In the round-up: Red Bull team principal Christian Horner says Red Bull is close to Ferrari on race pace.
Improved interactive race data charts
You may have noticed over the Australian Grand Prix some enhancements have been made to F1 Fanatic’s interactive race data charts. These weren’t mentioned at the time as not all the desired changes were implemented in time for the articles to go live. The final changes have now been added retroactively to the interactive lap times chart here:
The charts have been slightly enlarged, you can now zoom in and out on both axis and view a deeper level of magnification than before. You can also toggle how much data is displayed to focus only on the drivers which interest you.
I hope you find the revised charts an improvement. They will be rolled out in full across forthcoming articles.
Go ad-free for just £1 per month
>> Find out more and sign up
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more from hundreds of sites across the web:
Red Bull 'really encouraged' by Melbourne pace (ESPN)
"Certainly the third fastest car in the race and not too far from Ferrari kind of pace, so those were the real positive aspects of the race for us."
Lewis Hamilton slams new Formula 1 engines for being too quiet (The Mirror)
"There’s zero difference. I don’t think it sounds good at all."
F1 decision-making has to change - Hamilton (Autosport)
"They'll probably give us more downforce and the tyres won't be any better and you'll see the exact same race next year."
Alonso: Crash should be used in Halo considerations (F1i)
"I didn’t think of that. We need to think of scenarios and the consequences. I got out of the car quickly and easily and we need to see if there is a difference (with Halo)."
Daniel Ricciardo waited until after Australian GP to see replays of Fernando Alonso’s crash (Fox Sports)
"You don’t want to watch something and then, if you’ve got a chance to make a similar move, you don’t want to think twice."
A great loss for James Allison (Ferrari)
"Our colleague James Allison has suffered the sudden loss of his beloved wife Rebecca."
‘Gap year’ pays off for patient Haas (Crash)
"We wanted to go racing in 2015 but I look back and there is so much complexity to the sport that the extra year gave us the ability to come here and have everything in place to be competitive over the five years."
Fernando Alonso's F1 crash: Would the halo have trapped him? (BBC)
"The screen is one of the biggest potential problems with the Red Bull device - it is unclear whether this would cause visibility problems as a result of collecting debris or in wet weather."
Qualifying shambles shows F1 is its own worst enemy (Motorsport)
"Teams backed the idea of elimination qualifying not because they wanted it, and not because the fans wanted it - the GPDA Global Fan Survey showed us that last year - but because it was done to avoid a push from Bernie Ecclestone for reverse grids or time ballast."
Got a tip for a link to feature in the next F1 Fanatic round-up? Send it in here:
Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:
Verstappen says he was much quicker than Sainz in Melbourne. Was he? Compare them: https://t.co/gtW1dhUexC #F1 pic.twitter.com/C9AQ7PqTrZ
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) March 22, 2016
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
Is the tyre management Hamilton complains about in F1 today no different to what we had three decades ago?
What is ironic about Hamilton’s comments about tyre management is that I was just watching my season review video of 1985 (because I’m an F1 Fanatic of course) and race 1 Rio was narrated by Prost, the winner. Corner one, loses a place to Senna but doesn’t care because he says he is ‘managing the tyres’. He then slowly picks off the guys in front as his tyres come into their own. Wins the race and credits his car and tyre management
Has F1 changed? Or have we changed? Thoughts?
By the way he credited his team for a fast pit stop of only 11 seconds!
Mark Young (@terry-fabulous)
More new pictures of Audi’s stunning R18 LMP1 car for the 2016 World Endurance Championship here:
From the forum
Happy birthday to Cacarella, James Newnham, Tommyc and George!
If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.
On this day in F1
The 1986 season began on this day 30 years at Jacarepagua. The Brazilian Grand Prix saw a one-two for home drivers Nelson Piquet and Ayrton Senna, the latter having collided with Piquet’s team mate Nigel Mansell on the first lap.
70 comments on “Red Bull close to Ferrari pace – Horner”
23rd March 2016, 0:05
Awful news for James Allison. I’m sure that the thoughts of the entire F1 community are with him.
23rd March 2016, 0:08
I was completely shocked when I heard the news on twitter
Fudge Ahmed (@)
23rd March 2016, 1:38
Very sad. Thoughts are with this brilliant man at this time.
23rd March 2016, 8:57
23rd March 2016, 14:38
bull mello (@bullmello)
23rd March 2016, 16:31
My heart goes out to James Allison and his family. Speaking from experience, this is a loss you never truly get over. Grief is probably the most complex human emotion, but it can help to know that so many are supporting you and praying for you.
23rd March 2016, 0:06
About COTD I get that there always an element of saving tires and fuel but I think we have gone too far now. I mean the drivers fear getting off the racing because the tires get damaged from the marbles on track and the tyres wont last more than one qualy lap. IMO tire management has gone too far and we need tires that are a bit more durable and allow the drivers to race
23rd March 2016, 6:58
Without seeing the race Prost saved his tyres out of choice and strategy. With the current tyres at times you have to as you have no other option. Drivers should be able to do either and have similar-ish results.
Thats why a tyre war is so good as the tyres are on the limit from both manufactures. Thats why 2005 produced such good racing. They had to last but they had to be quick! perfect!
Red Lebanese (@redlebanese)
26th March 2016, 22:58
Well said. I remember MSC describing tire management on the Pirellis as “driving on eggshells” which I think sums it up perfectly.
23rd March 2016, 7:26
Exactly. Saving tyres in order to pounce later on is different from saving tyres just to stay in the race. If you know you can lean on your tyres, you can choose when to attack. If you have to nurse your tyres throughout the race you might not be able to attack at all.
Mick Harrold (@mickharrold)
23rd March 2016, 8:09
Are they saving tyres just to stay in the race. Or is it just that now the understanding of tyres, fuel and so on is so much greater than it was back then. Previously, it was an unknown and the driver just managed them. If he thought his back left was a bit soft, he slowed down for a bit, but it was a guess. Now they have so much more at their disposal to determine this, but that means that they can push harder in the knowledge that the data will mean that they won’t go too far. Tyres will always go off. Teams will always fill their cars with the minimum fuel possible. Now they can manage that and make sure it isn’t going to cost them a race.
One thing that people often gloss over is the reliability of these new cars. It used to be a given that half the field was going to retire from mechanical problems. Now they have sensors for everything. That means the drivers, teams and media now focus more on this. Previously, it was only a guess until the race was over. I don’t know the figures, but I would expect that apart from crashes, 85% of the field finish the race now each race. Little more than a decade ago, that figure was probably close to 50%. There was nothing more frustrating than seeing your favourite driver put in a stellar performance only for his car to fail 2 laps from the finish. Yeah, it added to the “Unpredictability” that F1 is looking for now, but as a fan, car retirements are boring.
Tyre and fuel management will always be a part of our sport. There is no point trying to think of a time when it won’t be. The aim of the game is to push everything to the limit, so we will never see a time when managing everything isn’t required.
Having said all of that, I like the 3 tyres thing going on now. It gives teams more options to explore. Melbourne showcased that after the red flag. You want tyres that last longer, put on the mediums. You want to push harder, put on the Super Softs. It brings back the unknown element to the choice. The choice is for the team and they may well get it wrong as Ferrari did. It adds that “unpredictability” that they want without leading to retirements. Choose carefully. But, no exploding tyres please!
23rd March 2016, 12:00
The reply to the COTD should have been the COTD as it explained the difference between the tire management that Prost was doing and what we have today.
22nd May 2016, 21:39
I think many of you ignore that even we had the same exact tyres as Prost days, Prost wouldn’t be able to do what he did because if the best tactic was to get faster at the end of the race was to save tyres like Prost did instead of attacking, then all the drivers will be doing the same as Prost because modern teams had a gazillion of data and they would have figure it out and all the cars will be tyre saving with the fans getting angry like they do today.
23rd March 2016, 14:40
I think about all the time… the difference might be the extent of present day management but we will always will have some sort of tyre management in F1.
23rd March 2016, 0:09
“Daniel Ricciardo waited until after Australian GP to see replays of Fernando Alonso’s crash”
Wait, do drivers have video monitors i side the cars?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
23rd March 2016, 9:24
No but there’s video screens all around the circuit and monitors on the pit walls on which he would have been able to see it if he wanted to.
23rd March 2016, 9:42
I was confused by that too for a second, it’s referring to during the red flag.
23rd March 2016, 0:12
Such sad news about James Allison. My heart goes out to him.
23rd March 2016, 0:21
Hey Keith, in the new charts, there seems to be no option to select all or deselect all drivers (at least while checking on chrome on Android) .. I end up doing that individually. Any way that could be changed?
23rd March 2016, 9:12
Could it have something to do with how the chart is made, as in it can’t be completely empty? If you de-select drivers one-by-one you can not delete the last driver.. there always has to be one. Which is slightly annoying if you first compare two drivers and then some other two (delete-add-add-delete and not delete-delete-add-add).
Also it might be just me but I’d like the driver lists to be sorted in alphatetical order of drivers last names. It always takes me a while to remember first names in race predictions and these charts..
But yeah these are really not big deals, are they :)
23rd March 2016, 0:36
These engines are locked in until 2020 at the earliest aren’t they? In any case, everything they’ve tried to make them sound more exciting has failed so there’s not much point complaining about it now, we just have to put up with it.
I do find it amusing how so many advertisements for F1 and sponsors still use the old V8 sounds, it’s clear that to the public (and by extension marketing people) the sound of the old engines was part of F1’s identity.
23rd March 2016, 1:14
Indeed, @george, it seems we are stuck, and you can’t polish a turd.
I have also noticed that many adverts and promotions still use the old F1 sound. Another thing that springs to mind, I think it was at last year’s Austin GP, there was a demo in the city center using a V8 Red Bull, which got a lot of folks excited enough to buy tickets to visit the race. I heard that many were rather unamused by what they got at the circuit…….
So, yes, we seem to be stuck with the tanks until at least 2020. What frustrates me the most is that these viscerally underwhelming cars are actually not effectively more efficient, since they are now so relatively heavy. I can’t believe really just how fundamentally F1 has lost its way.
Fudge Ahmed (@)
23rd March 2016, 1:41
Say what you want about the noise but the technology and efficiency behind these things is absolutely bleeding edge. They are ‘effectively’ far, far, FAR more efficient.
But F1 shouldn’t have to be a posterchild for efficiency, that’s the frustration.
23rd March 2016, 7:49
F1 is about being the fastest, hard racing and (why not) latest tech… and that’s all! Give me a break with your efficiency, tyre management, low noises etc. These cars are not road legal by no means, so why mention/compare them in the same sentence next to road cars?!? I thought Le Mans was invented to test tyre management, fuel efficiency, car parts resistency etc etc. If you want tyre management, efficiency… go watch Le Mans. If F1 is too loud for you… go watch Formula E or lawnmower racing. If you like so much smaller engines (4,6-cylinder), again… go watch Le Mans or Formula Renault Clio. Really simple. But, from a race for street-related cars (don’t forget it was mandatory at Le Mans for cars to have a trunk, spare wheel etc), Le Mans got to the point where it has fewer and fewer things in common with street cars, while F1 wants to be road-relevant more and more. This is nuts and makes no sense at all.
23rd March 2016, 11:20
you do realise the v8s could have been made efficient too with the same technology.
23rd March 2016, 13:24
kpcart: By “the same technology” do you mean turbochargers, energy capture and release? The thing is that the engines are quieter *because* they are more efficient. If you let them make more noise “for the show”, they will be less efficient.
23rd March 2016, 8:38
paulguitar, the reason for using the old V8 engined cars is because, being technologically obsolete, the constraints on using them for demonstration events are markedly looser than using a post 2014 spec car.
Whilst using a post 2014 spec car isn’t entirely out of the question, the FIA tightly regulates the procedures to make sure teams are not abusing the rules around promotional events, such as photo shoots, to surreptitiously test new parts (which some teams were accused of doing in the past). Using the older cars is more attractive from a logistical point of view simply because it is so much easier to do so.
23rd March 2016, 1:40
I’d rather than interesting & powerful but quieter engines that actually challenge the driver over the boring, less powerful, torque-less, easier to drive but loud V8’s that we had to suffer through before the current formula.
I also still don’t get the fascination with volume because how loud a noise an engine makes doesn’t equate in any way to how powerful it is or how challenging it is to drive. These current V6 turbo’s are more powerful than the V8’s & the V10’s according to actual f1 engineer’s who you know have all of the data so the arguments that they are crap just because they are quieter is in my view stupid.
I have attended races over various engine formula’s since the 1970s & the volume was never once something that affected my enjoyment of attending the races, What affects my enjoyment is how much close racing we see, how spectacular the cars look as there been raced around & for me watching drivers actually having to manage how they put the power on because of the power/torque of these wonderful power units is far more spectacular than watching them easily put there foot down with those awful torque-less v8s.
i personally hated the v8s, not just because of how uninspiring they were but also because of the sound which was awful. yes fine it was loud but it was nothing more, they all sounded the same, they all sounded flat & dull & were genuinely uninspiring. and how can you claim to like a sound that you can’t even actually hear because its so loud you have to wear ear protection?
my young daughter hated going to f1 races under the v8’s because she hated the need for ear protection & hated not been able to talk to her family/friends around her… now she loves going to the races because she can listen to & enjoy the sound without having to wear ear protection & she can talk to those around her & i have seen many other parents make the same comments with regards to there young kids.
if all you want is a very loud noise then maybe take an ipod to races with you & play a sample of somebody screaming at full blast because thats exactly what those awful v8s sounded like!
hopefully this engine formula stays around long term & they are allowed to get even more powerful & even more of a challenge for drivers as the power & torque become even more of a handful than they already are!
oh and just in response to lewis, i was at the 2nd barcelona test and the engines are noticeably louder this year, from trackside at least. just using the db app on my cell phone was showing them 8db up on last year where i stood in the same place with the same phone & same app.
23rd March 2016, 2:50
I suspect there are many of us here that have also attended a lot of races that would unequivocally say the volume played a huge role in the enjoyment of the event.
Almost rather like music, when feeling the rumble in your body and hearing the fluttering revs tell the tale of a driver’s foot on the knife edge of controlling such a monstrous beast. For sure v10s and v12s were good but even the old v6 turbos from the 80s sounded awesome to me too.
I agree with you about watching good racing being maybe the most important part – but there’s that primitive-like love for loud deep engine noise that has helped to make racing what it is for a lot of fans – and all automobiles for that matter.
ColdFly F1 (@)
23rd March 2016, 9:58
How quickly we forget – at least I do.
I recall my first GP (Brazil 1996) with the 3.0L V12’s unrestricted RPM’s. I was actually disappointed about the sound. The scream was much higher than I expected; not what I expected a ‘masculine’ F1 car to be. But then it grew on me and I have not stopped being fan of F1.
I also recall the years of blown exhaust V8’s. Cars were still screaming, although more of a rumble-screaming, but it had this annoying sputtering. I did not like it at all, but got used to it as well.
And along came Melbourne 2014; I missed the loud noises telling the city that F1 had arrived. It was something I had to get used to as well. Although I thought it was funny that this was the first GP where spectators were not using the earplugs (I never used them) and could finally hear what they came for un-muffled.
I’m not sure if the V6TH’s have gotten a lot louder, but they sound more ‘normal’ representing F1 the longer I hear them.
PS all beware when we move to the hybrid in-line 3’s. It will be another ‘get used to’ cycle.
Captain Pie (@captainpie)
23rd March 2016, 19:43
Great comment, if you only watch formula 1 for the noise than you are doing it wrong!
Understanding F1 is made up of many different parts, and being able to appreciate them in their own way is the sign of a great fan ;-)
23rd March 2016, 3:20
Absolutely love your comments about the engine sound equating to nothing. In 2014 when the v6’s were introduced, I was very pleased that I can have a conversation at the race track and my kids weren’t going to suffer hearing loss from the engine noise. Last year, 2015 the engines were a bit louder. I needed to pause in conversation while the cars were close but in my mind any louder will become annoying and harmful though I appreciate the noise as being ‘a part of F1’. Great comment and thanks for scientifically reporting the increase in engine noise this year.
23rd March 2016, 5:56
Having the engines so loud is not something I have ever experienced as I have never been to a race in person. I still “fanatically” follow F1 though. If the noise is so important to some followers of the sport then is there an option in the future to go back to the V8’s without the turbos but include the current technology we have such as the Kers, MGU-K and MGU-H etc?
23rd March 2016, 6:39
No option for that.. All f1 engine makers focus on turnocharging their road cars aswell.
It is the way to go, when it comes to efficiency. And simply making more power.
23rd March 2016, 4:28
Spot on Roger re the noise. The volume from the F1 V8’s (and earlier engines) provided initial shock and awe. Beyond that, sustained incredible noise doesn’t do much for many people.
Watching at Albert Park the last few years, I find the lower noise level much more enjoyable. You can hear the crowd when something significant happens, you can hear more of the commentary, the kids cope better. An old twin seater V10 on a demonstration lap to provide a bit of ‘wow’ gets the job done.
A comparison to 2016 volumes compared to 2015? I thought last year that F1 was noticeably quieter than the V8 Supercars, and that this year they seemed to be on a par. So I think that there is a moderate volume increase for spectators this year. For me, a further increase in volume would detract from a few hours at the event.
23rd March 2016, 9:32
I watched an old V10 race last night, I found the high-pitched whine really irritating!
23rd March 2016, 10:49
I can’t believe you keep referring to ‘awful’ V8’s. They were not quite as good as the V10’s that proceeded them, but were a sound to get the soul stirred for my race fans and petrol heads. If it was too loud for the kids, I think that us quite appropriate. F1 was scary.
I agree that more torque is great and more of a challenge, but we could still have that with an engine that sounds like a race engine. Obviously I have a very different opinion to many here, but I found the site of people chit-chatting away as 22 F1 cars came part them at the start of a GP rather depressing.
Also, what’s the point of having a load of torque if the drivers are unable to go anywhere near the capabilities of the cars for fear of wrecking their ridiculous tyres? Plus, the cars are now over a hundred kilos heaver than the old normally aspirated cars, this is NOT efficient!
There is no way I would part with several hundred pounds for a race weekend to see these heavyweights plodding around on race day on clown tyres, lapping at 7 seconds off the pole time and sounding pathetic too. Having been to over 30 GP’s in the past, I feel very sad about that. I miss F1.
23rd March 2016, 11:37
paulguitar, why is it that you necessarily assume that everybody will equate what you define as a race engine to high pitched, high revving engines? To those from the 1980’s, the turbocharged cars of that era were quieter than the Cosworth V8’s that preceded them or the normally aspirated engines that came afterwards, and few complained at the time that they didn’t sound like race engines.
Whilst you might think of the V8 engines as stirring, to others the sound of those engines was a painful tuneless thrashing – a tale of sound and fury that meant nothing. I find it quite peculiar that you find it so difficult to understand that, for some, the sound of the V8 engines was not pleasant to listen to – not everybody found the high pitched shrieking of those engines enjoyable, and many found them to have few redeeming qualities beyond volume (and, as you can see, there are those who found that quality to be nothing positive either).
With regards to your complaints about the time differential between qualifying and race trim, firstly the time differential is closer to around 5 seconds rather than 7 seconds. Equally, that is, by historical standards, quite normal – if you look back to the 1990’s just before the refuelling restrictions were dropped, the time differential between race and qualifying trim tended to be similar to what it is now. I presume, from your tone, that the races that you went to were in the era when refuelling was permitted?
23rd March 2016, 12:08
My GP visits were between 1987 and 2014. Over 30 race weekends in all. So, the first cars I heard were turbos, I distinctly remember though in 1988 we had a mix of turbo and N/A.
It is a fallacy that nobody complained about the sounds of turbos first time around. Whilst the 1980’s turbos were considerably more impressive than what we have now, most still thought they were not a patch, aurally, on the N/A engines, and many were delighted when the turbos were outlawed. Having said that, there was something really fantastic about having engines that could push 1500BHP in qualifying trim!
I accept there has always been a difference between pole times and race lap times, but I have never seen F1 cars being driven as far from their potential as they are currently. They just don’t look like they are anywhere near the limit most of the time. My girlfriend recently found a video of Daniel Riciardo driving a kart, and said it looked much, much more ‘full-on’ than watching F1, and that sort of sums this up for me.
I accept that the old-school noisy F1 was a bit much for some, but for many it was fundamentally part of what F1 is all about that it is a source of continued disappointment that what we have now are quiet, low revving, slow, heavy, can’t overtake, (so we get DRS), and have clown tyres.
I am sorry for the rant. I have never been more sad about the state of the sport that has been such a big part of my life.
23rd March 2016, 11:28
that is your oppion, good for you, but the number that prefer loud and high reving outweighs your view. you can see it in the fact that the FIA are trying to get the engines to sound louder, because they know a huge amount of fans don’t like this sound, Hamilton hates it, and he is driving the fastest car so shouldn’t care, but does! F1 is losing fans with the current sound. to someone like you, you care about racing, but F1 was for the last 3 decades also about being a “spectacle” of sight and sound, that is what drew the audiences.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
23rd March 2016, 12:23
We did a poll on this when the new engines first came in and while there were indeed some who felt the sound wasn’t right more were happy with it.
23rd March 2016, 12:51
@keithcollantine you can only say that more respondents in your survey were “happy” with the sound if you include those who described the sound as “average” which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Meanwhile, Autosport’s recent and very detailed F1 survey attracted more than 35,000 respondents. A substantial majority of those who had heard the cars trackside did not think they were loud enough. A smaller majority were not in favour of the current 1.6 litre hybrid formula. And the majority of the respondents disagreed with the notion that F1 should be environmentally friendly.
Of course, we can argue the numbers back and forth all day long, but there is no denying that a very substantial proportion of F1’s fan base are dissatisfied with the current engine regulations.
23rd March 2016, 12:53
Here are the Autosposrt survey results I’m referring to:-
23rd March 2016, 13:56
@tdog Quickly scrolling through the Autosport link, I can’t see a question on engine volume, which question are you referring to?
On the other hand I did find a question in which 90.1% of respondents said that F1 should be at the cutting edge of technology. The problem is the answers to the questions are internally inconsistent. We want more noise and different engine regulations but also want to be at the cutting edge at the same time? The problem is even the fans themselves don’t know what it is they actually want.
Also fascinating that the most popular decades were 90s and 00s, but in both of those decades just about everything you read was about how rubbish F1 had become and how much less good than the 70s and 80s. The problem is that the popularity is probably driven more by when respondents first watched F1 and nostalgia for that decade then when it was actually best. This same nostalgia seems to work with the engines too, when the V8s first came in the internet was awash with complaints about the horrific sound, now we’re told (I suspect by some of the exact same commenters) that they long for the great V8 sound.
23rd March 2016, 12:48
Why oh why do all people think noise equals spectacle? If you look at the early 2000s, the reason these cars look so spectacular is not the noise- it’s the fact they are not travelling along huge tarmac wastelands with stripes on them. There is no going of track because gowing of track means shunting. Also, the perception of speed is much more intense if there are things to put the speed into context. (i.e. NOT 3 miles of runoff)
If you want spectacle, have proper tracks. But yeah, after Alonso’s crash we have probably seen the last of graveltraps and grass.
23rd March 2016, 13:27
It ADDS to the spectacle. Of course, there are other considerations too!
23rd March 2016, 9:14
The main problems are the MGU-H and the fuel-flow. The fuel-flow kills any real ability to rev, and the MGU-H takes any energy out of the exhaust pipe to such an extent that we really now only have a wastegate for safety.
I’m sure a lot of you guys will remember the small capacity V6 twin-turbo’s from years gone by. No MGU-H, little in the way of fuel limits, very few really complained about engine noise then. Or more specifically, pitch!
I’m not for 1 second suggesting we go back to those days, but a small capacity V6 turbo, no MGU-H, increase in fuel-flow and a more powerful KERS system would certainly tick the boxes for me.
We’re running a 120kW hybrid architecture atm, Formula E’s is at 200kW and that series is still in nappies. MM are looking at pushing for 300kW, so I’d like to see F1 get involved in that and have a two-way technology transfer between the 2 series on the batteries/MGU-K front. That’d benefit ALL parties and effectively double the VFM for the manufacturers on their investment.
Either way, these engines are too quiet, too heavy, too complex, and too expensive. Something will be done about that ready for post-2020.
23rd March 2016, 12:12
@thef1engineer, the thing is, the V6 engines from the 1980’s revved to even lower rev limits than the modern engines do (Ferrari’s V6 from the 1980’s, for example, was limited to 11,500rpm). I also wouldn’t blame the MGU-H for muffling the exhaust note when the turbochargers themselves are also extracting energy from the exhaust stream and muffling the exhaust note.
Equally, I would also argue that the cost of the current engines, by historical standards, is not necessarily that high. Inflation adjusted, the first generation of the V8 engines were more expensive than the current engines and only came down in price because the manufacturers were forced to cap the price of the V8 engines below the production cost. Renault Sport, for example, were spending €120 million a year on their engines in 2013 but made a €60 million a year loss due to the cost cap preventing them from recouping the true cost of the V8 engines, so even a fairly simple engine with a simple KERS unit bolted onto it was still a fairly expensive endeavour.
23rd March 2016, 0:55
Renders are not pictures, Keith ;)
23rd March 2016, 5:34
@beejis60 According to my dictionary, a picture is “a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a painting, drawing, photograph, etc, however produced”, and that sure looks like a picture to me :)
23rd March 2016, 6:42
I’m guessing @beejis60 has conflated “picture” and “photograph” as that picture of the Audi is, quite obviously, a picture.
23rd March 2016, 6:13
Of course a render is a picture, a as paulT said paintings or drawings are pictures too.
You’re thinking of a photo, a photo is also a picture, but a render is not a photo.
23rd March 2016, 1:01
Devastating news about James Allisons wife.. should not happen to good people.
23rd March 2016, 6:52
Firstly RIP Rebbeca Alison, condolences to entire family.
Now to safety Halo, wouldnt rolling the car be a prime example when Halo would help not sustain injury? When was the last time F1 cockpit cought fire in a crash? Have you seen those wheels banging around? I would rather be burning for 20 seconds upsidedown than be hit on my head with a 400mm rear wheel at 300kph. To me it seemed dangerous how Fernando ran out of the car, what if another car came crashing in?
ColdFly F1 (@)
23rd March 2016, 10:17
that’s why we have roll-loops.
Melbourne 2016 – not a crash, but a minor scare if you have to exit more ‘vertically’ due to a Halo
Yes! and the tethers worked wonderfully so the wheels could not reach the cockpit or any bystanders!
ColdFly F1 (@)
23rd March 2016, 10:18
23rd March 2016, 11:20
When was the last time an F1 driver was hit in the head by a wheel?
Tony Hamilton (@tonybananas)
23rd March 2016, 13:22
I can’t remember, 2009 Henry Surtees in F2 is the last I can recall. The problem is when it does occur it means instant death, so while the frequency is low, the consequences are extremely serious which heightens the risk. Risk analysis involves impact as well as likelihood of occurrence.
John H (@john-h)
23rd March 2016, 7:12
CoTD should be the excellent reply by GTracer in my humble opinion. Tyre management is not the same today as it was in Prost’s era.
23rd March 2016, 11:28
@john-h Yep, @GTracer gave us all a wonderful reply yesterday to the COTD
23rd March 2016, 7:47
Heart goes out to Allison in what is surely a trying time for him. Thoughts and well wishes to him and his family.
Has anyone looked into why smoke was coming off Lewis car whenever he started all through quali and definitely at the start on race day? Or was I just seeing my own things?
23rd March 2016, 8:44
The well-made graph shows Sainz is within 1s of Verstappen in the first 6 laps after the restart and in their first stint, Sainz’s pace was effectively Massa’s pace.
23rd March 2016, 10:03
So Lewis doesn’t think the starts, noise or communication have changed, huh? It’s like he doesn’t even notice change. Gives me an idea for a meme… How about “Nonplussed Lewis” (working title)
23rd March 2016, 10:05
I like Lewis and have nothing against him or his sudden obsession with his phone. It’s late and I felt like a fun Photoshop project. Enjoy.
23rd March 2016, 10:41
That was amusing.
23rd March 2016, 11:22
Tommy C (@tommy-c)
23rd March 2016, 11:00
Thanks for the birthday shout out! I effectively celebrated it at the track over the weekend. I’ll post some photos to the forum once I’ve finished processing them all! Had a great view of turns 15 and 16 which was rather eventful this year!
23rd March 2016, 11:34
nobody want to sell their engine to Red Bull now :D
Mick Harrold (@mickharrold)
23rd March 2016, 15:10
Actually, I bet every engine manufacturer in the world would give them and engine if they produce one. Except Merc and Ferrari. Those guys won’t because they are afraid of their factory teams being disgraced by a customer with a better car showing them up. Heck, they wouldn’t even give them last years engine. Like or hate Red Bull and there are many reasons to hate them, but they very are good. The fact that their car finished within cooee of the Ferrari and Merc in Melbourne is cause for concern by them. It does look like Red Bull might have the best chassis on the field this year and by some margin. There engine is costing them about 1.2 seconds per lap, but they are only about 0.6 seconds back in race trim. Renault is very luck to have them as a partner and they may win races later in the year as a result of their chassis. The Renault Factory team can’t hope to be that close for at least a few more years.
Mick Harrold (@mickharrold)
23rd March 2016, 15:01
Late notice on this one, but as an Aussie viewer, why does Foxtel now have ads during the races. I pay good money not to have ads.
I hope this was just an Australian race thing. Big home race, so ads to maximise profit? Last year there were no ads ever. Now that they have all of the races and channel 10 just has 10 races, are they going to bring in ads for all races? I swore at the TV a lot during the Melbourne race even though the footage was still on the screen with no commentary. If there are ads in the following races, I might have to track down Rupert and throw a shoe at him.
Comments are closed.