Does RBR have a rubber nosecone?

"Too much downforce"?

We're already too close to a spec formula as it is. No way in hell do I want to get to the point where we're prescribing df levels and other such nonsense. If you get to that point, you're effectively Indycar - just give everyone the same chassis and bodywork.

Personally I am sick and tired of hearing about cost saving and restrictions on what can and can't be done - the racing is good, I will happily concede, but then so is the racing at your local Kart track - doesn't mean it's Formula1. Same goes for your point about the connection between F1 and the automobile - people get hung up on this point so many times.

Firstly, thanks for the reply.

And we may get struck of because this may be off topic ....


You probably haven't realised, but all the restrictions are to restrict downforce. That's the game, and has been pretty much since the Lotus with ground effect. Or maybe, the winged cars. Let's forget the fan car.

If you opened the book on downforce, then race drivers could not drive them. They'd die due to organ movement, including the brain.

So, there has to be a physical limit, and there is.

And by the way, it is a restricted formula already.

As I've wanted for years and years, and if I was in charge, I'd simply:

Put in a control tyre,
A minimum weight,
Some maximum dimensions,
Some safety standards
A limit put to polar moment of inertia and C 0f G,
Maybe a G force limiter (for safety - a $200 item with an alarm on it although it could be made for $20 or less)
A standardised cockpit designed around a six foot two person who weighs 11.5 stone
A ballasted seat to make up for lighter smaller drivers.
A standardised wheel (because I'd like drivers to be able to move from car to car, but that is another topic),
Ban exoitic materials,
And a set amount of a particular quality of fuel for each race.

And let them go for it. Lazy 7 litre V8 or crazy 2 cylinder 600 CC turbo, would all be legal, as would movable aero devices, and active suspensions. If the cars got too quick, then I'd just reduce the amount of fuel available. The simplest way to control speed, is to limit the fuel. And when F1 cars get too quick, they kill people.

As far as cost goes, if you open up the budgets, you'll just end up with a competition between two manufacturers, who can get the most sponsorship. And you can end up with corruption, which is what happened IMO under Mosley and Co.

We already have huge controls on money anyhow ... at the moment at least. If you want to see what happens with open checque books, look to MotoGP. There isn't much competition there these days, because its costly to win there.

Edited by Melbourne Park, 13 November 2012 - 06:48.

And as far as the weekends go, I'd like to ban setup and testing runs.

And instead, I'd run the drivers championship, via the interchangeable cockpits and wheels, and the driver's ballasted seats (and yes, we'd need adjustable pedals). So, on Friday, we'd have maybe four drivers championship races. And on Saturday morning, another four. Maybe two races on Thursday afternoon?
Drivers would be banned a weekend for being at fault in an accident.
The drivers would drive a different car every race.
The teams could bring a couple of extra cars for Sunday. Or maybe three, if the teams could use three drivers for the WCC. Why not with larger cockpits?
They'd get the telemetry from the Friday and Saturday races.
We'd have two championships - the WDC, and the WCC. The WCC would be decided from the Sunday races. Qualifying would be on Sunday morning. No WDC points from Sunday.

And if you wanted to lower drivers costs and the whole prima donna thing with teams, then after half way during the season, the leading drivers from the WDC might have to carry a weight penalty, to even up the WCC from teams having inferior drivers.

Edited by Melbourne Park, 13 November 2012 - 07:05.

I didn't read every single post but try to get some material of ferrari's wings and I'm pretty sure that you'll find the same things over there. Smart stuff from the designers for sure.

"Too much downforce"?

We're already too close to a spec formula as it is. No way in hell do I want to get to the point where we're prescribing df levels and other such nonsense. If you get to that point, you're effectively Indycar - just give everyone the same chassis and bodywork.

Personally I am sick and tired of hearing about cost saving and restrictions on what can and can't be done - the racing is good, I will happily concede, but then so is the racing at your local Kart track - doesn't mean it's Formula1. Same goes for your point about the connection between F1 and the automobile - people get hung up on this point so many times.

The fact is that if you want a direct link then go to sportscars - an open wheel formula car is so far from a road car in terms of the dynamics that it's irrelevant. No, the link for F1 is in the concepts, problem solving, thinking and innovation. It's the reason Honda rotated their engineers through the F1 engine program - not because there's a direct link between a 20K rpm V10 and a 1.6l Civic engine, but because the F1 environment forces engineers to come up with new ways to solve problems - new approaches, innovative ways to do things.

People persist with the idea that "the link" is to take "a thing" off an F1 car and put it on a road car - and yes there are several (famous) examples. However far more of "the link" is in the modes of thinking that F1 unlocks which allow engineers to derive clever solutions to road car specific problems.

- I don't want F1 to be a direct link to road cars - that's what sportscars etc is for
- I don't want F1 to be "green" because of links to road cars

I want F1 to encourage innovation in engineering, I want F1 to inspire engineers and companies to try new things in different ways. I don't want an energy recovery system that's just a version of what's on a road car - I want a regulation that says "you can recover and use energy via any/all of these 3 avenues <insert kinetic, exhaust, whatever here> and then let them at it.

Which will result in a massive increase in costs, and I am completely and utterly ok with that, because it's what F1 is and should be. The teams that really want to be there will only spend what they can, or they'll leave - and so be it. This isn't tiddly winks.

I completely agree, and the whole money thing doesn't really matter. What made 2009 so amazing was that Ferrari and McLaren were caught napping, spent loads on KERS and Brawn comes out of nowhere with a genius solution.

Big deflection here.

Did the thread bend, or is it just damaged?

Big deflection here.

Did the thread bend, or is it just damaged?

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
Also will be a revised front-wing load test to stop the rotating on front-to-back axis that is visible on some wins currently

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
Lot of interest in film of Red Bull "rubber nose" in Abu Dhabi that's been circulating. Charlie W says he's confident nothing dodgy going on

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
OK, re front wings, some (notably Red Bull and McLaren) noticeably dip at back when car is on track. This makes car faster on straight

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
New tests for 2013 - instead of one load applied in middle, load will now be applied in two places, one further back and one further forward

Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsF1
Red Bulls flexi nose seen in AD was just the thin tip section that was damaged by the accident behind the S-Car pic.twitter.com/JcviQAl6

I won't pick on the blind, so I guess we'll leave it there

keep wearing that tin foil hat mate

Craig Scarborough ‏@ScarbsF1
Red Bulls flexi nose seen in AD was just the thin tip section that was damaged by the accident behind the S-Car pic.twitter.com/JcviQAl6

Big deflection here.

Did the thread bend, or is it just damaged?

Edited by Melbourne Park, 16 November 2012 - 04:44.

keep wearing that tin foil hat mate

Scarbs agrees it bends. Yet you still don't?

Scarbs agrees it bends. Yet you still don't?

what O_O how did you conclude that from a tweet saying the nose tip was damaged?

what O_O how did you conclude that from a tweet saying the nose tip was damaged?

I think you are talking about different things, I think it is common sense that the whole nose is not made from the same material as just the tip, because otherwise it would collapse under load. Still:

- The very flexible tip modifies the supposed to be neutral flow from the camera housings, even if the extreme malleability was due to damage, it still exposed the flexibility of the tip.
- The undamaged Webber nose gif is still there, this is what the flexible nose is about, not just focus on the tip, which is just the smoke of the fire.

Which will result in a massive increase in costs, and I am completely and utterly ok with that, because it's what F1 is and should be. The teams that really want to be there will only spend what they can, or they'll leave - and so be it. This isn't tiddly winks.

Right but you'd be left with maybe 2 or 3 teams. how people don't understand this is beyond me.

what O_O how did you conclude that from a tweet saying the nose tip was damaged?

Cripes, you're all bonkers

I said that the nose visibly bends, and that why it bends was a separate issue.

Yet people continue to deny this perfectly obvious fact, even posting quotes saying it does bend as evidence it doesn't.

I'll make it nice and easy for you.

Q: Can you see the nose bend?
A: Yes.

That's it. Nothing about why, what it means, or anything, That's not the question. Just, does it bend?

Learn to trust your eyes

Cripes, you're all bonkers

I said that the nose visibly bends, and that why it bends was a separate issue.

Yet people continue to deny this perfectly obvious fact, even posting quotes saying it does bend as evidence it doesn't.

I'll make it nice and easy for you.

Q: Can you see the nose bend?
A: Yes.

That's it. Nothing about why, what it means, or anything, That's not the question. Just, does it bend?

Learn to trust your eyes

whatever helps you sleep at night mate.

the only thing that is bending is the yellow wrap/paint.

if you break your leg, you don't say your leg is bent - you say its broken

in the context of this thread and the whole rubber nose discussion, the difference is fairly important.

Vettel nose can be broken, whatever.
Webber's wing visibly flexing right after the point it is connected to main tub.

whatever helps you sleep at night mate.

the only thing that is bending is the yellow wrap/paint.

if you break your leg, you don't say your leg is bent - you say its broken

in the context of this thread and the whole rubber nose discussion, the difference is fairly important.

So you're still not able to admit it does bend?

You're getting closer, mind you.

One last push and you'll make it

Did anyone else notice how Vettel's nose was bent out of shape following yesterday's race? I think this bending started from about lap 42 when Hamilton passed him for the lead. I think the radio message was clear evidence that his nose was well bent out of shape.

Did anyone else notice how Vettel's nose was bent out of shape following yesterday's race? I think this bending started from about lap 42 when Hamilton passed him for the lead. I think the radio message was clear evidence that his nose was well bent out of shape.

Bravo, sir.