be harder to do that your standard online vote rigging… still, could be a future point of contention!

    There sure does seem to be a lot of fairly high profile teams and individuals aligning themselves to it!

    • Project my virtual car live on track (on my pc) and let me race the actual cars.

      • Yes, something like winner of the virtual series gets an actual test in one of the cars should be good for bridging the digital divide.

        • Nissan’s been doing that for years with their GT Academy. It produced some very competitive racers, like Lucas Ordonez. I’m actually currently writing a feature about the whole gaming vs real racing thing.

          • Another winner, Bryan Heitkotter was also a WDC/pro series driver on iRacing at the time as well. It’s interesting how many pro drivers have driven iRacing.. there’s the professional driver annual race coming up on December 12th too. Full grid of pros going at it online!

            A good example of the sim being helpful is how Justin Wilson prepped for an IndyCar race on iRacing with the IndyCar, he then won the real race, haha. Generally it helps with visual cues and processing, but it also depends on how adaptable the driver is (and comfortable with video games).

      • Now that would make one hell of a good idea for interactive tv. I bet everyone would choose to be racing in a Red Bull. But it would keep a lot of F1 racing driver wannabees very happy. Imagine how great it would feel to actually beat one of the professionals!! 🙂

        • … I’ll offer my marketing services to Formula E I guess… 😉

11. Formula E has been very clear about its targets for next year: they want to connect with a new audience, and not necessarily with the current group of racing enthusiasts of which you and I are part of. I understand that the electric car is ‘the future’ and I was really looking forward to a series that can promote that, but it almost seems like the organizers are so desperate to make this a success, they lower the standards to the lowest common denominator.

    But you have to give the organizers a pad on the back for attracting some prominent racing teams, including what is basically Audi’s factory team. Maybe in the long term, other car manufacturers will join Formula E to promote their electric vehicles (for instance Renault or Nissan). And maybe one day, when the technology has advanced sufficiently, Formula E can become a non-spec series, like Formula 1.

    Then again, that is never going to happen, because the series will probably evolve the way “Facebook generation” wants it to evolve: as spectacular and entertaining as possible, sadly.

    • I thought that although initially entrants will use a spec chassis & powertrain the rules allowed for entrants to design their own in the future ?

      • … after season 1….

      • Yep. first season will be spec, but then all the stops will be pulled. This could be the nail in F1’s coffin actually. Unless of course Adrian Newey moves from red Bull to Andretti or Abt-Audi in which case Formula E will be killed to death by domination of a single team 😉

        • What’s the betting that Audi WON’T use the electric motor / drivetrain that they weren’t allowed to use in their Le Mans / WEC cars this year ?

          • I think they’ll use an evolution of the drivetrain they developed for the e-tron R8. Audi and their parent company VW have quite a history of developing racing technology with alternative fuels and drivetrains. They’ve been running a natural gas powered car in the Nürburgring 24h for years.

          • … It will be September 2015 before the teams get to use their own technology… things will have moved on again by then….

          • I have to disagree with you on this DS.

            They already have a race ready design.

            Why use “old” roadcar technology ? The eTron system is designed for a hybrid – not pure electric.

            On the alternative fuel side of things – I think it would be more likely they go down the fuel cell route. They ( VW group ) have had various examples running for years.

          • The etron in the LeMans cars is a hybrid tech, that’s right. But there was a purely electric version of the R8 road going sportscar, but after testing a few prototypes, mum (VW) pulled the plug on the project.

          • DS – eTron in the Le Mans cars is simply name badging to promote Audi’s range of road cars.

            It has nothing in common with the eTron road cars.

            The Le Mans cars use the Williams flywheel kinetic energy storage technology.

            And it’s not even a hybrid in the true sense like the Toyota Le Mans car is – i.e. the engine and electric motors coupled through the same drivetrain.

            The Audi is basically a twin engined car – the flywheel drives the front – the diesel drives the rear.

          • I know, Manky. I’ve worked for both Audi and VW 🙂

            The re-badging is a bit pointless though as the real eTron Audi’s will not be put on sale after VW nixed the project. The reason behind it is rather simple. First of all, all German manufacturers missed the boat on e-Cars. the French, Renault in particular, are miles ahead and with the Clarity, Honda has been the trailblazer for fuel cell technology. VW meanwhile concentrates on bulding super-efficient engines. They sell the 3L Lupo, a car that does more than 60 miles to the gallon. They’ve even built a prototype that did 190 miles to the gallon. VW boss at the time, Ferdinand Piech drove that thing from Hamburg to Wolfsburg on a few pints of petrol.
            A successful e-Car would be nixing all of VW’s efforts to produce those super-efficient engines.

      • It is? Well, that’s terrific then! I’m expecting a lot of retirements..

    • Btw. Formula E already is more spectacular than F1 just by the tracks in runs on. Formula E won’t run on Tilke-dromes inj some god-forsaken cow-poo covered part of the countryside. They run bang-smack in the middle of the city. The Berlin race for instance will be held on the disused Tempelhof airfield, which is right in the center of the Hauptstadt. 🙂

      • Have you been there? It doesn’t really provide for an exciting scenery.

        • Yes, I’ve been there. A race at Tempelhof will almost be as spectacular as actually landing there in a plane, which I’ve done, too.

12. 2014 TYRES

    Yet again we have a total lack of leadership and direction from the Invisible Man.

    Why didn’t the FIA just designate a mandatory practice session to test these tyres ?

    DOH !

    • because it makes too much sense 😉

      There will be a dedicated tyre test in November, though. McLaren provides 2011 cars for it. Unfortunately the current rules don’t allow to run 2013 cars even after the season is over. I think it’s FIA’s job to change that.

    • …because Red Bull have said it isn’t fair if Sebastian’s next record breaking opportunity is compromised by developing tyres?

      ..mind you, Pirelli haven’t yet been confirmed as the 2014 supplier…RB would argue.

      • I meant a mandatory session in addition to the normal FP sessions – not replacing any of them.

        Or the FIA could tell Red Bull – JFDI

      • “…because Red Bull have said it isn’t fair if Sebastian’s next record breaking opportunity is compromised by developing tyres?”

        Any links/facts or is this just a nasty dig 😉 Unlike Teams like Lotus or McLaren, RB already have contributed their alotted 1000km to tyre testing and not even secretly or with uneligable cars 😉

        • …it was sardonic 😉

      • I’m sure that if Red Bull don’t have the best car in 2014 (they are overdue a stinker), Horner will be moaning about Mercedes and Ferrari engines (regardless of actual performance compared with Renault) not being legal. My dislike for RedBull stems from the smug attitude of Horner and co. Don’t mind Vettel so much, he’s very much like Alonso in the sullen when not winning stakes.

        As for keeping drivers within track limits ? divert power from the ERS system to give them a polite electric shock on the bum to keep them on track. Just don’t let Bernie anywhere near the control systems….

13. Never reall thought about it, but that list of indycar fatalitys reads like a list of F1 in the 70ies. Scary, and I didn’t think it would be possible these days with widespresd TV coverage delivering the images of fatal crashes into millions of households.

    • I saw Greg Moore, Jeff Krosnoff and Gonzalo Rodriguez die, live on TV. Indycars in particular are prone to get airborne at high speed. That’s how most of the drivers listed, died. This is what happened to Mario Andretti when he tested one of his son’s cars in 2003:

      • I know and I knew of all the drivers that died and saw most of their crashes. What hit me now that i read the actual list was that I accepted their deaths like the public accepted f1 drivers dying back in the days. Yet every time I read about those killing years I wondered how it was possible that those fatal crashes were considered normal.

      • See the tyre going into the stand. Few deaths if it was race day……

14. Stirring the pot.. I wonder if they’d let you use the ‘hidden menu’ in the B194.. !

    • Only ‘option 13’ 😉

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.