Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

S.Q.T. (stupid question thread)


  • Please log in to reply
3183 replies to this topic

#1151 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:17

So? There's more skill to cooking up a dinner than buying it from a restaurant. Doesn't mean race winners should be judge on that, does it!?


The button is just another driver aid, they have got rid of many others so why not this one? Leave it to skill and daring of the driver as to how close to the mark they want to go.

Advertisement

#1152 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,929 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:22

And while we're at it clean up the start systems. Single clutch paddle for a start, and then work to minimise the ability to set your bite point from inside the car. They've teched-up what used to be one of the most exciting moments in sport.

#1153 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:44

Totally agree.

#1154 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:45

Ive seen more people miss the pit entry or over shoot the entry in NASCAR than any other series. And that's just on the ovals.


If you start 43 in Cup, 40 in Nationwide and 36 Camping World, that's a lot of cars and a lot of races. How could it be any other way? And, stock cars are notoriously undertired. When those tires wear out, what you're left with is a very heavy vehicle and very little grip. Also, remember that sometimes people fake entering pit road and at the last moment head back to the track in order to attempt to fool the competition.

#1155 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:52

Not 100% sure, but I guess they wanted make a little change after Marlboro sponsorship ended with MP4/11 and and West sponsorship started with MP4-12. MP4 used to stand for Marlboro Project 4 when Marlboro was their sponsor. Since MP4-12 it has meant McLaren Project 4.


Project 4 being the racing organization that Ron Dennis owned before he bought McLaren (with the assistance of some Marlboro money as I understand it).

#1156 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:55

The button is just another driver aid, they have got rid of many others so why not this one? Leave it to skill and daring of the driver as to how close to the mark they want to go.


We've got to remember that the reason behind the pit road speed limits in any series is the safety and protection of the people working there. So, within the context of a given series, what is the best way to accomplish that? This isn't a driver issue. It's a safety issue for the on-ground participants.

#1157 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,929 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:58

If you start 43 in Cup, 40 in Nationwide and 36 Camping World, that's a lot of cars and a lot of races. How could it be any other way? And, stock cars are notoriously undertired. When those tires wear out, what you're left with is a very heavy vehicle and very little grip. Also, remember that sometimes people fake entering pit road and at the last moment head back to the track in order to attempt to fool the competition.


They only do the trickery under safety car. And I'm not including Truck and Nationwide. There were a very hairy moments on pit-entry just at Vegas last week.

And as you say the cars are woefully under-tired. So they're just as much, if not more so, on the limit trying to get into the pits as an F1 or Indycar.

Formula 1 doesn't have exclusivity to the the top category in every aspect of racing. Some areas in other series are actually more difficult.

#1158 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:59

We've got to remember that the reason behind the pit road speed limits in any series is the safety and protection of the people working there. So, within the context of a given series, what is the best way to accomplish that? This isn't a driver issue. It's a safety issue for the on-ground participants.


Who's arguing about the reasons for the pit speed limit? Are you saying that the drivers are not capable of keeping below a certain speed without the button? Lets also remember that the limiter has bugger all to do with safety and is only there so that the cars can be driven at the limit in the pit to make the process quicker.

#1159 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 13:22

More stupid question from me :wave:



1) Why do you have to use the same setup for quali and race?What is the point,these are two events held on different days,the conditions can change obviously...Even if they don't,what do they achieve with this rule?

It is only a relative determination. By that, I mean it establishes the pecking order for the start of the event of each car/driver combination with respect to the others at that point in time. This weekend, due to the rain in Australia, we will see what you asked about. One of the main problems with doing qualifying and racing on the same day is that it puts more pressure on the crews to do the inspection and maintenance in preparation for the race. I think they will be doing qualifying starting at 11am Melbourne time. Race is at 5pm. That means you have about 5 hours to do race preparation. On a normal weekend, I'm guessing that most F-1 races start at somewhere around Noon (maybe 11am, maybe 1pm). The 3 qualifying periods take about 90 minutes. So, from Noon, you would need to start qualifying at 5:30am. That doesn't make for a good spectator event.

2) Why do you have to start the race on the exact same set of tyres you qualified on?

It doesn't make a lot of difference as you have to run both dry compounds anyway.

3) Why is the testing so limited?Are the teams allowed to test on their own aside brom Jerez and Barcelona?


$$$$$$$
It is a VERY expensive proposition to haul people, cars, spare parts, telemetry equipment, etc. to various sites. When they test in Spain, at least they can drive the haulers and support vehicles from the UK, Switzerland, Italy, etc. to Spain (with the exception of the Channel crossing). If you didn't limit it in some way, it becomes a spending war. For example, Ferrari has their own test track, Fiorano. It is completely instrumented and even has a water system where they can wet the entire 3km track. Obviously that is a VERY expensive proposition that many other teams would be hard pressed to match. If you didn't limit it, then it becomes an automatic spending war and he who has the most $$$$$$$ usually wins.

Advertisement

#1160 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 13:30

They only do the trickery under safety car. And I'm not including Truck and Nationwide. There were a very hairy moments on pit-entry just at Vegas last week.

No, from time to time there have been green faked stops. Quite rare though and there may even be rules in place now to prevent it. Anyway, it is still a question of numbers. 43 cars and lots of stops for each car = more opportunities.





#1161 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,929 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 16 March 2013 - 13:44

Well even individually there's more opportunity. You're making more pitstops in one NASCAR race than the worst Pirelli race.

I can't think of any green flag fakes, can you? You have to slow down too much to even look like you're attempting a pit, there wouldn't be any gain to it at all even if you did succeed. It only has a tactical advantage under yellow.

#1162 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 13:48

Who's arguing about the reasons for the pit speed limit? Are you saying that the drivers are not capable of keeping below a certain speed without the button? Lets also remember that the limiter has bugger all to do with safety and is only there so that the cars can be driven at the limit in the pit to make the process quicker.


The point was that the main reason is to try to ensure safety; not creating a way to catch an penalize people. People make mistakes. If you put a construct in place with the idea of improving safety, you want to remove the human factor as much as possible. Doing the limiting by electronic means provides a more consistent method than leaving it 100% driver controlled. What they're after (the FIA) is consistency. The teams are also after consistency, although their perspective is to minimize their aggregate time on pit road and to limit their exposure to penalties. My guess is that in F-1 if you receive a pit road speeding penalty, it is because you didn't get slowed down in time (100% driver controlled), you forgot to hit the limit button after you got down to the speed limit (100% driver controlled) or you got off the button a bit too soon on exit (100% driver controlled). So, the human effect is actually still in play.

#1163 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 13:57

Well even individually there's more opportunity. You're making more pitstops in one NASCAR race than the worst Pirelli race.

I can't think of any green flag fakes, can you? You have to slow down too much to even look like you're attempting a pit, there wouldn't be any gain to it at all even if you did succeed. It only has a tactical advantage under yellow.


Long time ago. Late in a race, 1st and 2nd were not far apart (3rd was quite a distance back) and both were in fuel conservation mode and it was real questionable as to whether either could finish without a stop. 2nd place drops down to the towards the pit road entrance. 1st place sees this and does the same. When 1st place is about to the point of no return, 2nd place pulls back onto the track. I don't remember how it turned out, however. But, I think NASCAR put a rule in place to prevent this as it's somewhat dangerous to re-enter the track like that. Could be a nasty wreck if someone spun trying to make that right turn to go back to the track.

#1164 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 521 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 16 March 2013 - 14:10

Regarding L/D ratio of various parts of the car, some numbers for Ferrari F1-2000 from Peter Wright's book.

#1165 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 14:21

The point was that the main reason is to try to ensure safety; not creating a way to catch an penalize people. People make mistakes. If you put a construct in place with the idea of improving safety, you want to remove the human factor as much as possible. Doing the limiting by electronic means provides a more consistent method than leaving it 100% driver controlled. What they're after (the FIA) is consistency. The teams are also after consistency, although their perspective is to minimize their aggregate time on pit road and to limit their exposure to penalties. My guess is that in F-1 if you receive a pit road speeding penalty, it is because you didn't get slowed down in time (100% driver controlled), you forgot to hit the limit button after you got down to the speed limit (100% driver controlled) or you got off the button a bit too soon on exit (100% driver controlled). So, the human effect is actually still in play.


You have written that as if the limiter is an FIA mandated piece of equipment. AFAIK that's not the case. FIA introduced the speed limit, the teams came up with a way to ensure they could run the cars at the maximum speed in the pit lane without penalty.

#1166 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 14:47

You have written that as if the limiter is an FIA mandated piece of equipment. AFAIK that's not the case. FIA introduced the speed limit, the teams came up with a way to ensure they could run the cars at the maximum speed in the pit lane without penalty.


Correct; it is not FIA mandated. I was discussing the thought process when you attempt to make a situation safer.

#1167 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,147 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 March 2013 - 15:24

More stupid question from me :wave:



1) Why do you have to use the same setup for quali and race?What is the point,these are two events held on different days,the conditions can change obviously...Even if they don't,what do they achieve with this rule?

2) Why do you have to start the race on the exact same set of tyres you qualified on?

3) Why is the testing so limited?Are the teams allowed to test on their own aside brom Jerez and Barcelona?


(1) Cost reduction, and an attempt to cause speed differentials, possibly combined with FIA stupidity. The problem before this rule was introduced was that the rich teams had gone into a direction which made it foreseeable that soon they would have two different cars, one for quali and one for race. In addition, team staff worked more or less around the clock, which caused big costs for teams able to afford more staff, and dangerously overworked people for poorer teams. The cost issues appeared unsustainable in the long run even for the large teams, and the staff problems speak for themselves. Personally I think it would be possible and worth it to allow limited changes while containing the dangers, but FIA and teams disagree. There was also the idea that disallowing car changes would mean that performance on race day would not be the same as in qualifying if conditions changed between the 2 events.

(2) IMHO it was a failed attempt to introduce strategic possibilities and speed differentials in order to cause closer racing. Somehow they forgot to remove this rule after they piled on lots of other measures (the current tyres, DRS) which arguably make this rule useless.

(3) Again, cost and work hours issues. Big teams had actually two track teams, one for testing and one for racing. I don't know if the fact played a role that Ferrari had it's own test track, giving it a big advantage because other teams could not or did not want to keep up.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 16 March 2013 - 15:37.


#1168 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:01

Correct; it is not FIA mandated. I was discussing the thought process when you attempt to make a situation safer.


Safety was never part of the thought process regarding the limiter.


#1169 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,929 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:04

Safety was the reason for the limit, not so much the limiter.

Looking back it's comical, if it wasn't so dangerous, how long we went without pit speeds. Even in things like Indycar, which are very busy pit lanes with powerful cars.

I think even at the Daytona 24 hours in 96 there wasn't a limit. Max Papis in that Ferrari was coming in full bore.

#1170 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:10

Long time ago. Late in a race, 1st and 2nd were not far apart (3rd was quite a distance back) and both were in fuel conservation mode and it was real questionable as to whether either could finish without a stop. 2nd place drops down to the towards the pit road entrance. 1st place sees this and does the same. When 1st place is about to the point of no return, 2nd place pulls back onto the track. I don't remember how it turned out, however. But, I think NASCAR put a rule in place to prevent this as it's somewhat dangerous to re-enter the track like that. Could be a nasty wreck if someone spun trying to make that right turn to go back to the track.

Didn't something like that happen in the 1992 Hooters 500 finale with Kulwicki and Bill Elliott? I watched that race not long ago and seem to remember something like this happening. The extra laps (led) Kulwicki stayed out was the difference in the championship, even though Elliott won the race.
Of course I might be wrong.

#1171 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:24

Safety was never part of the thought process regarding the limiter.


No, but I think the FIA did attempt to make the situation minimally invasive. They could have ruled against any sort of intervention, but they didn't. They probably realized that the goal, making things safer on pit road, was better served if they allowed teams to figure out what would be the best way for them to meet the requirements of the rules while being minimally disadvantageous.

When you make a safety-related decision and any other performance enhancing or limiting technology, you have to think about what people might do to meet the requirements and also what they might try to do to circumvent the rule. You have to think about things as a system and not just an isolated rule. We've seen how this works and it is a very difficult proposition to keep ahead of the technical prowess of the teams. Mostly, people tend to support safety decisions and don't try to circumvent them. But, sometimes there are situations like the Benetton/Jos Verstappen fire. They took parts out of the refueling system to speed up the flow. Unfortunately when a dry-break didn't close properly, the increased flow worked against them and led to a big fireball.

The other thing is that if you mess with safety systems and there's an accident, you could be inline for tremendous liabilities. Suppose you figured out a way to cheat the speed detection system on pit road. During the time that the illegal system was in operation, you hit someone on pit road. That's beyond the realm of a driver making a mistake. That's a concerted and premeditated effort by a team to circumvent a rule, as was the case with Benetton. Not a good situation.

Edited by flatlander48, 16 March 2013 - 16:27.


#1172 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:26

Didn't something like that happen in the 1992 Hooters 500 finale with Kulwicki and Bill Elliott? I watched that race not long ago and seem to remember something like this happening. The extra laps (led) Kulwicki stayed out was the difference in the championship, even though Elliott won the race.
Of course I might be wrong.


You're asking me to remember something that happened 20+ years ago when sometimes 21+ minutes ago is a challenge...

#1173 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:27

No, but I think the FIA did attempt to make the situation minimally invasive. They could have ruled against any sort of intervention, but they didn't. They probably realized that the goal, making things safer on pit road, was better served if they allowed teams to figure out what would be the best way for them to meet the requirements of the rules while being minimally disadvantageous.
When you make a safety-related decision and any other performance enhancing or limiting technology, you have to think about what people might do to meet the requirements and also what they might try to do to circumvent the rule. You have to think about things as a system and not just an isolated rule. We've seen how this works and it is a very difficult proposition to keep ahead of the technical prowess of the teams. Mostly, people tend to support safety decisions and don't try to circumvent them. But, sometimes there are situations like the Benetton/Jos Verstappen fire. They took parts out of the refueling system to speed up the flow. Unfortunately when a dry-break didn't close properly, the increased flow worked against them and led to a big fireball.
The other thing is that if you mess with safety systems and there's an accident, you could be inline for tremendous liabilities. Suppose you figured out a way to cheat the speed detection system on pit road. During the time that the illegal system was in operation, you hit someone on pit road. That's beyond the realm of a driver making a mistake. That's a concerted and premeditated effort by a team to circumvent a rule, as was the case with Benetton. Not a good situation.


They could have, but this was at a time when there were little or no rules regarding driver aids. The simple fact is that the limiter is not there as a safety feature.


#1174 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:33

You're asking me to remember something that happened 20+ years ago when sometimes 21+ minutes ago is a challenge...

:lol:
I figured the 'Hooters' part may trigger a memory.

#1175 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:33

They could have, but this was at a time when there were little or no rules regarding driver aids. The simple fact is that the limiter is not there as a safety feature.


It exists in support of a safety ruling. It is a way to consistently support a safety ruling while creating minimal disadvantage.

If there were no ruling, there would be no limiter.

However, refer to what I said about liability.

Edited by flatlander48, 16 March 2013 - 16:34.


#1176 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:36

:lol:
I figured the 'Hooters' part may trigger a memory.


Well, I have been to one a time or two, but a hood from the #7 wasn't the main thing I remember about the visit (if you get my drift...).

#1177 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:46

It exists in support of a safety ruling. It is a way to consistently support a safety ruling while creating minimal disadvantage.

If there were no ruling, there would be no limiter.

However, refer to what I said about liability.


It exists because of the safety rule, but not in support of it. It's there so that the teams can go as fast as possible in the pit lane without getting a penalty. If they didn't have the limiter they would likely go slower.

#1178 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 16:46

It exists in support of a safety ruling. It is a way to consistently support a safety ruling while creating minimal disadvantage.

If there were no ruling, there would be no limiter.

However, refer to what I said about liability.


It exists because of the safety rule, but not in support of it. It's there so that the teams can go as fast as possible in the pit lane without getting a penalty. If they didn't have the limiter they would likely go slower. Other series manage without, I'm sure F1 could cope.

#1179 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 521 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 16 March 2013 - 17:31

Pit lane speed limit was introduced in 1994. Same year that saw the ban on all driver aids. I do recall there being worries that the limiter might be used as a TC device.

Of course TC turned out to be impossible to police anyway. Same would have applied to a speed limiter, had that ever been banned. Only the standard ECU many years later solved the issue.

Advertisement

#1180 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 17:40

It exists because of the safety rule, but not in support of it. It's there so that the teams can go as fast as possible in the pit lane without getting a penalty. If they didn't have the limiter they would likely go slower. Other series manage without, I'm sure F1 could cope.



So what you're saying is that you don't care about consistent adherence to the rule and increasing the level of safetly on pit road. We know human intervention will bring inconsistency. I'm not saying that this happens on purpose; it just does. But, you are valuing human intervention over a more consistenly safe work environment. And don't say that this work environment is not safe. We know that it isn't, completely, and never will be.

#1181 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 17:43

So what you're saying is that you don't care about consistent adherence to the rule and increasing the level of safetly on pit road. We know human intervention will bring inconsistency. I'm not saying that this happens on purpose; it just does. But, you are valuing human intervention over a more consistenly safe work environment. And don't say that this work environment is not safe. We know that it isn't, completely, and never will be.


Nope I didn't say any such thing.

#1182 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 17:45

Pit lane speed limit was introduced in 1994. Same year that saw the ban on all driver aids. I do recall there being worries that the limiter might be used as a TC device.

Of course TC turned out to be impossible to police anyway. Same would have applied to a speed limiter, had that ever been banned. Only the standard ECU many years later solved the issue.



Yes, and as I said earlier, that wouldn't serve the FIA well to do that. The teams would have had a legitimate complaint that they had created a consistent way to uphold the ruling with minimal disadvantage. Win-Win. Why would anyone want to cast aside a Win-Win?

#1183 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 17:47

Nope I didn't say any such thing.



No, it's there by implication. You want to return to a manual method. However, humans are extraordinary machines, but one thing we are not is consistent. To return to a manual method is to sacrifice consistency. How is it not?

#1184 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 18:05

No, it's there by implication. You want to return to a manual method. However, humans are extraordinary machines, but one thing we are not is consistent. To return to a manual method is to sacrifice consistency. How is it not?


No it isn't. But I do believe they are more than capable of driving a car down the pitlane below a given speed under their own control without causing danger. Just like any of us that drive do in far more dangerous circumstances each time we go out on the road.


#1185 John Player

John Player
  • Member

  • 455 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 March 2013 - 19:37

Not 100% sure, but I guess they wanted make a little change after Marlboro sponsorship ended with MP4/11 and and West sponsorship started with MP4-12. MP4 used to stand for Marlboro Project 4 when Marlboro was their sponsor. Since MP4-12 it has meant McLaren Project 4.


Actually its since the mp4-16 from 2001. 2000 car was still mp4/15.

#1186 SpaceHorseParty

SpaceHorseParty
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 16 March 2013 - 19:44

Actually its since the mp4-16 from 2001. 2000 car was still mp4/15.

In the McLaren website there is a section devoted to some of their best cars. They don't have all of them there, but the last one with a slash is the MP4/8 (1993) and the first one with a hyphen is the MP4-12 (1997).

#1187 John Player

John Player
  • Member

  • 455 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 March 2013 - 19:55

In the McLaren website there is a section devoted to some of their best cars. They don't have all of them there, but the last one with a slash is the MP4/8 (1993) and the first one with a hyphen is the MP4-12 (1997).


Everywhere else it says the first one was the mp4-16 from 2001. Even on their old website: http://web.archive.o...imeline_00s.php

#1188 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 21:42

No it isn't. But I do believe they are more than capable of driving a car down the pitlane below a given speed under their own control without causing danger. Just like any of us that drive do in far more dangerous circumstances each time we go out on the road.

If that were true, there would NEVER be any pit road speed violations in ANY series, ANYWHERE. In F-1, even WITH the electronics, there are still speed violations sometimes. Personally, I don't like to have the outcome of an event effected by a speeding penalty but it happens. But, I'd rather have that happen than a bad accident.

Do you really believe that a human, under competitive and physical pressure, is going to be more consistent in observing speed limits? The whole premise of motorsports is pushing the envelope. However, when you do that it is not unusual to wind up OUTSIDE of the envelope.

The fact remains that there are still a number of pit road incidents in general. Considering how serious some of these are, it's fortunate that excessive speed wasn't involved. Less than 5 minutes of searching yielded:

http://www.gpupdate....t-lane-accident
http://www.f1pulse.c...t-lane-accident
http://usatoday30.us...ck-update_N.htm
http://www.worldmoto...t-lane-accident
[url="http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-pit-lane-accident-mars-first-toronto-practice/""]http://auto-racing.s...nd...tice/"[/url]

Edited by flatlander48, 16 March 2013 - 22:39.


#1189 Fubaaarrr

Fubaaarrr
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 16 March 2013 - 23:21

Everywhere else it says the first one was the mp4-16 from 2001. Even on their old website: http://web.archive.o...imeline_00s.php


You are right, it varies a lot. But the bolded part is just completely wrong, just by looking at old archived news from 1996 and 1997 you can clearly see the transition from mp4/11 to mp4-12 with few exceptions. Couldn't find the original FIA entry lists from those years, they should show how it really was.

Edited by Fubaaarrr, 16 March 2013 - 23:22.


#1190 Lemnpiper

Lemnpiper
  • Member

  • 788 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 16 March 2013 - 23:27

Didn't something like that happen in the 1992 Hooters 500 finale with Kulwicki and Bill Elliott? I watched that race not long ago and seem to remember something like this happening. The extra laps (led) Kulwicki stayed out was the difference in the championship, even though Elliott won the race.
Of course I might be wrong.



Kulwicki won the championship because he led the most laps that day which were just enough extra points to grab the championship.

As i recall before the race the team had gone over all the scenarios possible beforehand (keep in mind davey allison and a 4th driver (Gant?) still couldve claimed the championship) so it was excellent planning on their part that helped win the championship as well .

#1191 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2013 - 23:36

If that were true, there would NEVER be any pit road speed violations in ANY series, ANYWHERE. In F-1, even WITH the electronics, there are still speed violations sometimes. Personally, I don't like to have the outcome of an event effected by a speeding penalty but it happens. But, I'd rather have that happen than a bad accident.

Do you really believe that a human, under competitive and physical pressure, is going to be more consistent in observing speed limits? The whole premise of motorsports is pushing the envelope. However, when you do that it is not unusual to wind up OUTSIDE of the envelope.

The fact remains that there are still a number of pit road incidents in general. Considering how serious some of these are, it's fortunate that excessive speed wasn't involved. Less than 5 minutes of searching yielded:

http://www.gpupdate....t-lane-accident
http://www.f1pulse.c...t-lane-accident
http://usatoday30.us...ck-update_N.htm
http://www.worldmoto...t-lane-accident
[url="http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-pit-lane-accident-mars-first-toronto-practice/""]http://auto-racing.s...nd...tice/"[/url]

And I'd say all of those accidents had bugger all to do with whether there was a limiter used or not, but all to do with the fact that they let personnel in the pitlane when there is a car approaching. If they were really that concerned about safety they would mandate that the mechanics could not leave the garage until the car had stopped and the car cannot leave until they have returned. Isn't that what Indycar does, keeping them behind the wall?

You see I don't disagree with safety, but I do believe you should be looking at and acting on the right things.

#1192 John Player

John Player
  • Member

  • 455 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 17 March 2013 - 00:09

You are right, it varies a lot. But the bolded part is just completely wrong, just by looking at old archived news from 1996 and 1997 you can clearly see the transition from mp4/11 to mp4-12 with few exceptions. Couldn't find the original FIA entry lists from those years, they should show how it really was.


You were right

I found a picture of an mp4-14 cockpit:

Posted Image


Edited by John Player, 17 March 2013 - 00:13.


#1193 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:18

And I'd say all of those accidents had bugger all to do with whether there was a limiter used or not, but all to do with the fact that they let personnel in the pitlane when there is a car approaching. If they were really that concerned about safety they would mandate that the mechanics could not leave the garage until the car had stopped and the car cannot leave until they have returned. Isn't that what Indycar does, keeping them behind the wall?

You see I don't disagree with safety, but I do believe you should be looking at and acting on the right things.



No. No US series does that and I don't think anyone in Europe does either.

#1194 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 17 March 2013 - 07:37

No. No US series does that and I don't think anyone in Europe does either.


I'm sure Cart used to.


#1195 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 18 March 2013 - 20:43

I'm sure Cart used to.



I can't find a video where that is the case. On ovals, when the driver is ready to leave, there is a guy off the right front giving hand signals to wait or go. There is also a guy off the right rear. When the crew doing the left side tires and the fueler are done, they go to the wall. However, I doubt if this is mandated. It's just a smart thing to do as often the rear of the car will track to the left as the driver turns right to exit him pit box. After the driver leaves, the 2 guys standing off the right side of the car take the used tires away. That's the quickest way to get the tires off pit road. Otherwise someone at the wall would have to run out and pick them up. It's good to remove the tires as quick as possible as they could be hit by other cars and sent flying up pit road.

#1196 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,929 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 18 March 2013 - 20:51

The mechanic on the outside rear wheel doesn't go into the pit lane because if he did the car would run over the air hose on the way in.

http://www.youtube.c...LKJt-9WgU#t=14s

#1197 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 18 March 2013 - 21:47

The mechanic on the outside rear wheel doesn't go into the pit lane because if he did the car would run over the air hose on the way in.

http://www.youtube.c...LKJt-9WgU#t=14s



True and it could potentially put people between the car coming in and the cars going past. As it is, the only person at the edge of the pit box is the one directing the driver to his pit box.

#1198 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 18 March 2013 - 21:51

If a dry race is red-flagged and not ran again, but over 75% of the total distance has been completed, what happens to the teams who only used one set of tyres (prime/option) ???

#1199 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 5,108 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 18 March 2013 - 21:55

The button is just another driver aid, they have got rid of many others so why not this one? Leave it to skill and daring of the driver as to how close to the mark they want to go.



But the pitlane speedlimit is itself an artificial addition to the sport. I'm sure "racing purists" would agree. Pushing a button just cancels it out and at the same time allowes the driver to focus on driving safely in the pitlane rather than adhering to an arbitrary limit.

Advertisement

#1200 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,929 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 18 March 2013 - 21:56

True and it could potentially put people between the car coming in and the cars going past. As it is, the only person at the edge of the pit box is the one directing the driver to his pit box.


True, but everyone is in the pitlane. So when guys lock their brakes while on an angle...