View Poll Results: Who will win?
Felipe Massa
0
0%
Nico Rosberg
0
0%
Nick Heidfeld
0
0%
Vitaly Petrov
0
0%
Rubens Barichello
0
0%
Pastor Maldanodo
0
0%
Adrian Sutil
0
0%
Kamui Kobayashi
0
0%
Sergio Perez
0
0%
Sebastien Buemi
0
0%
Jamie Algersuari
0
0%
Jarno Trulli
0
0%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll
2011 British Grand Prix
07-14-2011, 10:28 AM
#196
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
07-14-2011, 10:40 AM
#197
Rennlist Member
I'm in, lets just say $20 that way you can buy what you like. I'm a beer drinker, don't like wine or the hard stuff. I don't see a need for someone else to hold the money, I won't welch and they can ban me if I do.
Wilhelm picks Vettel to win more races than Alonso from Germany forward
Raj picks Alonso to win more races than Vettel from Germany forward.
We good?
Wilhelm picks Vettel to win more races than Alonso from Germany forward
Raj picks Alonso to win more races than Vettel from Germany forward.
We good?
$20 it is. Agreed, we don't need an escrow
.
07-14-2011, 10:43 AM
#198
Rennlist Member
Q & A: FIA on blown diffuser rules
Thursday, July 14th 2011, 12:31 GMT
Conducted and provided by the FIA.
Q. This issue arose shortly before the Spanish Grand Prix. Was it initiated by the FIA or did it come from an F1 team?
A: The matter was initiated by the FIA when facts concerning some quite extreme, and hitherto unseen, engine mapping began to emerge. We were concerned that exhaust tailpipes were being positioned and engine maps created with the primary objective of improving in the aerodynamic performance of the car. Prior to that it had been assumed that any aerodynamic benefits were incidental to the primary purpose of the engine and its exhausts, i.e. that of generating torque.
Q. Why did you decide to act?
A: We decided to act as, not only did we consider such extreme mapping to be arguably illegal, but also if such freedom was left unchecked it would result in the teams incurring significant further development costs during the season.
Q. Is the off-throttle blown diffuser illegal under the 2011 technical regulations?
A: We certainly consider them to be questionable, however, the key is whether or not we consider any particular engine map to have been created for any other reason than the generation of engine torque.
Q. Is its illegality an unforeseen side-effect of the rule to ban F-Ducts?
A: No, the two are unconnected.
Q. Why was it not possible to simple introduce blanket limits on hot and cold-blowing and apply them equally to every car?
A: This is precisely what we attempted to do in the first communication to the teams on 12 May. However, it soon became apparent that the matter was more complex than initially thought. The main problem was the difficulty of ensuring that teams were not prevented from using existing legitimate strategies whilst ensuring that the extreme mapping was no longer possible. This is why we postponed the introduction of the measures until the British Grand Prix.
There are also a number of other mechanical factors to take into account such as the architecture of the engine throttles themselves (butterfly or barrel operation).
Q. What were the measures that were introduced for the European Grand Prix in Valencia?
A: Whilst examining the engine maps from several teams it became clear that extreme solutions were being used for short times in qualifying and then being changed for more durable solutions for the race. The felt that this was certainly against the spirit of the parc ferme regulations but, more importantly, the relevant regulations simply do not allow changes to be made whilst the cars were being held under parc ferme conditions, connections to the car may be made and electronic units freely accessed, however, no changes to the set-up of the car can be made.
We therefore informed the teams on 14 June that we would take these measures in Valencia, this was done and cars run accordingly with very few difficulties.
Q. Why was the matter still being discussed over the weekend of the British Grand Prix, and why did the clarification change from Friday to Saturday?
A: The matter was still being discussed because one engine manufacturer (Renault Sport) was reluctant to run with the settings we had imposed and continued to try and convince us that they would require alternative settings in order to maintain their perfect reliability record. At the last minute additional information was provided to us which we felt would be hard to refuse having already made a small concession to another manufacturer (Mercedes Benz HPE).
However, further discussions on Friday evening and Saturday morning resulted in us deciding that we had conceded too much and, to be fair to the manufacturers who had presented cars in what we considered the correct configuration, we should revert to the specification we had specified in our note to the teams on 20 June. This is how all teams then ran on Saturday and Sunday in Silverstone.
Q. What was the purpose of holding two Technical Working Group meetings in Silverstone?
A: Following the events of Friday the FIA President felt that it would be useful to have an open discussion in order to see if consensus could be reached. Following these two meetings there was unanimous agreement among the teams to revert to the engine mapping regime used in Valencia, i.e. freedom on settings but no changes to the maps between qualifying and race.
This was felt to be the most sensible solution to a very complicated matter as the possibility of finding an alternative solution, which would be fair to all engine manufacturers, was becoming increasingly unlikely.
Q. If the FIA had not acted, would there have been a protest?
A: As all the teams had reached consensus there would have been no point in doing so.
Q. Has the matter now been settled?
A: Yes, and all cars will run under 'Valencia' conditions for the remainder of the season.
Q. Are there likely to be any protests now that this matter seems to have been settled?
A: We are optimistic that there will be no protests over any engine mapping and exhaust tailpipe issues this season. In addition to the main part of the agreement reached in the TWG meetings it was also agreed that no team would raise a protest against another on these matters for the rest of the season.
Q. What will happen in 2012 and beyond?
A: The teams have already agreed to strict constraints on exhaust tailpipe position which will result in them exiting the bodywork much higher up and no longer in the vicinity of the diffuser. Therefore, any aerodynamic benefit from exhaust gas flow over bodywork will be kept to an absolute minimum.
Engine mapping will remain free (within the existing constraints of the FIA SECU) as, with the exhaust tailpipes in this new position, it is felt that any aerodynamic benefit will now be incidental to their primary purpose.
Thursday, July 14th 2011, 12:31 GMT
Conducted and provided by the FIA.
Q. This issue arose shortly before the Spanish Grand Prix. Was it initiated by the FIA or did it come from an F1 team?
A: The matter was initiated by the FIA when facts concerning some quite extreme, and hitherto unseen, engine mapping began to emerge. We were concerned that exhaust tailpipes were being positioned and engine maps created with the primary objective of improving in the aerodynamic performance of the car. Prior to that it had been assumed that any aerodynamic benefits were incidental to the primary purpose of the engine and its exhausts, i.e. that of generating torque.
Q. Why did you decide to act?
A: We decided to act as, not only did we consider such extreme mapping to be arguably illegal, but also if such freedom was left unchecked it would result in the teams incurring significant further development costs during the season.
Q. Is the off-throttle blown diffuser illegal under the 2011 technical regulations?
A: We certainly consider them to be questionable, however, the key is whether or not we consider any particular engine map to have been created for any other reason than the generation of engine torque.
Q. Is its illegality an unforeseen side-effect of the rule to ban F-Ducts?
A: No, the two are unconnected.
Q. Why was it not possible to simple introduce blanket limits on hot and cold-blowing and apply them equally to every car?
A: This is precisely what we attempted to do in the first communication to the teams on 12 May. However, it soon became apparent that the matter was more complex than initially thought. The main problem was the difficulty of ensuring that teams were not prevented from using existing legitimate strategies whilst ensuring that the extreme mapping was no longer possible. This is why we postponed the introduction of the measures until the British Grand Prix.
There are also a number of other mechanical factors to take into account such as the architecture of the engine throttles themselves (butterfly or barrel operation).
Q. What were the measures that were introduced for the European Grand Prix in Valencia?
A: Whilst examining the engine maps from several teams it became clear that extreme solutions were being used for short times in qualifying and then being changed for more durable solutions for the race. The felt that this was certainly against the spirit of the parc ferme regulations but, more importantly, the relevant regulations simply do not allow changes to be made whilst the cars were being held under parc ferme conditions, connections to the car may be made and electronic units freely accessed, however, no changes to the set-up of the car can be made.
We therefore informed the teams on 14 June that we would take these measures in Valencia, this was done and cars run accordingly with very few difficulties.
Q. Why was the matter still being discussed over the weekend of the British Grand Prix, and why did the clarification change from Friday to Saturday?
A: The matter was still being discussed because one engine manufacturer (Renault Sport) was reluctant to run with the settings we had imposed and continued to try and convince us that they would require alternative settings in order to maintain their perfect reliability record. At the last minute additional information was provided to us which we felt would be hard to refuse having already made a small concession to another manufacturer (Mercedes Benz HPE).
However, further discussions on Friday evening and Saturday morning resulted in us deciding that we had conceded too much and, to be fair to the manufacturers who had presented cars in what we considered the correct configuration, we should revert to the specification we had specified in our note to the teams on 20 June. This is how all teams then ran on Saturday and Sunday in Silverstone.
Q. What was the purpose of holding two Technical Working Group meetings in Silverstone?
A: Following the events of Friday the FIA President felt that it would be useful to have an open discussion in order to see if consensus could be reached. Following these two meetings there was unanimous agreement among the teams to revert to the engine mapping regime used in Valencia, i.e. freedom on settings but no changes to the maps between qualifying and race.
This was felt to be the most sensible solution to a very complicated matter as the possibility of finding an alternative solution, which would be fair to all engine manufacturers, was becoming increasingly unlikely.
Q. If the FIA had not acted, would there have been a protest?
A: As all the teams had reached consensus there would have been no point in doing so.
Q. Has the matter now been settled?
A: Yes, and all cars will run under 'Valencia' conditions for the remainder of the season.
Q. Are there likely to be any protests now that this matter seems to have been settled?
A: We are optimistic that there will be no protests over any engine mapping and exhaust tailpipe issues this season. In addition to the main part of the agreement reached in the TWG meetings it was also agreed that no team would raise a protest against another on these matters for the rest of the season.
Q. What will happen in 2012 and beyond?
A: The teams have already agreed to strict constraints on exhaust tailpipe position which will result in them exiting the bodywork much higher up and no longer in the vicinity of the diffuser. Therefore, any aerodynamic benefit from exhaust gas flow over bodywork will be kept to an absolute minimum.
Engine mapping will remain free (within the existing constraints of the FIA SECU) as, with the exhaust tailpipes in this new position, it is felt that any aerodynamic benefit will now be incidental to their primary purpose.
07-14-2011, 11:36 AM
#199
Drifting
Did anyone else have a good laugh when Jarno's engine went after his comments last week?
Jarno Trulli argues that perfect reliability is bad for F1:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92703
Jarno Trulli argues that perfect reliability is bad for F1:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92703
07-14-2011, 12:05 PM
#200
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Q & A: FIA on blown diffuser rules
Thursday, July 14th 2011, 12:31 GMT
Conducted and provided by the FIA.
Q. This issue arose shortly before the Spanish Grand Prix. Was it initiated by the FIA or did it come from an F1 team?
A: The matter was initiated by the FIA when facts concerning some quite extreme, and hitherto unseen, engine mapping began to emerge. We were concerned that exhaust tailpipes were being positioned and engine maps created with the primary objective of improving in the aerodynamic performance of the car. Prior to that it had been assumed that any aerodynamic benefits were incidental to the primary purpose of the engine and its exhausts, i.e. that of generating torque.
Q. Why did you decide to act?
A: We decided to act as, not only did we consider such extreme mapping to be arguably illegal, but also if such freedom was left unchecked it would result in the teams incurring significant further development costs during the season.
Q. Is the off-throttle blown diffuser illegal under the 2011 technical regulations?
A: We certainly consider them to be questionable, however, the key is whether or not we consider any particular engine map to have been created for any other reason than the generation of engine torque.
Q. Is its illegality an unforeseen side-effect of the rule to ban F-Ducts?
A: No, the two are unconnected.
Q. Why was it not possible to simple introduce blanket limits on hot and cold-blowing and apply them equally to every car?
A: This is precisely what we attempted to do in the first communication to the teams on 12 May. However, it soon became apparent that the matter was more complex than initially thought. The main problem was the difficulty of ensuring that teams were not prevented from using existing legitimate strategies whilst ensuring that the extreme mapping was no longer possible. This is why we postponed the introduction of the measures until the British Grand Prix.
There are also a number of other mechanical factors to take into account such as the architecture of the engine throttles themselves (butterfly or barrel operation).
Q. What were the measures that were introduced for the European Grand Prix in Valencia?
A: Whilst examining the engine maps from several teams it became clear that extreme solutions were being used for short times in qualifying and then being changed for more durable solutions for the race. The felt that this was certainly against the spirit of the parc ferme regulations but, more importantly, the relevant regulations simply do not allow changes to be made whilst the cars were being held under parc ferme conditions, connections to the car may be made and electronic units freely accessed, however, no changes to the set-up of the car can be made.
We therefore informed the teams on 14 June that we would take these measures in Valencia, this was done and cars run accordingly with very few difficulties.
Q. Why was the matter still being discussed over the weekend of the British Grand Prix, and why did the clarification change from Friday to Saturday?
A: The matter was still being discussed because one engine manufacturer (Renault Sport) was reluctant to run with the settings we had imposed and continued to try and convince us that they would require alternative settings in order to maintain their perfect reliability record. At the last minute additional information was provided to us which we felt would be hard to refuse having already made a small concession to another manufacturer (Mercedes Benz HPE).
However, further discussions on Friday evening and Saturday morning resulted in us deciding that we had conceded too much and, to be fair to the manufacturers who had presented cars in what we considered the correct configuration, we should revert to the specification we had specified in our note to the teams on 20 June. This is how all teams then ran on Saturday and Sunday in Silverstone.
Q. What was the purpose of holding two Technical Working Group meetings in Silverstone?
A: Following the events of Friday the FIA President felt that it would be useful to have an open discussion in order to see if consensus could be reached. Following these two meetings there was unanimous agreement among the teams to revert to the engine mapping regime used in Valencia, i.e. freedom on settings but no changes to the maps between qualifying and race.
This was felt to be the most sensible solution to a very complicated matter as the possibility of finding an alternative solution, which would be fair to all engine manufacturers, was becoming increasingly unlikely.
Q. If the FIA had not acted, would there have been a protest?
A: As all the teams had reached consensus there would have been no point in doing so.
Q. Has the matter now been settled?
A: Yes, and all cars will run under 'Valencia' conditions for the remainder of the season.
Q. Are there likely to be any protests now that this matter seems to have been settled?
A: We are optimistic that there will be no protests over any engine mapping and exhaust tailpipe issues this season. In addition to the main part of the agreement reached in the TWG meetings it was also agreed that no team would raise a protest against another on these matters for the rest of the season.
Q. What will happen in 2012 and beyond?
A: The teams have already agreed to strict constraints on exhaust tailpipe position which will result in them exiting the bodywork much higher up and no longer in the vicinity of the diffuser. Therefore, any aerodynamic benefit from exhaust gas flow over bodywork will be kept to an absolute minimum.
Engine mapping will remain free (within the existing constraints of the FIA SECU) as, with the exhaust tailpipes in this new position, it is felt that any aerodynamic benefit will now be incidental to their primary purpose.
Thursday, July 14th 2011, 12:31 GMT
Conducted and provided by the FIA.
Q. This issue arose shortly before the Spanish Grand Prix. Was it initiated by the FIA or did it come from an F1 team?
A: The matter was initiated by the FIA when facts concerning some quite extreme, and hitherto unseen, engine mapping began to emerge. We were concerned that exhaust tailpipes were being positioned and engine maps created with the primary objective of improving in the aerodynamic performance of the car. Prior to that it had been assumed that any aerodynamic benefits were incidental to the primary purpose of the engine and its exhausts, i.e. that of generating torque.
Q. Why did you decide to act?
A: We decided to act as, not only did we consider such extreme mapping to be arguably illegal, but also if such freedom was left unchecked it would result in the teams incurring significant further development costs during the season.
Q. Is the off-throttle blown diffuser illegal under the 2011 technical regulations?
A: We certainly consider them to be questionable, however, the key is whether or not we consider any particular engine map to have been created for any other reason than the generation of engine torque.
Q. Is its illegality an unforeseen side-effect of the rule to ban F-Ducts?
A: No, the two are unconnected.
Q. Why was it not possible to simple introduce blanket limits on hot and cold-blowing and apply them equally to every car?
A: This is precisely what we attempted to do in the first communication to the teams on 12 May. However, it soon became apparent that the matter was more complex than initially thought. The main problem was the difficulty of ensuring that teams were not prevented from using existing legitimate strategies whilst ensuring that the extreme mapping was no longer possible. This is why we postponed the introduction of the measures until the British Grand Prix.
There are also a number of other mechanical factors to take into account such as the architecture of the engine throttles themselves (butterfly or barrel operation).
Q. What were the measures that were introduced for the European Grand Prix in Valencia?
A: Whilst examining the engine maps from several teams it became clear that extreme solutions were being used for short times in qualifying and then being changed for more durable solutions for the race. The felt that this was certainly against the spirit of the parc ferme regulations but, more importantly, the relevant regulations simply do not allow changes to be made whilst the cars were being held under parc ferme conditions, connections to the car may be made and electronic units freely accessed, however, no changes to the set-up of the car can be made.
We therefore informed the teams on 14 June that we would take these measures in Valencia, this was done and cars run accordingly with very few difficulties.
Q. Why was the matter still being discussed over the weekend of the British Grand Prix, and why did the clarification change from Friday to Saturday?
A: The matter was still being discussed because one engine manufacturer (Renault Sport) was reluctant to run with the settings we had imposed and continued to try and convince us that they would require alternative settings in order to maintain their perfect reliability record. At the last minute additional information was provided to us which we felt would be hard to refuse having already made a small concession to another manufacturer (Mercedes Benz HPE).
However, further discussions on Friday evening and Saturday morning resulted in us deciding that we had conceded too much and, to be fair to the manufacturers who had presented cars in what we considered the correct configuration, we should revert to the specification we had specified in our note to the teams on 20 June. This is how all teams then ran on Saturday and Sunday in Silverstone.
Q. What was the purpose of holding two Technical Working Group meetings in Silverstone?
A: Following the events of Friday the FIA President felt that it would be useful to have an open discussion in order to see if consensus could be reached. Following these two meetings there was unanimous agreement among the teams to revert to the engine mapping regime used in Valencia, i.e. freedom on settings but no changes to the maps between qualifying and race.
This was felt to be the most sensible solution to a very complicated matter as the possibility of finding an alternative solution, which would be fair to all engine manufacturers, was becoming increasingly unlikely.
Q. If the FIA had not acted, would there have been a protest?
A: As all the teams had reached consensus there would have been no point in doing so.
Q. Has the matter now been settled?
A: Yes, and all cars will run under 'Valencia' conditions for the remainder of the season.
Q. Are there likely to be any protests now that this matter seems to have been settled?
A: We are optimistic that there will be no protests over any engine mapping and exhaust tailpipe issues this season. In addition to the main part of the agreement reached in the TWG meetings it was also agreed that no team would raise a protest against another on these matters for the rest of the season.
Q. What will happen in 2012 and beyond?
A: The teams have already agreed to strict constraints on exhaust tailpipe position which will result in them exiting the bodywork much higher up and no longer in the vicinity of the diffuser. Therefore, any aerodynamic benefit from exhaust gas flow over bodywork will be kept to an absolute minimum.
Engine mapping will remain free (within the existing constraints of the FIA SECU) as, with the exhaust tailpipes in this new position, it is felt that any aerodynamic benefit will now be incidental to their primary purpose.
Exhibit A.
http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/07/10/f...ust-agreement/
JULY 10, 2011 · 10:55 AM
Ferrari and Sauber block exhaust agreement
Ferrari and Sauber have declined to sign an agreement that would see the exhaust/diffuser rules return to Valencia spec from the next race in Germany.
That means that overnight Williams changed its mind and said yes, while Ferrari did the opposite and said no. Sauber has held firm, with team boss Peter Sauber believed to be frustrated by the pressure being applied by Red Bull on the issue.
It’s worth noting that after saying yes in yesterday morning’s meeting Ferrari put both its cars on the second row in qualifying, with a smaller time gap to the pole than the team has had all year, suggesting that the team is not unhappy with the current 10% rules.
In today’s Technical Working Group meeting a letter was signed by 10 of the teams, with Christian Horner doing most of the lobbying.
One alternative discussed today was for all the engine manufacturers to come up with a throttle opening percentage that would equate cold blowing to hot blowing between different engines in terms of the volume of gas produced.
The next step could be another meeting next week, but the FIA told the teams that unless agreement is reached by the end of next week, then Germany will also be run to the current 10% rules.
Intriguingly it seems that Jean Todt was one of the motivating forces behind the offer the FIA gave the teams to come to an agreement to drop the 10% rule.
Quickly followed by Exhibit B:
http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/07/10/e...auber-sign-up/
Exhaust saga finally ended as Ferrari, Sauber sign up
The blown diffuser saga is – we hope – finally over as all 12 teams have now agreed to return to the rules as they were in Valencia.
In a meeting this morning 10 of the teams signed a five-point letter of agreement, while Ferrari and Sauber initially declined to do so. However, while some team principals were in the meeting, Ferrari was represented only by technical director Pat Fry and engine chief Luca Marmorini, and presumably they felt they had to check with their boss before making any commitment.
Between the meeting and the race Martin Whitmarsh also had contact with Domenicali, who then told the McLaren chief on the grid that his team now agreed with the proposal. Sauber, who had apparently said that if they were the only dissenter they would agree, also signed.
The basis of the agreement is that everyone accepts the rules as in Valencia, and agrees not to protest on the matter in the course of the season.
Although he declined to confirm publicly that he had signed, Domenicali conceded that a solution was on the way.
“This situation was not good for anyone,” said Domenicali. “We need to draw a line and look ahead, because otherwise, where are we going? Even if I don’t agree that for the process that was taken, I think for the benefit of the sport we took that action.”
In another era one might imagine a scenario where Ferrari said ‘we like the rules as we are now,’ but things have changed at Maranello under Domenicali.
But equally having won what is likely to be the only race of 2011 under the ‘legal’ diffuser rules Ferrari will clearly score some PR points by then handing back the advantage it apparently had this weekend.
“When you think of the bigger picture, you have to have a wide opening in your mind,” said Domenicali. “I have to sayI don’t think a lot of people would behave like we are.”
07-14-2011, 12:15 PM
#201
Rennlist Member
Q & A: FIA on blown diffuser rules
Thursday, July 14th 2011, 12:31 GMT
Conducted and provided by the FIA.
Q. This issue arose shortly before the Spanish Grand Prix. Was it initiated by the FIA or did it come from an F1 team?
A: The matter was initiated by the FIA when facts concerning some quite extreme, and hitherto unseen, engine mapping began to emerge. We were concerned that exhaust tailpipes were being positioned and engine maps created with the primary objective of improving in the aerodynamic performance of the car. Prior to that it had been assumed that any aerodynamic benefits were incidental to the primary purpose of the engine and its exhausts, i.e. that of generating torque.
Q. Why did you decide to act?
A: We decided to act as, not only did we consider such extreme mapping to be arguably illegal, but also if such freedom was left unchecked it would result in the teams incurring significant further development costs during the season.
Q. Is the off-throttle blown diffuser illegal under the 2011 technical regulations?
A: We certainly consider them to be questionable, however, the key is whether or not we consider any particular engine map to have been created for any other reason than the generation of engine torque.
Q. Is its illegality an unforeseen side-effect of the rule to ban F-Ducts?
A: No, the two are unconnected.
Q. Why was it not possible to simple introduce blanket limits on hot and cold-blowing and apply them equally to every car?
A: This is precisely what we attempted to do in the first communication to the teams on 12 May. However, it soon became apparent that the matter was more complex than initially thought. The main problem was the difficulty of ensuring that teams were not prevented from using existing legitimate strategies whilst ensuring that the extreme mapping was no longer possible. This is why we postponed the introduction of the measures until the British Grand Prix.
There are also a number of other mechanical factors to take into account such as the architecture of the engine throttles themselves (butterfly or barrel operation).
Q. What were the measures that were introduced for the European Grand Prix in Valencia?
A: Whilst examining the engine maps from several teams it became clear that extreme solutions were being used for short times in qualifying and then being changed for more durable solutions for the race. The felt that this was certainly against the spirit of the parc ferme regulations but, more importantly, the relevant regulations simply do not allow changes to be made whilst the cars were being held under parc ferme conditions, connections to the car may be made and electronic units freely accessed, however, no changes to the set-up of the car can be made.
We therefore informed the teams on 14 June that we would take these measures in Valencia, this was done and cars run accordingly with very few difficulties.
Q. Why was the matter still being discussed over the weekend of the British Grand Prix, and why did the clarification change from Friday to Saturday?
A: The matter was still being discussed because one engine manufacturer (Renault Sport) was reluctant to run with the settings we had imposed and continued to try and convince us that they would require alternative settings in order to maintain their perfect reliability record. At the last minute additional information was provided to us which we felt would be hard to refuse having already made a small concession to another manufacturer (Mercedes Benz HPE).
However, further discussions on Friday evening and Saturday morning resulted in us deciding that we had conceded too much and, to be fair to the manufacturers who had presented cars in what we considered the correct configuration, we should revert to the specification we had specified in our note to the teams on 20 June. This is how all teams then ran on Saturday and Sunday in Silverstone.
Q. What was the purpose of holding two Technical Working Group meetings in Silverstone?
A: Following the events of Friday the FIA President felt that it would be useful to have an open discussion in order to see if consensus could be reached. Following these two meetings there was unanimous agreement among the teams to revert to the engine mapping regime used in Valencia, i.e. freedom on settings but no changes to the maps between qualifying and race.
This was felt to be the most sensible solution to a very complicated matter as the possibility of finding an alternative solution, which would be fair to all engine manufacturers, was becoming increasingly unlikely.
Q. If the FIA had not acted, would there have been a protest?
A: As all the teams had reached consensus there would have been no point in doing so.
Q. Has the matter now been settled?
A: Yes, and all cars will run under 'Valencia' conditions for the remainder of the season.
Q. Are there likely to be any protests now that this matter seems to have been settled?
A: We are optimistic that there will be no protests over any engine mapping and exhaust tailpipe issues this season. In addition to the main part of the agreement reached in the TWG meetings it was also agreed that no team would raise a protest against another on these matters for the rest of the season.
Q. What will happen in 2012 and beyond?
A: The teams have already agreed to strict constraints on exhaust tailpipe position which will result in them exiting the bodywork much higher up and no longer in the vicinity of the diffuser. Therefore, any aerodynamic benefit from exhaust gas flow over bodywork will be kept to an absolute minimum.
Engine mapping will remain free (within the existing constraints of the FIA SECU) as, with the exhaust tailpipes in this new position, it is felt that any aerodynamic benefit will now be incidental to their primary purpose.
Thursday, July 14th 2011, 12:31 GMT
Conducted and provided by the FIA.
Q. This issue arose shortly before the Spanish Grand Prix. Was it initiated by the FIA or did it come from an F1 team?
A: The matter was initiated by the FIA when facts concerning some quite extreme, and hitherto unseen, engine mapping began to emerge. We were concerned that exhaust tailpipes were being positioned and engine maps created with the primary objective of improving in the aerodynamic performance of the car. Prior to that it had been assumed that any aerodynamic benefits were incidental to the primary purpose of the engine and its exhausts, i.e. that of generating torque.
Q. Why did you decide to act?
A: We decided to act as, not only did we consider such extreme mapping to be arguably illegal, but also if such freedom was left unchecked it would result in the teams incurring significant further development costs during the season.
Q. Is the off-throttle blown diffuser illegal under the 2011 technical regulations?
A: We certainly consider them to be questionable, however, the key is whether or not we consider any particular engine map to have been created for any other reason than the generation of engine torque.
Q. Is its illegality an unforeseen side-effect of the rule to ban F-Ducts?
A: No, the two are unconnected.
Q. Why was it not possible to simple introduce blanket limits on hot and cold-blowing and apply them equally to every car?
A: This is precisely what we attempted to do in the first communication to the teams on 12 May. However, it soon became apparent that the matter was more complex than initially thought. The main problem was the difficulty of ensuring that teams were not prevented from using existing legitimate strategies whilst ensuring that the extreme mapping was no longer possible. This is why we postponed the introduction of the measures until the British Grand Prix.
There are also a number of other mechanical factors to take into account such as the architecture of the engine throttles themselves (butterfly or barrel operation).
Q. What were the measures that were introduced for the European Grand Prix in Valencia?
A: Whilst examining the engine maps from several teams it became clear that extreme solutions were being used for short times in qualifying and then being changed for more durable solutions for the race. The felt that this was certainly against the spirit of the parc ferme regulations but, more importantly, the relevant regulations simply do not allow changes to be made whilst the cars were being held under parc ferme conditions, connections to the car may be made and electronic units freely accessed, however, no changes to the set-up of the car can be made.
We therefore informed the teams on 14 June that we would take these measures in Valencia, this was done and cars run accordingly with very few difficulties.
Q. Why was the matter still being discussed over the weekend of the British Grand Prix, and why did the clarification change from Friday to Saturday?
A: The matter was still being discussed because one engine manufacturer (Renault Sport) was reluctant to run with the settings we had imposed and continued to try and convince us that they would require alternative settings in order to maintain their perfect reliability record. At the last minute additional information was provided to us which we felt would be hard to refuse having already made a small concession to another manufacturer (Mercedes Benz HPE).
However, further discussions on Friday evening and Saturday morning resulted in us deciding that we had conceded too much and, to be fair to the manufacturers who had presented cars in what we considered the correct configuration, we should revert to the specification we had specified in our note to the teams on 20 June. This is how all teams then ran on Saturday and Sunday in Silverstone.
Q. What was the purpose of holding two Technical Working Group meetings in Silverstone?
A: Following the events of Friday the FIA President felt that it would be useful to have an open discussion in order to see if consensus could be reached. Following these two meetings there was unanimous agreement among the teams to revert to the engine mapping regime used in Valencia, i.e. freedom on settings but no changes to the maps between qualifying and race.
This was felt to be the most sensible solution to a very complicated matter as the possibility of finding an alternative solution, which would be fair to all engine manufacturers, was becoming increasingly unlikely.
Q. If the FIA had not acted, would there have been a protest?
A: As all the teams had reached consensus there would have been no point in doing so.
Q. Has the matter now been settled?
A: Yes, and all cars will run under 'Valencia' conditions for the remainder of the season.
Q. Are there likely to be any protests now that this matter seems to have been settled?
A: We are optimistic that there will be no protests over any engine mapping and exhaust tailpipe issues this season. In addition to the main part of the agreement reached in the TWG meetings it was also agreed that no team would raise a protest against another on these matters for the rest of the season.
Q. What will happen in 2012 and beyond?
A: The teams have already agreed to strict constraints on exhaust tailpipe position which will result in them exiting the bodywork much higher up and no longer in the vicinity of the diffuser. Therefore, any aerodynamic benefit from exhaust gas flow over bodywork will be kept to an absolute minimum.
Engine mapping will remain free (within the existing constraints of the FIA SECU) as, with the exhaust tailpipes in this new position, it is felt that any aerodynamic benefit will now be incidental to their primary purpose.
Lewis and Ray have been right all along Ferrari and Alonso are cheaters and would never win anything with out the help of the FIA.
07-14-2011, 12:29 PM
#202
Super Moderator
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Needs More Cowbell
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Everything Luca looks for in a woman.
Ferrari will win, with or without Alonso, they just have too much experience, money and history in F1 and Bernie.
I just thought it was worth nothing that Ferrari and Sauber/Ferrari had some small role to play in this past weekend.
07-14-2011, 12:39 PM
#204
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I am sure if Alonso were leading the WDC, the bet would be different....no wait, that sounds familiar....oh yes, last season heading into Bahrain.
Heimlich...how do you say that in Italian?
Sir A.Wayne, "we" are short of more things than just one race...I am thinking short a few Crayons from a full box perhaps?
Heimlich...how do you say that in Italian?
Sir A.Wayne, "we" are short of more things than just one race...I am thinking short a few Crayons from a full box perhaps?
07-14-2011, 12:42 PM
#205
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Ruben Move over sssushmacher wants to pass
Mark maintain the gap
Sorry mark we need this front wing
Mark go to power reduction 3 and ohh Vettel might want to pass
Germany .......................................................... 36
Spain ............................................................... 1
Yeah Alonso is the cheater ..........The bad guy ....
Last edited by A.Wayne; 07-14-2011 at 12:59 PM.
07-14-2011, 01:00 PM
#206
Rennlist Member
I know how you feel Lewis, no need to repeat yourself. I just think you and A. Wayne allow your biases to cloud your judgement.................severely. You two are really more similar than either of you would like to admit. Now I tend to agree more with Wayne (sorry Lewis), but not because I like Ferrari but I am an Alonso fan and I like the combination of Ferrari & Alonso.
Most of all I think all these guys are at a different level and unfortunately technology plays a much bigger role than any of us would like.
On to Germany!
Most of all I think all these guys are at a different level and unfortunately technology plays a much bigger role than any of us would like.
On to Germany!
07-14-2011, 01:03 PM
#207
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Philly area, PA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Ferrari has developed the car like you say they should be able to beat Red Bull.
07-14-2011, 02:08 PM
#208
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
07-14-2011, 02:13 PM
#209
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I'd love to see where I ever said that. I like Ferrari (just don't care for Alonso) but I don't wear blinders when I look at the team. Strings being pulled from time to time are obvious if you're brave enough to look.
07-14-2011, 02:15 PM
#210
Rennlist Member