26 replies to this topic

[toofast]

Couple of benefits I can think of

- Team orders made easy. More power to the team.

- On the go troubleshooting. Given the electronic and mechanical complexities of next year car, it could help reducing the chances of DNF. No more fixing while driving (e.g. Hamilton@Singapore).

What do you guys think?

[Kelateboy]

Couple of benefits I can think of

- Team orders made easy. More power to the team.

- On the go troubleshooting. Given the electronic and mechanical complexities of next year car, it could help reducing the chances of DNF. No more fixing while driving (e.g. Hamilton@Singapore).

What do you guys think?

Absolutely not!

[toofast]

Absolutely not!

Why not? I think it will be brilliant. No more "multi 12" or "multi 21".

[Ross Stonefeld]

Because it would be SO much better to have allegations the teams are slowing certain cars down.

[LuckyStrike1]

Team orders should not be followed. Nor should they be enforced through technology.

All hail to drivers who don't give a damn about team orders when they are not in their favour!

[ANF]

For ****'s sake, no. Don't even think about it.

[toofast]

Because it would be SO much better to have allegations the teams are slowing certain cars down.

I can barely remember F1 prior to two-way telemetry ban. Did we have this kind of allegations back then?

Edited by toofast, 01 April 2013 - 15:36.

[Anja]

Oh my, someone actually voted yes.

[LuckyStrike1]

I can barely remember F1 prior to two-way telemetry ban. Did we have this kind of allegations back then?

Yes.

Before. During. After.

Edited by LuckyStrike1, 01 April 2013 - 15:37.

[sharo]

Absolutely NOT!
On the contrary, they must limit the car to box live telemetry only to critical parameters and the rest should be collected in a data recorder for post-race examination.
The way it is now, drivers are no more than a biological remote control and actuators of buttons and levers for the engineers in the box who do the actual racing.

[Fox1]

I love the technical aspect of F1 and didn't like this rule when it was first instituted. Now I think it's an excellent rule. I absolutely agree with the previous post.

[toofast]

Absolutely NOT!
On the contrary, they must limit the car to box live telemetry only to critical parameters and the rest should be collected in a data recorder for post-race examination.
The way it is now, drivers are no more than a biological remote control and actuators of buttons and levers for the engineers in the box who do the actual racing.

Exactly! That's the point. Why not just go on with it if that's the case. Much like team orders, previously we have "Fernando is faster than you". Now, we have "multi 21", "Maintain position". What's the difference?

[undersquare]

The mind boggles what would happen with car control from the pitwall.

So lol personally I could see it being worth a try IF we got to see all the controlled settings on a web page, on both cars, together with fuel levels.

As it is we hear days later that for example Sebi was running higher settings than Webbo, whereas with displayed 2-way telemetry we'd know in real time. The teams do already control the engine settings, after all - we haven't had a case of a driver refusing to make a certain setting have we?

So...as a trial and with the data I could see it.

[sharo]

I mean that drivers, although top level, still differ from one another and still make mistakes. Now the engineers cover every mistake or action which could lead to say brake overheating, gear shifted not at the right time, too much or too less throttle at a particular place, KERS modes etc.
There will be greater diversity if drivers have indications in front of their eyes and have to act accordingly than being constantly pampered by the engineer with ready solutions and hints.

[onewingedangel]

Voted yes - because I believe active or at least programmable suspension should be allowed to make a comeback.

With the cars being slowed by fuel flow restrictions, and active-suspension available on road cars, it's not going to be cost prohibitive to bring back.

In terms of other settings, like engine maps, kers settings etc - let the engineers cue up the changes and the driver ok the change from the wheel.

Let the drivers focus on driving rather than having to change settings and reset systems through menu systems whilst trying to race.

[halifaxf1fan]

Yes it should be reintroduced. But not with the teams in direct control.

The only way this could work would be for someone who is absolutely trustworthy to prevent frivolous or malicious manipulations of the cars, someone who could uphold the highest standards for team order requests from the teams. Someone with a proven track record for fairness and who is beyond reproach.

Only a representative of the FIA should be allowed to be in control of the cars to ensure good honest racing. Or perhaps Bernie E.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 01 April 2013 - 16:34.

[toofast]

I mean that drivers, although top level, still differ from one another and still make mistakes. Now the engineers cover every mistake or action which could lead to say brake overheating, gear shifted not at the right time, too much or too less throttle at a particular place, KERS modes etc.
There will be greater diversity if drivers have indications in front of their eyes and have to act accordingly than being constantly pampered by the engineer with ready solutions and hints.

Right now, I don't think drivers have actual control of those buttons and switches anyway. I mean like diff setting for different tyre for example, what's the point having the drivers change it when it can be automated. It won't make the actual driving any easier. Even if the driver forget about it, the engineer can easily remind him. Why not just let the engineer do it in the first place?

Edited by toofast, 01 April 2013 - 16:19.

[ANF]

The mind boggles what would happen with car control from the pitwall. ...

In 2002 it looked something like this with two-way telemetry, traction control, launch control, fully-automatic gearboxes...

And, oh, I think there were some team orders at the end of that race.

[undersquare]

I mean that drivers, although top level, still differ from one another and still make mistakes. Now the engineers cover every mistake or action which could lead to say brake overheating, gear shifted not at the right time, too much or too less throttle at a particular place, KERS modes etc.
There will be greater diversity if drivers have indications in front of their eyes and have to act accordingly than being constantly pampered by the engineer with ready solutions and hints.

I see what you mean but I don't think the engineers do cover every mistake - we still have drivers getting stressed in close combat and hitting the limiter or spinning up, and we see them braking late or early or locking up, getting on a white line or astroturf, turning in late or early, getting off-line...

And drivers are very different aren't they? They each have good and bad weekends. Massa has out-qualified Alonso 4 times in a row but he's always slower in the race.

I would just like to see a lot more data, so we know about it. Kers, just for a start - there are whole kers duels that we miss completely: all we see is what looks like an easy pass because one driver has made the other use up all his kers first, but what we should be able to see is the process beforehand where the challenge is developing.

And gps, what an opportunity there is there, if only there were someone at FOM who cared!

[toofast]

In 2002 it looked something like this with two-way telemetry, traction control, launch control, fully-automatic gearboxes...

And, oh, I think there were some team orders at the end of that race.

fully automatic gearbox?

Edit: The race looked fine and the team order was done in traditional way.

Edited by toofast, 01 April 2013 - 16:26.

[undersquare]

In 2002 it looked something like this with two-way telemetry, traction control, launch control, fully-automatic gearboxes...

And, oh, I think there were some team orders at the end of that race.

Well this is mixing it up with other issues. How far the car is automated is a separate question.

And it's absolutely key that we know the data, IMO, which we didn't in 2002 of course.

[ANF]

fully automatic gearbox?

Edit: The race looked fine and the team order was done in traditional way.

There were fully-automatic gear changes (banned in 2004). I'm not sure if fully-automatic gearboxes is the right word.

[toofast]

There were fully-automatic gear changes (banned in 2004). I'm not sure if fully-automatic gearboxes is the right word.

Are you sure? Haven't heard about it before.

[One]

How about limiting the rev down 9000 rpm with KERS and Turbo 800 BHP and then to force the driver to shift by hands and no ECU except for KERS?

[ANF]

Are you sure? Haven't heard about it before.

Look at the drivers' hands in the onboards – they didn't use the paddles. It was ridiculous really.

Some news from 2 May 2003: "The teams and the FIA did, however, agree to a complete ban on automatic gearboxes and launch control for 2004." http://www.formula1....2003/5/306.html

[toofast]

Look at the drivers' hands in the onboards – they didn't use the paddles. It was ridiculous really.

Some news from 2 May 2003: "The teams and the FIA did, however, agree to a complete ban on automatic gearboxes and launch control for 2004." http://www.formula1....2003/5/306.html

Wow, that was ridiculous.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Auto-gearshifts are nothing really. How hard is it to click a paddle? It's the launch control(a version of which they have even now) that sucks.