Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

S.Q.T. (stupid question thread)


  • Please log in to reply
4511 replies to this topic

#4451 f1paul

f1paul
  • Member

  • 7,403 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 28 April 2019 - 10:57

When did starting from the pitlane become an actual penalty rather than something drivers just do if they have a problem that prevents them getting to the grid in time for the race?

I believe it was actually only a few years ago - 2017 maybe.

 

Because beforehand a engine penalty was just a straight up 10 grid but now the power unit has so many bits and bobs so each bit results in a penalty until they decided that changing the whole power unit adds up to a 30 grid place penalty or something ridiculous so it is easier to say "start from the pitlane" 


Edited by f1paul, 28 April 2019 - 10:59.


Advertisement

#4452 efuloni

efuloni
  • Member

  • 294 posts
  • Joined: November 16

Posted 08 May 2019 - 06:08

How would the budget cap work? I mean, how would they possibly know if a team is spending the right amount? And how would someone prevent the loopholes, like, for example, if Ferrari simply develop some research or part in some other factory, using some budget other than the F1's team and say something like "we got it from Fiat for just 1 dolar"?

#4453 mmmcurry

mmmcurry
  • Member

  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 May 2019 - 18:51

After playing GT the other night and doing a race in the reverse direction I wondered if any rear tracks run both ways. The timing stuff should be easy enough to sort out, but I don't know whether things like pit entry and exit as well as track access would cause problems in reverse.

Steve.

#4454 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 May 2019 - 19:19

After playing GT the other night and doing a race in the reverse direction I wondered if any rear tracks run both ways. The timing stuff should be easy enough to sort out, but I don't know whether things like pit entry and exit as well as track access would cause problems in reverse.

Steve.

The biggest issue would be the runoffs.

#4455 Gemini

Gemini
  • Member

  • 3,675 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 08 May 2019 - 19:29

After playing GT the other night and doing a race in the reverse direction I wondered if any rear tracks run both ways. The timing stuff should be easy enough to sort out, but I don't know whether things like pit entry and exit as well as track access would cause problems in reverse.

Steve.

 

Not at the same time as in your question, but Misano is currently run opposite direction that it was used 15 years ago. Not sure which year the change happened exactly...



#4456 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,199 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 08 May 2019 - 21:46

After playing GT the other night and doing a race in the reverse direction I wondered if any rear tracks run both ways. The timing stuff should be easy enough to sort out, but I don't know whether things like pit entry and exit as well as track access would cause problems in reverse.

Steve.

 

Knockhill does run both ways.

 

Normal (clockwise): https://www.youtube....h?v=sdfFDLSZslA

 

Reverse (anticlockwise): https://www.youtube....h?v=GDc2eDrZAnM



#4457 w1Y

w1Y
  • Member

  • 4,512 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 24 June 2019 - 17:41

What happens if you are the last driver to be lapped. Before you are lapped the race finishs as the leader behind you goes over the finished line....

and then you breakdown on your last lap. There is no one to beat you as those who have been lapped finish once they finish the line.

#4458 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 June 2019 - 17:59

Only full laps count. It's the same as if you had been lapped.

 

If it's a race/series that requires you to drive through the checkered, Le Mans 24h for example, you don't get classified.


Edited by Kalmake, 24 June 2019 - 18:02.


#4459 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,199 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 June 2019 - 18:00

What happens if you are the last driver to be lapped. Before you are lapped the race finishs as the leader behind you goes over the finished line....

and then you breakdown on your last lap. There is no one to beat you as those who have been lapped finish once they finish the line.

 

In normal racing, you are credited with the number of laps completed, and your position is last of the drivers who completed that number of laps. Those who were lapped will not be classified ahead of you.

 

In endurance racing like Le Mans, you must finish to be classified, so you're lose to people who made the finish no matter how many laps down.



Advertisement

#4460 NikL

NikL
  • Member

  • 163 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 29 June 2019 - 11:04

When a car comes into the pits to be wheeled back into the garage during practice or qualifying we used to always see the mechanics just push the car in on it's wheels. I have not seen this for a while as they now jack it up, put it on a trolley then push the car in. Is this due to a rule change or have all the teams just decided to do this?



#4461 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,199 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 June 2019 - 11:36

There's no rule about it. It's just easier to push the car about on a trolley. That's especially true with today's very long cars that aren't as easily manoeuvred by pushing.



#4462 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 29 June 2019 - 11:42

When a car comes into the pits to be wheeled back into the garage during practice or qualifying we used to always see the mechanics just push the car in on it's wheels. I have not seen this for a while as they now jack it up, put it on a trolley then push the car in. Is this due to a rule change or have all the teams just decided to do this?

An educated guess...(more like something I just pulled out of my backside!)....Perhaps  F1 cars these days with their hydraulic clutches and differentials and whatnot do not freewheel in neutral like normal cars?



#4463 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,199 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 June 2019 - 12:07

An educated guess...(more like something I just pulled out of my backside!)....Perhaps  F1 cars these days with their hydraulic clutches and differentials and whatnot do not freewheel in neutral like normal cars?

 

It's actually in the rules that they must be able to roll freely so that the marshals can remove stricken cars from the track. They are even required to have a means of putting them in neutral for the marshals, indicated by the letter N in a circle. Usually found near the cockpit.



#4464 NikL

NikL
  • Member

  • 163 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 29 June 2019 - 12:20

Yes they push the car when being weighed so that's not the reason then.



#4465 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 8,341 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 29 June 2019 - 12:57

Because they have next to no lock on the steering. Triumph Heralds they are not.  ;)

#4466 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 29 June 2019 - 13:15

It's very difficult to turn the steering on cars with wide tyres when pushing them. They often used to change to very thin wheels for pushing around the pits.

#4467 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 June 2019 - 13:50

It's actually in the rules that they must be able to roll freely so that the marshals can remove stricken cars from the track. They are even required to have a means of putting them in neutral for the marshals, indicated by the letter N in a circle. Usually found near the cockpit.

1017567733-LAT-20190623-SNE16272.jpg

 

You can see N letter just ahead of front-end of halo in Bottas's car. Hamilton's helmet hides the same in his car.



#4468 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,202 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 June 2019 - 15:26

It's very difficult to turn the steering on cars with wide tyres when pushing them. They often used to change to very thin wheels for pushing around the pits.

If car config is anything to do with it I guess it's longer wheel base that makes it trickier to push cars back into the pits by turning steering wheel and eventually led to introduction of trolley, but looking at how nicely trolley actually works, I also guess trolley is simply much much much more convenient mean in every aspect so even if cars go back to prev configs they would still be using trolleys anyways.



#4469 Loosenut

Loosenut
  • Member

  • 779 posts
  • Joined: September 17

Posted 06 July 2019 - 01:51

This seems like the best thread for this...
Just saw this today on the M1 near Northampton. I guess it can't be Bernie, maybe one of the 3 musketeers?

 

vumQ5fV.jpg



#4470 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 July 2019 - 07:31

Trolleys are just better.

 

It would be interesting if someone could point out when they came about.

 

Once refueling was allowed only indoors, there was a need to get the car in as fast as possible in qualifying.



#4471 Ristin

Ristin
  • Member

  • 111 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 06 July 2019 - 09:23

They often used to change to very thin wheels for pushing around the pits.


Did they? I always got the impression they used the thin wheels to make the cars fit into the transporters.

#4472 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 July 2019 - 09:37

Did they?


I admit I can't actually remember who told me that, but it sounded reasonable at the time!

#4473 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 July 2019 - 22:49

Did anyone know why the 1976 cars had no airbox above the driver's head? I think they're much better looking than their 1975 counterparts, but I can't see to find why this change came about. Were airboxes banned? If so, why?

 

Here's a visual indicator of the difference. This is Fittipaldi driving the Mclaren M23 in 1975:

 

DTVR7GiXkAALwHV.jpg

 

And here is James Hunt driving it in 1976:

 

James-Hunt-during-the-British-Grand-Prix

 

I'm guessing they were banned, but why?


Edited by Spillage, 08 July 2019 - 22:50.


#4474 ATM

ATM
  • Member

  • 483 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 08 July 2019 - 23:39

It apparently was indeed a new rule:
http://www.formula1-...air_intake.html
Applied by the 4th race of the season it seems:
https://www.gptoday....-versus-mclaren

Since height ia referred to (and we can see the size of the chimneys they had in ‘75) I guess they tried to limit the height of an upside down car, to limit its rolling.

Edited by ATM, 08 July 2019 - 23:41.


#4475 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 July 2019 - 10:32

I remember reading that airboxes got around height limits by being part of the engine. It's hard to find technical regulations from that time.

 

Some cars were looking pretty ridiculous, like the infamous smurf hat. That must have been one motivation to get rid of them.



#4476 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 July 2019 - 10:37

Great for sponsor logos though.



#4477 beachdrifter

beachdrifter
  • Member

  • 5,165 posts
  • Joined: November 17

Posted 12 July 2019 - 19:41

How would you explain the difference between tyre wear and tyre degradation and its effects?



#4478 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 July 2019 - 19:58

How would you explain the difference between tyre wear and tyre degradation and its effects?

I would say wear is tyre losing material. Degradation can mean wear too, but also chemical or structural performance loss.



#4479 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 July 2019 - 13:15

Literally every source I have ever seen tells me that Stirling Moss needed the fastest lap point at Casablanca in 1958 to stand any chance of the title. This means that dropped scores were more important than race wins in the event of a tied WDC.

4 years later the reverse is definitely true, or Graham Hill would have clinched the title before the final round.

So, did the rules change and if so, when? The points system itself was changed in 1960 and again in 1961 (amongst other sweeping changes). Or was everyone wrong about 1958?

Advertisement

#4480 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,199 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 July 2019 - 17:32

I see what you mean E.B. Here's a breakdown of the points for those not familiar with the situation.

 

Going into Morocco, Hawthorn had 40 points and Moss had 32. It was the best 6 scores counting that season.

 

Hawthorn 4 (1) (2) 7 9 7 7 6

Moss 8 9 6 1 8

 

Hawthorn already had two dropped scores and the next worst to drop was his third place from Argentina. So to increase his score he needed a win, a second or a third + fastest lap.

Moss was not going to drop any scores so any points he scored would count. He had 3 wins to Hawthorn's 1 already. A win without fastest lap would tie him. A win with a fastest lap would given him the title outright as long as Mike wasn't second. In the end Mike did come second and won it anyway, 42 to 41. So by our modern means of breaking a tie, the title would have gone to Stirling if they tied by him having more wins. So perhaps back then, the higher gross total was used as a tie breaker.

 

You then mention 1962. Now there were no fastest lap points. Going into South Africa, Hill had 39 points and Clark 30. This time the best 5 scores counted.

 

Hill 9 (1) 6 (3) 9 9 6

Clark 9 9 3 9

 

As with Moss before, Jim would score whatever he scored. If he won and Graham failed to finish 3rd or better, they would tie. Jim would have to win on the tiebreaker with 4 wins to 3, otherwise, Graham would have been champion already. I'm with you on this one being definitely true. So I suspect either the tiebreaker rule did change with the 1960/1 change, or perhaps the situation isn't well reported about 1958.

 

I'm afraid this isn't so much a stupid question but more one for TNF.



#4481 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 July 2019 - 17:57

Well it was a stupid question if I had got my maths wrong, so thank you for confirming that it seems to stack up.

As for it being a TNF question, it did cross my mind but the three most likely TNFers to know the answer have been seen in this thread on a regular basis.

#4482 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 4,988 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 August 2019 - 15:21

How many mechanics does each car generally have?



#4483 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 8,341 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 August 2019 - 18:08

How many mechanics does each car generally have?


At a pit stop? 18. https://www.carthrot...ula-1-pit-stop/

#4484 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 August 2019 - 07:35

Lollipop guy is gone but has been replaced by button guys. Over 20 in total if they adjust the front wing.

 

https://www.wired.co...record-williams



#4485 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,199 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 August 2019 - 08:09

Is that really the answer to the question? The pit crew is made up of mechanics from both sides of the garage.



#4486 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 4,988 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 August 2019 - 01:01

Yes, sorry, I'm curious how many work on each car in the garage.  I know most cars have two engineers, a chief mechanic, a front end mechanic and a rear end mechanic, but have I have to think there are more than that.  I do also understand there are a number of technicians that work on both cars.



#4487 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 12,987 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 13 August 2019 - 02:15

In the 80's if the teams changed engine suppliers halfway through the season, they were counted as a separate entity as far as points for the WCC were concerned. Does anybody know why this was and if it would still apply ? 



#4488 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,199 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 August 2019 - 04:07

In the 80's if the teams changed engine suppliers halfway through the season, they were counted as a separate entity as far as points for the WCC were concerned. Does anybody know why this was and if it would still apply ?


Not just in the 80s. It’s always been that case that a constructor is considered a chassis-engine combination and if a team runs different engines in a season they are considered two different constructors.

Presumably the tram would then be entitled to the WCC rewards of their two positions in the standings. But I don’t think a team has managed to score points with more than one constructor since the 60s.

#4489 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,505 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 13 August 2019 - 05:14

In the 80's if the teams changed engine suppliers halfway through the season, they were counted as a separate entity as far as points for the WCC were concerned. Does anybody know why this was and if it would still apply ? 

 

The Sporting Reg's say
 
8.3 A competitor may change the make of engine at any time during the Championship. All points scored with an engine of different make to that which was first entered in the Championship may count (and will be aggregated) for the assessment of a commercial benefit, however such points will not count towards (nor be aggregated for) the FIA Formula One Constructors Championship.

Edited by RacingGreen, 13 August 2019 - 05:14.


#4490 Reddington

Reddington
  • Member

  • 595 posts
  • Joined: May 16

Posted 13 August 2019 - 06:05

I always got the impression they used the thin wheels to make the cars fit into the transporters.


Correct

#4491 TheFish

TheFish
  • Member

  • 619 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 06 September 2019 - 15:21

In both Spa and now Monza there is a lot of talk about getting the tow in qualifying, whilst also complaining during races that cars can't follow closely due to the dirty air.

 

These seem like opposites to me - why is running 2 seconds behind the car in front good in quallfying whilst bad in the race? I remember last year at Singapore they were talking about being 8 seconds behind as being bad for the dirty air.



#4492 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,663 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 September 2019 - 15:39

I think they mean orchestrated off your teammate? So you get a run on the straight on your teammate who is on a warm-up/cool-down lap and they get out of your way before the corner? 



#4493 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 September 2019 - 16:54

It depends on the track. Monza has so much fast straight that you gain more on it than you lose in the corners.

 

Singapore concrete chute shelters against wind that clears air.



#4494 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 3,878 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 06 September 2019 - 18:17

In both Spa and now Monza there is a lot of talk about getting the tow in qualifying, whilst also complaining during races that cars can't follow closely due to the dirty air.

These seem like opposites to me - why is running 2 seconds behind the car in front good in quallfying whilst bad in the race? I remember last year at Singapore they were talking about being 8 seconds behind as being bad for the dirty air.


A lot of the tracks now are Power limited not aero limited so they have more grip than they need in some sections. So, there it makes sense to get a tow and dump drag. Not for the entire lap, but for a good part of it. All of S1 and S3 at Spa and all of S1 and S3 at Monza too.
Interesting to note that Monza last year it was actually overall faster to be in a tow for a whole lap. Again though, only if you're a couple of seconds back. It's almost like they hit a big spongy buffer any closer and they either can't go faster or just run out of tyre.

You saw this in Spa, that after the first 10 laps the top 4 were roughly 4 seconds between each of them. This was where the cars felt happiest. Over one lap they can probably abuse that more.

#4495 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,609 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 25 September 2019 - 09:38

does anyone have a list of the current tracks and how much of the lap the drivers are on the acceleration? At the Singapore Grand Prix for example it's 63% of the lap. The most should be Monza.



#4496 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,609 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 25 September 2019 - 10:06

full throttle list (but some numbers seems very unrealistic):

No number about Sotchi:

 

1. Red Bull Ring 79%

2. Melbourne 77%

3. Monza 76%

3. Montreal 76%

5. Baku 75%

6. Barcelona 72%

6. Bahrain 72%

8. Silverstone 70%

8. Spa 70%

8. Le Castellet 70%

11. Suzuka 66%

12. Austin 59%

12. Abu Dhabi 59%

14. China 54%

14. Hockenheim 54%

16. Interlagos 50%

16. Budapest 50%

18. Singapore 49%

19. Mexiko 45%

20. Monaco 34%

 

Sotchi ??

 

Melbourne more than Monza?

Interlagos just 50% (the same as Budapest)?


Edited by HistoryFan, 25 September 2019 - 10:07.


#4497 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,160 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 September 2019 - 11:02

Not just in the 80s. It’s always been that case that a constructor is considered a chassis-engine combination and if a team runs different engines in a season they are considered two different constructors.

Presumably the tram would then be entitled to the WCC rewards of their two positions in the standings. But I don’t think a team has managed to score points with more than one constructor since the 60s.

 

So Brabham had 2 entries in the 1982 season? Did they have to pay for two entries as they were classified as two different teams?



#4498 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,160 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 September 2019 - 11:05

full throttle list (but some numbers seems very unrealistic):

No number about Sotchi:

 

1. Red Bull Ring 79%

2. Melbourne 77%

3. Monza 76%

3. Montreal 76%

5. Baku 75%

6. Barcelona 72%

6. Bahrain 72%

8. Silverstone 70%

8. Spa 70%

8. Le Castellet 70%

11. Suzuka 66%

12. Austin 59%

12. Abu Dhabi 59%

14. China 54%

14. Hockenheim 54%

16. Interlagos 50%

16. Budapest 50%

18. Singapore 49%

19. Mexiko 45%

20. Monaco 34%

 

Sotchi ??

 

Melbourne more than Monza?

Interlagos just 50% (the same as Budapest)?

 

Is he just talking WOT or an throttle application? 



#4499 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,199 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 September 2019 - 12:05

So Brabham had 2 entries in the 1982 season? Did they have to pay for two entries as they were classified as two different teams?

 

As far as I'm aware they had one entry as a single team. But they scored constructors' points as two different constructors: "Brabham-Ford" and "Brabham-BMW".

 

This is because technically, the Constructor's Championship is for the builders of the car, not for the entrant. As time has gone on those have become synonymous and with the current structure of F1 they cannot be different unless in extreme circumstances. For example last year the points scored by Force India-Mercedes cars could not be claimed by Racing Point after the Force India team collapsed.

 

If we wind the clock back to 1968, there are some interesting examples of how these things were distinct. On the one hand, you had McLaren-Ford 2nd in the WCC with 49 points, and McLaren-BRM 10th with 3 points. Similarly Matra-Ford were 3rd with 45 points while Matra (technically Matra-Matra) were 9th with 8 points. On the other hand Lotus-Ford won with 62 points, but 9 of those points were not scored by Team Lotus, but by Jo Siffert and Rob Walker Racing who won the British Grand Prix.

 

So a works team would have their points split if they ran different engines, but customer teams would score points for the works team.



Advertisement

#4500 Cornholio

Cornholio
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 14 October 2019 - 14:26

In the Japanese GP, Leclerc received a time penalty that dropped him behind Ricciardo at the finish. He finished the race lapped, just behind Bottas. Had he unlapped himself, with Ricciardo lapped but still within 15 seconds of the Ferrari, am I right in thinking Leclerc wouldn't have lost a position (he'd have had 15 seconds added to his time but still classified ahead of the Renault due to completing an extra lap) or is there something in the time penalty system that takes this into account?