Jump to content


Photo

arrows going to the top of the grid.


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 yahoo

yahoo
  • Member

  • 183 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 06 March 2000 - 21:33


with all there new money from orange do you think they will do better than ever.

Advertisement

#2 Laphroaig

Laphroaig
  • Member

  • 456 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 March 2000 - 23:42

Ok.. they got some money now, but don't forget that ll the money Orange brings in for this year will be just enough to pay off those Supertecs and maybe get a few extra spares!
But still... A bit of money left is better than none, they didn't have a closed budget about a month back.

#3 Yelnats

Yelnats
  • Member

  • 2,026 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 06 March 2000 - 23:51

As much as I'd like to see Arrows succeed I can't belive the time they posted in testing will be representative of their in-season speed. But note that I've picked and Arrow to qualify in the top ten in Oz and hill managed some good results (remember Hungary 1997?) with them.

So if the SuperTech gives some decent power without the Nitros Injection they used in preseason testing };-> maybe things will look up for the long suffering Tom Walkinshaw and his team-mates.

#4 Jecko

Jecko
  • Member

  • 3,499 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 07 March 2000 - 00:56

Hungary '97 was a fluke. Sorry but it was. Bridgestone had the advantage all weekend. As well as Hill managed to get the perfect setup.

However, I believe that this year could be Arrows finest. Pedro is a very good driver and Jos is a very experienced driver/tester. The amount of money brought in by Orange is miniscule compared to Ferrari and MacLaren but it should still help.

[This message has been edited by Jecko (edited 03-06-2000).]

#5 RedFever

RedFever
  • Member

  • 9,408 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 07 March 2000 - 04:34

Dream on

#6 eamo

eamo
  • Member

  • 517 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 March 2000 - 04:40

Arrows might move up a few places in the standings - but they will only pick up 9 pts

#7 f1nut

f1nut
  • Member

  • 131 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 07 March 2000 - 04:58

I saw a short newsclip the other night that showed the new Arrows. It had tall sidepods that seemed to slope way down at the rear.
Anybody know where there are pics of this car? It looked pretty radical. This may be what made them quick in tests.


#8 DangerMouse

DangerMouse
  • Member

  • 2,628 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 07 March 2000 - 10:33

Jecko, If Bridgestone "had the advantage all weekend" how is it Hill was the only top ten qualifier on Bridgestones? Why did he qualify over 2 seconds faster than his team mate? Why didn't a Bridgestone shod car best 5th position in any of the timed practices? And I didn't see any other Bridgestone drivers over take and then disappear away from Schumachers Ferrari. Did you?
Give Hill some credit, he drove like a true champion that day. How do you 'only' set the 5th fastest lap but still disappear from the rest of the field? by running that lap again and again - driving the car on it's absolute limits. Don't forget soon after that race Hill was fighting for pole again - Hungary was no fluke, the circuit that nullified Arrows huge power disadvantage and Hill did the rest.

To the point in hand, Arrows should be very competitive this season, I wouldn't be surprised if they beat Williams and end up 5th in the WCC - the much maligned Supertec is going to be fitted to the good but originally over ambitious Arrows Chassis which should be sorted due to the lack of rule changes.

#9 Samurai

Samurai
  • Member

  • 5,415 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 07 March 2000 - 11:06

DangerMouse you have made it absolutely clear. Good points!

back to the subject, if their cars were of the legal weight, then they should do good. (any new info about the "legality" of the cars during the tests?)


#10 Laphroaig

Laphroaig
  • Member

  • 456 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 March 2000 - 16:41

I liked Tom Walkinshaws comment on the allogations that their cars were underweight in Barcelona: "It wasn't underweight, ask Benneton and Williams how diffiult it is to get a car with a Supertech underweight!"

But still... lets assume that at least McLaren, Ferrari, Jordan and Steward are reliable... That's 8 cars, which would meant that at least 3 of those will need to drop out for Arrows to even have a chance to score a point. Last year there were less reliable cars, 2 ferrari's, 1 McLaren (Coulthard either dropped or had a mech/elec problem, 1 Jordan (Hill wasn't up there) and sometiems a Steward. Ralf picked up the scraps. So you need to assume that BAR and Williams will be slower and less reliable than the Arrows if you want to put an Arrows in the points. It's gonna be hard. And without some chaotic rain races I'll settle for a maximum of 5 points! (3 by de la Rosa, 2 by Verstappen)

We'll see ;)

#11 vroom-vroom

vroom-vroom
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 07 March 2000 - 08:22

One doesn't need to be underweight to be faster (and illegal). For example, everyone knows that a few burnouts will cause grooved tyres to become slicks. Ask Mr Schumacher. Did you see his tyres at the end of the Malaysian GP? Smooth as a baby's bottom.

#12 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 40,306 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 March 2000 - 08:55

A worn tyre is exactly that, it is not the equivalent of a slick.

#13 Samurai

Samurai
  • Member

  • 5,415 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 07 March 2000 - 08:59

worn is worn but that tyre was absolutely shiny (like vroom-vroom said; a baby's bottom)
I seem to have some recollection of pictures of a Schumacher lackey desperately carving groove-like formations into the tyres with a knife after the race

#14 Johan V

Johan V
  • Member

  • 37 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 07 March 2000 - 22:24

I don't know which tire(s) you looked at, but I've seen a picture of one of the rear tires, it was very worn, the grooves were only vagely visible. But to call it a slick would go a 'bit' far, calling it worn is even a huge understatement, they were completely trashed, it was a small miracle the tires lasted as long as they did. I'll try to find the picture I saw and post it to the forum.

Johan V.

#15 Damop

Damop
  • Member

  • 5,105 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 07 March 2000 - 22:31

I seem to recall that Bridgestone said that running the tire down to the groves wouldn't benefit traction in the least - that the base rubber was even less grippy than the top rubber.

#16 Laphroaig

Laphroaig
  • Member

  • 456 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 March 2000 - 23:20

Yep.. that's right... Bridgestone is not allowed to make tires that wear down to slicks...
They acctually MADE tires like that during winter tests the first season, but FIA found out and had a 'discussion' with the tire manufacturers not to do that ;)

(As for tires, get rid of those intermediates! they are too allround, drizzle should seperate the man from the less-manly, like Prost sliding off or going for wets while Senna was still happily driving around on slicks! Non of that 'all weather' either... only slicks + wets!)

#17 DangerMouse

DangerMouse
  • Member

  • 2,628 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 08 March 2000 - 03:17

A tyres rubber compound is designed to run at a given optimum temperature, as a grooved tyre wears the tyre squirm will reduce (initially giving more grip) but then suffer from over cooling as the tyre wears more. A bald groovie will run too cool and will have terrible grip.
Your standard road tyres when bald give less grip in the dry for the same reasons the only bald tyre with slick like grip is - a slick.
The reason a slick grips more is not just because of the larger contact surface area, it's because the lack or tread means no tyre squirm, which means the tyre can run incredibly soft (hence sticky) rubber without overheating.

#18 IRISH

IRISH
  • Member

  • 253 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 March 2000 - 03:38

Arrows don't stand a chance this year,they fooled Hill in 97' with empty promises and now they have fooled Orange,do the decent thing Tom sell up. :rolleyes:

#19 DangerMouse

DangerMouse
  • Member

  • 2,628 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 08 March 2000 - 03:59

Irish, You do not understand Tom Walkinshaw the reason Arrows have not done well under hiim thus far is he is unwilling to risk any of his own (TWR) money on the project - he see's it as business purely and simply. With decent backing from LostBoys and Orange the team will go from strength to strength.

One thing that is always true of Tom - give him a pile of cash and he'll give you a pile of results, it's Minardi and Sauber you should be calling to sell up, they cannot perform regardless of budget.

Yes he fooled Hill into driving for them (expecting loads of sponsors to follow which didn't materialise on the scale he envisaged) And even worse he fooled Brian Hart into merging his company into TWR thus getting engines for peanuts (much less than even customer Hart users would normally pay) the second the deal was done nearly all the money was sucked out of the project and Brian wasn't given any development budget, at one stage Hart refused to give TWR any engines before a race until he paid up what was already owed just in wages!
Tom Walknshaw has single handedly dismantled one of the last independent British F1 Engine manufacturers by devious means just to meet his own ends.

TW is a B*****d but he gets results - just watch and expect to be amazed.
Ken Tyrrell must be seething to see the way Tom does business and survives.

[This message has been edited by DangerMouse (edited 03-07-2000).]