Formula 1 constructor rules should be eased
#1
Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:27
I have said this many times myself. Why can`t caterham buy the last years Red bull car?
Makes no sense.
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105575
Advertisement
#2
Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:36
http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21463651
#3
Posted 15 February 2013 - 19:44
Not to us normal rational folk, no. But it makes sense to Bernie who wants to see his nice, neat model of F1, with no awkward duplications of car between different teams (apart from Red Bull of course). And Bernie outvotes us 1- 100,000,000Makes no sense.
#4
Posted 15 February 2013 - 21:25
#5
Posted 15 February 2013 - 22:28
- Survival cell as defined in Article 1.14 of the F1 Technical Regulations
- Front and side impact structures used to meet the requirements of Articles 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4 of the F1 Technical Regulations
- Roll over structures - roll structures as regulated by Article 15.2 of the F1 Technical Regulations
Surely such components having a strong influence on safety and little impact on performance are ideal suited to collaboration and technolgy sharing?
#6
Posted 24 February 2013 - 16:06
Same thing with the engines, might as well outsource the engines to one subcontractor, while the three manufacturers can add their valve-covers?
#7
Posted 25 February 2013 - 21:35
#8
Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:03
The new turbos were going to be inline-four, but then Ferrari insisted on V6 because that's what they want to sell.
#9
Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:19
First thing to jump out at me on the list was the safetyrelated parts eg
- Survival cell as defined in Article 1.14 of the F1 Technical Regulations
- Front and side impact structures used to meet the requirements of Articles 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4 of the F1 Technical Regulations
- Roll over structures - roll structures as regulated by Article 15.2 of the F1 Technical Regulations
Surely such components having a strong influence on safety and little impact on performance are ideal suited to collaboration and technolgy sharing?
That's a somewhat significant part on the aero performance because it includes almost the whole nose and front end of the sidepods. It's also a part you are not allowed to change during season.
#10
Posted 26 February 2013 - 20:31
#11
Posted 27 February 2013 - 01:55
I believe they are allowed to chance the tub. But it needs to go through a crash test everytime.
Yes, apparently since 2012 that has been possible again. Before that, for a few years at least, you had your crash tests in the winter and that was that. For example when McLaren came up with the f-duct, other teams couldn't copy it efficiently, because it was in the homologated part.
#12
Posted 08 April 2013 - 18:46
Why Caterham should be in F1 in the first place, if perhaps somebody more suited (better-off financially) could be awarded their membership card instead, and compete on equal level with top four by building their own car?"Formula 1 constructor rules should be eased"
I have said this many times myself. Why can`t caterham buy the last years Red bull car?
Makes no sense.
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/105575
#13
Posted 08 April 2013 - 23:58
Why Caterham should be in F1 in the first place, if perhaps somebody more suited (better-off financially) could be awarded their membership card instead, and compete on equal level with top four by building their own car?
There is nobody. These small teams can be bought. It's not much of an investment if you plan to blow money like the top teams do. HRT's "card" was available after 2012.