The deadline for entering your Canadian Grand Prix predictions is coming up quickly make sure you post them here now before final practice starts later today.
Here’s today’s round-up:
Links
Horner hopes FIA/FOM agree on tyres (Autosport)
“I think the Pirelli deal that seems to be on the table looks to be commercially and practically very attractive, and that seems to be the consensus of the majority of teams. But it is important that the FIA and FOM agree with the relevant tyre suppliers.”
Adjustable rear wings being discussed to help overtaking (ESPN)
“The intriguing twist, designed exclusively to boost overtaking, is that only chasing drivers will be able to adjust their cars’ wings.” Not keen on this – sounds dreadfully contrived.
Ecclestone squeezing teams on pit garage advertising? (Adam Cooper)
“For decades teams have displayed logos in their garages without any outside interference. However yesterday they received a letter from Allsport, the organisation that controls trackside advertising, which in effect pointed out that it owns the garage advertising space.”
Comment of the day
Some thoughts from DaveW on how much the sport has changed in the years since the last South African Grand Prix:
The three second gap to sixth on the grid back then puts current concerns that the sport used to be more competitive with so much great passing into perspective. Now you have brand new teams keeping within a few seconds of the leaders. Things are so much more professional and the quality of the field so deep now. […]
When you look at the technology and peformance in Group C at around the same time you can see that this truly was the golden age of high performance auto racing. 250mph on the Mulsanne straight, cars averaged over 230mph at Indy, F1 cars with active suspension. Even NASCAR, thanks to new aero development, had reached a state of performance that was shocking compared to preceding years.
DaveW
From the forum
sw6569 started an interesting topic about Martin Brundle:
How good was Brundle? We all know and love his commentary, but should he have won races? Should he have won championships? Was it a case of wrong place wrong time? OR was Martin simply an average racer? I’ve never really known – obviously he knows his stuff and is an excellent commentator, but was he as good a driver as a commentator? Would be interested to know your opinions!
sw6569
Happy birthday!
No F1 Fanatic birthdays today. If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.
On this day in F1
American hopes of having their own F1 team in the world championship this year were dashed with the collapse of US F1.
But on this day in 1966 Dan Gurney’s Eagle, which he entered with Carroll Shelby under the name All American Racers, starting its first race in the Belgian Grand Prix. However he was not classified after completing just 23 of the 28 laps.
One year later at the same track the car, now fitted with the Weslake V12 engine, scored its only victory.
Einar AI
12th June 2010, 0:46
A shockingly artificial idea by the teams to introduce adjustable rear wings. Sure enough, giving the chasing driver an advantage would definitely boost the long-yearned overtaking, but it would practically destroy the one thing F1 is really about: technical equality and innovation. Christian Horner’s words – “Why do we need KERS now” perfectly elaborates why the adjustable rear wings are an idiotic idea. It will not only limit overtaking to “pushing the button” but also limit development in other areas – one of which is KERS.
Secondly, the rule would destroy all parity between drivers in racing conditions – there is no reason why the defending driver should be disadvantaged at all. What F1 really needs are close wheel-to-wheel battles for position. What it does need is drivers passing other drivers as if they are stationary.
In general terms, as much as we blame FIA and Bernie for messing with the rules; it appears that FOTA and their technical directors are not much better at coming up with random rules that damage the sport (for once, they were in support of the dreadful top 10 qualifying tyre rule). As much as I’d like FIA to consent the teams about decisions it makes; I think in such case of a basic attack upon the nature of fair racing, FIA should interfere and tell the teams to shut it when necessary. For once, I’d want Max back to call this quits.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 2:10
Give them some credit – at least they’re trying to find a solution to thelack of overtaking.
And it’s not as if the driver being passed loses out – as soon as he is passed, he gets access to the adjustable wing system while the attacking driver loses it.
Scribe
12th June 2010, 14:57
I would be up for fully adjustable front and back wings. This would possibly be quite expensive, an possibly cause a few accidents. But it would have more than twice the benefits available currently, would aid overtaking add a hugley interesting technical aspect to the sport and be far less artificial then the FIA’s current plan.
matt90
12th June 2010, 0:47
I think I heard that Brundle suffered some accident in his early days which affected his abilities.
Ben
12th June 2010, 5:25
yeah, the Dallas GP that Keith wrote about a couple of days ago he broke both his legs.
In F3 he challenged Senna, and when he went to sportscars he dominated, so I think its fair to say he was a pretty good driver who had a mix of bad luck and wrong-place-wrong-time in F1.
Ned Flanders
12th June 2010, 0:48
I’m going out for the England game today so I’m going to miss the qualifying live blog unfortunately. Hopefully I’ll be back for the race.
I haven’t actually read the article yet, but that rear wing idea sounds impossible to enforce. How would you define a driver as being behind? What if a driver was both attacking one car while defending from another? etc etc
BasCB (@bascb)
12th June 2010, 11:43
Shame you wont be there on the live blog, have fun with the game (Englang – …)!
I think you are right, about the policing and complications. Also it seems pretty unfair and gets to a situation where the pass starts to be meaningles.
Another thought, instead of changing wing angles, why not just allow a standardized wing stalling device (F-ducts), they now all know how to do it and its a simple and cheap system (Withmarsh said FI spend about 100.000 Eur on theirs) for a new car and low weight.
Ned Flanders
12th June 2010, 0:57
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84314
Karun Chandok reckons he deserves a Force India drive. I disagree
Icthyes (@icthyes)
12th June 2010, 1:22
So does Mallya, according to an article Keith posted recently. D’oh!
Fer no.65
12th June 2010, 2:27
Why he deserves a FI drive?
He hasn’t done anything particularly brilliant. Not that you can show much on that HRT, but he just raced 7 races.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 2:35
He reckons he’d be good for it because having an Indian driver in an Indian Formula 1 team would be more appealing to sponsors.
However, it was widely reported that Bruno Senna had to race in Monaco with a bent chassis and he was still out-doing Chandhok.
BasCB (@bascb)
12th June 2010, 11:47
To be fair to him, he only says, that he is working to get there, and contiues saying that it would be great for getting sponsors on board.
What he actually says it, that he would love to get there next year or beyond. For the time being he is hoping on impressing as much as he can and hoping that HRT manage to do what they are planning to do with development.
Hamish
12th June 2010, 1:21
Im sorry but I am really looking forward to the day Bernie is no longer present in F1. He is the personification of “small mans syndrome” and at many times can be counterproductive to the sport.
He doesn’t want Pirelli, he doesn’t want Michelin, he wants Avon. Therefore I think next years tyres will be Avon, go figure. I even read an article a few days ago about Bridgestone selling unmarked tyres to Bernie who would then supply them to the teams with his branding on the side of it. Bernie in control of tyres, merely him tightening his stranglehold on the sport and teams.
In a sport that is looking to expand and peg back lost corporate presence and sponsorship its a no brainer to go for Pirelli and/or Michelin in that respect but also from a performance/development perspective. I know a lot of us wouldn’t complain if they both came back.
Yes I know Avon aren’t half bad but in this respect its David vs Goliath.
dsob
12th June 2010, 10:50
But Hamish, Bernie assures us that he cares not who the tire supplier is, as long as a proper deal can be cut that’s good for the teams. And you know that Bernie always has the welfare of the teams utmost in his mind.
Along that line, I’d also like to say here that I totally believe Bernie when he disclaims any involvement with the notice sent to the teams by Allsport, regarding the advertising.
CVC own Allsport, as well as Delta Topco, which CVC created to control all the ‘Formula’ companies(FOM,FOA, etc, etc). Well, actually, Delta Topco was created to own Alpha Prema, which already owned the ‘Formula’ companies. Bernie controls 3 seats on the Board of Directors of Delta Topco-one by his individual shares, one by the shares he controls of Bambino Holdings, and one through the SLEC shares he controls in CVC. (Which incidentally means that Bernie could get a letter from his superiors with his own signature on it—and there was speculation last year that CVC might fire him–silly us, silly media outlets.)
So, anyway, when Bernie says that he had nothing to do with what Allsport did, you must believe him. How could you not? As you can see, he has such a small place and so little input into things that happen in and around Formula 1.
Pete Walker
12th June 2010, 11:08
“And you know that Bernie always has the welfare of the teams utmost in his mind.”
Cheers dsob, I just laughed so hard I cried a little ;)
Hamish
12th June 2010, 11:22
Dsob I don’t even know you, but I love you.
BasCB (@bascb)
12th June 2010, 11:48
That sums up Bernies position wonderfully DSOB.
Not to mention he might have been just cheeky with the Avon comment, as he likes to be.
Icthyes (@icthyes)
12th June 2010, 2:07
It amazes me the lengths some go to to come with ideas to avoid the simple solution for promoting overtaking: less aero, more power.
Hamish
12th June 2010, 5:41
Exactly, bring back to human element to racing, make the cars more prone to mistakes. We want drivers, not pilots.
dsob
12th June 2010, 10:03
Too true. I get such a laugh when the driver misses the apex because he was busy making all the adjustments available to assure he would make the corner perfectly.
Guess they have forgotten about LOOKING at the track and actually –may I say it? — DRIVING the car!
BasCB (@bascb)
12th June 2010, 11:53
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it.
When seeing Alonso with their F-duct for the first time it made me think thats horrible, having to do so much.
But seeing Rosberg afterwards adjusting brake bias and differential before, after and even in corners shows those drivers are very far from just driving the car.
Get rid of all the methods to adjust the car each milimeter of the track and they will just have to get round with the way it is. Maximum making adjustments at the pitstops or something (stopping to have something fixed?).
Or maybe it would be better to have some of those things done by electronics instead with a limited settings map, freeing up the drivers to go on racing.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 2:18
My primary concern about adjustable rear wings is what this means for KERS. The way I see it, it’s going to be a case of either/or; any benefit an adjustable wing might offer will be negated if there is a KERS system on-board.
I also think they should tweak the tyre rules. Rather than racing on both compounds, drivers should only be obligated to use both compounds over the course of a weekend (qualifying and the race), with all drivers having to start the race on the compound (and not the actual set) they qualified on. Of course, it depends on the hard compounds being durable enough to last the entire race and the softs being grippy enough to offer an advantage large enough to warrant a pit stop. That way, you could begin qualifying on the softs and switch to hards for the race. You’d lose a shot at pole, but you could go the distace without stopping. Or you could qualify on the softs, dial out a large enough lead to make a pit stop viable, and re-join on the hards in the thick of the action.
As for third cars, I think there’s potential there. I’d make them optional (so the new teams don’t have to spend a lot of money building a third car if they don’t want to) and open up four extra places on the grid to boost the total number of cars in the race to thirty. The twenty-six regulars would always qualify, with the four fastest extra drivers in Friday practice being promoted to qualifying proper and the race. However, as third cars woud be optional, I’d also limit the number of events a team could run a third car in to a maximum of ten races.
djdaveyp
12th June 2010, 10:49
Lol “KERS System”
The RAS syndrome starts again!
We want turbos
12th June 2010, 13:52
Just like a PIN Number!
plushpile
12th June 2010, 13:10
“Rather than racing on both compounds, drivers should only be obligated to use both compounds over the course of a weekend (qualifying and the race), with all drivers having to start the race on the compound (and not the actual set) they qualified on.”
That sounds like the best set of tyre regs possible, because you always know it’s gunna be something screwey. It can’t just be “here are your tyres, do what you wish”
f1yankee
12th June 2010, 2:21
after throwing webber under the bus, crying poor-mouth (“What is massively important for us as an independent team is that costs are under control.”) and advocating a moronic gimmick (“Why do we need KERS now?”) my opinion of horner has gone from “no opinion” to “punch him in the face”.
W154
13th June 2010, 12:47
The sooner he gets back to his nude modelling job the better!!!!
Fer no.65
12th June 2010, 2:35
They banned F-ducts and now they are considering adjustable rear wings?
isn’t it (virtually) the same?
The problem is still there… aero has too much influence… even with the adjustable rear wing, it’d be the same… they already have adjustable front wings and it hardly improved the show…
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 2:45
Adjustable rear wings are a substitute. The F-duct can be used at any time, whereas adjustble rear wings can only be used under certain conditions. And I’m willing t bet that the physics of it or the effect it produces won’t be as great as that of an F-duct.
But the point of contention with the F-duct is that McLaren’s will always be superior because it was designed as a part of the car from the start. The channel that feeds it passes through the survival cell, and since those parts are homologated – fixed – for the season (except in the case of safety, which requires special dipensation from the Powers That Be to implement), the other teams cannot integrate it into their cars the way McLaren have.
bosyber
12th June 2010, 11:04
But that is only the case for this year, isn’t it? Next year, sure, McLaren has an advantage in more data, potentially, but we also don’t blame Red Bull for having an advantage in their package, from having evolved it since last year.
Mechanically adjustable rear wings sound more fragile than f-ducts. I guess for some it is an advantage that only the person behind would be able to use it, but that is a bit artificial.
What I like about f-duct idea is that it is that there is no complicated, potentially automatically adjusted and hard to check, software behind it that takes things out of the drivers control. Instead the driver has to learn when to engage it to get the best result.
HG
12th June 2010, 15:23
exactly bosyber. It seems that they want to replace one simple, ingenious and cheep (relatively); with an expensive, overly complicated device which achieves the same thing!! WTH
Lets just get to the end game. Adjustable rear wings controlled a completely neutral organization. This could be called the Changing Velocity Committee (CVC) for short. Sponsors and fans could bid by real time auctions for their driver and teams to be allowed to pass, or even perhaps take a short cut. This pinnacle of motorsport technology could be displayed in beautiful SD. Viewers could pay more for online footage which is in colour.
Toro Omrah
12th June 2010, 5:12
Q and A with Vitaly Petrov Ahahahahahahahahaha
Q: Who is your dream date?
VP: Before this season, it was obviously people in Formula One! But by now, I’ve met everybody so my interest has shifted a bit. Now I would say it would be Brad Pit
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 5:40
Are you implying someone is gay simply because he doesn’t speak the greatest English? Pretty much every other driver speaks better English than Vitaly Petrov. If you watch him during gridwalks, he usually has to ask Brundle or Coulthard or whoever is there to repeat the questions. English is a very difficult language to learn for Russians – I know; my best friend is Russian and she struggles even after four years in the country (if we’re having a conversation with a third party, I usually have to translate her English for them) – so he probably had a translator on-hand and the word “date” turned out differently to what we know it to mean.
Hamish
12th June 2010, 6:42
I think hes just having a simple laugh, nothing more.
BasCB (@bascb)
12th June 2010, 11:57
The last one interviewed (not sure, was it Hülkenberg or maybe even Lewis or Rubens?) also said he would like to talk to Tiger woods or the boxer Ali.
So those drivers just make the meaning of a “date” a little wider not to upset their girlfriends.
Macca (@macca)
12th June 2010, 12:30
I saw this on the F1 site as well, did any one see the photo that went with it, it looks like he’s doing a pose from Zoolander.
iceshiel
12th June 2010, 5:16
I kind of like the adjustable rear wing idea.
Jared404
12th June 2010, 5:44
What about a flat vertical surface at the back of the car? Between the rear wheels and vertically from the ground up to near the top of the rear wheels. (Could also be made of something to help in a crash).
The teams have done a fantastic (and expensive) job to get the airflow so good at the back of the car. But now the drivers don’t want to get in the slipstream on any corner, but getting into the slipstream is the crucial ingredient for passing in the other *cough* more entertaining *cough* forms of motor sport.
p.s. Don’t get me started about “F ducts”. Next year there will be ducts for the low pressure areas behind the front wheels, back wheels, behind the drivers helmet, mirrors, trailing edges of the suspension … there will be F’ing ducts everywhere.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 6:00
All that will do is create drag. FOTA are going in for simplified one-piece diffusers. We won’t be seeing anything sophisticated like we are this season. Plus, they’re talking about simplifying the under-car aero as well, to further reduce the effect.
And I fail to see how a flat vertical piece at the very rear of the car could be used to protect anything in a crash.
What’s your source on that? Because early reports suggest that there is going to be an absolute minimum of extra bodywork.
Also, F-ducts have nothing to do with low-pressure areas of the car. They’re designed to deploy air over the rear wing and the driver physically changes the pressure within the actual channel. The ban on F-ducts prevents driver-operated channels and the ban on moveable aero devices (except for the rear wing or whatever they decide upon) preventsanything of the like from being produced.
Hopefully the moveable edge of the rear wing will have to be a single, unbroken piece and kill the shark fin concept.
BasCB (@bascb)
12th June 2010, 11:59
Killing the shark fin concept ist the only good reason i see for dumping F-ducts.
And that would be a very good reason.
DaveW
14th June 2010, 18:58
Um, does no one remember the dreadful Handford Device used in CART in the 90s on ovals? Basically a giant wedge bolted under the wing. I created lots of draft-passing, but was abandoned for being too dangerous and too lame to bear.
IDR
12th June 2010, 6:42
Where is the Forum???!!!!
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 6:57
Go to the Commuunity tab at the top of the page. You’ll find the link to the forum there. Alternatively, just follow the link Keith provided about the Brundle topic.
Everyone else managed to work it out …
HG
12th June 2010, 15:25
“everyone else managed to work it out…”
1) an assumption
2) Is it so bad the he/she did not
3) If it was so bad, why did you take the time to answer
??
No need to be mean
Joey-Poey
12th June 2010, 6:58
Absolutely not, adjustable rear wings just for trailing cars is a big fat NO. That’s about as artificial as it gets.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 7:55
You do realise that they are only available to the drivers once they’re within a certain range of the car in front, right? I can’t just switch it on when I reach the straight and make up a two-second gap to you and your car – I have to get close enough to you first. They’re designed to compliment overtaking, not be a substitute for driver skill. They’re not different to KERS, except for the conditions which they’re available under.
UneedAFinn2Win
12th June 2010, 8:11
There seems to be a need to negate the effects of wings. The answer is simple enough, but they would lose all that sweet sponsorship space in the cars, so I call red herring, much like everything else coming out of FIA, FOTA, FOM…
It used to be silly season was about which driver goes where next year, but last few years we’ve had everyone throw everything out there. Last year GPWC, ridiculously scheduled tender for new teams, Kommandant Max’s ousting from FIA, KERS, no KERS, maybe KERS ?
This year were talking next years third cars, adjustable this, changeable that, no tires, one tire, three tires, diffusors, KERS again but the same for everyone, or not.
No wonder Kimi called it quits, he just wants to race.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 8:23
Wings are not the problem. It is the diffuser and under-chassis flow-aids that generae the wake behind a car that makes it so hard to pass.
UneedAFinn2Win
12th June 2010, 8:43
But that IS what they are doing, The F-duct is designed to stall the rear wing, the adjustable front flap this year and the adjustable rear wing proposal is to decrease drag, ergo, “negate the effects of wings”.
They cannot/will not change the airflow from under the car being overtaken, so they try to change the air flowing over the car doing the overtaking.
I first wrote “negate the negative effect of wings”, but that sounded too… negative ;)
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
12th June 2010, 8:57
Actually, some of the other rules that have been proposed are really tight. There’s apparntly going to be a very limited amount of room to change the rear wing, add-ons like the vertical fins in front of the sidepods are said to be going out, and adjustable front wings will be scrapped.
While the point of the adjustable rear wing is to change the airflow over the car, the wings cannot be adjusted unless it is on a pursuing car within range of the car it is chasing. It can’t just be turned on whenever a driver feels like it. And there has been nothing to suggest that activating an F-duct makes a car harder to pass bcause it alters the wake – it makes a car harder to pass because it makes the car drive faster. But that’s not an issue because a car being pursued cannot use an adjustable wing.
The teams have to develop cars that are fast first and foremost. They cannot deliberately design cars that are difficult to overtake, because that will just produce a car that isn’t as fast as it could be.
dsob
12th June 2010, 9:57
Can’t weave to break the tow, just have to let him slingshot you. Now a moveable wing for the overtaker, but not the overtakee.
K, here’s the ultimate solution: Just put headlights on the cars, like in Le Mans–roll up behind a car, flash your lights and the other car must pull over to the grass verge and let you go on. (Admit it, it isn’t any stupider than some of the other ideas the teams/FiA have had, lol)
Seems like that’s what F1 is headed for. Too simple to simply change the chassis design to reduce aero by 80% or so, and run wider tires with better-tuned suspension. Oh, and hire drivers with big brass B@LLS ! F1 has refined itself to the point of being effeminate.
We want turbos
12th June 2010, 11:20
It’s not just overtaking we want!!! We want battles!! Not walk overs do they not understand! As it’s the world cup it’s only appropriate to use it! Would you rather watch Brazil v Spain or Brazil v Honduras! Making overtaking easy isn’t the solution allowing the cars to get closer is!! I still believe it’s the front wing that need to be made simpler, just ban any endplates and only allow 1 piece!
HounslowBusGarage (@hounslowbusgarage)
12th June 2010, 13:22
If the FIA make a change – large change – to the rules for the next season, do they ‘test’ them first? Do they have access to F1 cars that they can adapt to see what affect the rule changes would have?
We want turbos
12th June 2010, 13:50
Simple answer-No.
Ads21 (@ads21)
12th June 2010, 20:35
Did nobody want to do a “Why you should watch… Le Mans 24 hrs”? I was expecting there would be one popping up today or yesterday but apparently not. Although Tom’s excellent article on the triple crown did kinda plug Le Mans. I’m split between it and the Football atm, you can watch Le Mans here:
http://stream.speedtv.com/24-hours-of-le-mans/
James_mc
13th June 2010, 14:43
Why didn’t I see this earlier!
I’m not sure, I was half-expecting one but didn’t someone to an ALMS series one as one of the earlier ones?