omega0684
|
| posted on 30/4/09 at 08:38 PM |
|
|
F1 is expanding
i've heard the prodrive are now thinking of entering too,
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12433_5259076,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
Miks15
|
| posted on 30/4/09 at 08:41 PM |
|
|
Interesting
quote:
an engine not subject to a rev limit.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 30/4/09 at 09:28 PM |
|
|
those are very persuasive reasons to stay within the budget.
Banning refuelling and tyre warmers? The cars will need very big fuel tanks!
|
|
|
rb968
|
| posted on 30/4/09 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
I went to a talk last night by Gary Savage (Technical Director of Brawn GP) who was back home in Barrow. He mentioned 13 teams instead of 10 next year
although he didn;t hint at who.
OT it was a fascinating insight into what goes into building one of those machines and upgrading it through a season. What they had to do just to fit
the Mercedes instead of Honda engine into the chassis in the time they had alone was amazing.
Rich
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 30/4/09 at 10:00 PM |
|
|
One more team coming into the fray will be US GP, an all american team that will likely feature Scott Speed and Danica Rice in the drivers seats.
Prodrive have been looking for something to get their teeth into since Subaru chucked in the towel on WRC, and given their success with Aston at Le
Mans (same guy owns AM and Prodrive), they might be another bunch of newbies to watch
I can only dream that the third new entry will be the re-emergence of Lotus, Jim Clarke colours and all 
[Edited on 30/4/09 by StevieB]
|
|
|
gingerprince
|
| posted on 30/4/09 at 10:24 PM |
|
|
Lola is the other, isn't it?
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 1/5/09 at 06:11 AM |
|
|
I really dont like the fact that it is optional and the ban on refueling. Other than that it looks pretty good 
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 1/5/09 at 07:02 AM |
|
|
I've always thought refuelling detracted from the sport. Without it, you'll have drivers having to cope with a car with major dynamic
changes over the course of the race, and the position on track will be their position in the race with none of the "X is ahead of Y, but only 10
seconds and hasn't stopped so Y is really ahead by 15 seconds" nonsence.
|
|
|
vinny1275
|
| posted on 1/5/09 at 07:52 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
I've always thought refuelling detracted from the sport. Without it, you'll have drivers having to cope with a car with major dynamic
changes over the course of the race, and the position on track will be their position in the race with none of the "X is ahead of Y, but only 10
seconds and hasn't stopped so Y is really ahead by 15 seconds" nonsence.
Except they'll still be allowed to change tyres... One of the things I like about F1 is trying to guess at strategies (I'm actually quite
disappointed that they publish the qualifying weights this year)
The other rule they've changed is that the minimum weight of the car is going up - if the car also has to go a whole race without refuelling,
they're going to be fat. With a capital FAT. This will increase the momentum of the cars by a lot, potentially making accidents much more
serious....
|
|
|
aerosam
|
| posted on 1/5/09 at 08:48 AM |
|
|
.... not to mention the increasd fire risk of carrying fuel for the whole race.
Had enough of this dictatorship known as LCB. Gone elsewhere, not coming back. Kiss my ass ChrisW.
|
|
|
andyd
|
| posted on 1/5/09 at 10:31 AM |
|
|
It's not that long ago that they raced with enough fuel to last the race... ok damn it, it's 16 years ago! 
However, they weren't all bursting into flames so the increase in potential fire hazard isn't a valid argument against it. In fact the act
of refuelling has caused more hazards in recent years.
I accept for Nikki Lauda and Gerhard Berger (and probably a few others) the memories might be slighty different but these days the fuel tanks are
designed to withstand huge impacts without incident.
I for one welcome it and the tyre warmer ban too. About time we saw what these youngster drivers can really do without the aid of a car that drives
itself... almost
Put 'em in a '90s car with no driver aids whatsoever and see how many blisters they get from using a gearstick!
[Edited on 1/5/2009 by andyd]
Andy
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 1/5/09 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyd
Put 'em in a '90s car with no driver aids whatsoever and see how many blisters they get from using a gearstick!
Put them in early 60's cars (Lotus 33 et.al) pretty cars with no ugly wings that took real talent to drive.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
