Just goes to show how bad F1 is getting when the only reason people will find the race enjoyable is if there will be crashes.....
Just goes to show how bad F1 is getting when the only reason people will find the race enjoyable is if there will be crashes.....
You need to be lucky, and this is why discrediting successful drivers because of their luck is pointless.
(Töki (HUN))
DELETED
by Töki (HUN)
money kartor balls boo bbc yay karting money sponsor woo! Kart kart
To be fair, he hasn't started yet. :hide:
I believe that would be Pierluigi 'Pierro' Martini in a Lamborghini Countach/Diablo.
I hope for a dry friday-saturday, then rainy race. Bit like melbourne.
Oh no, look who's back.
It would be interesting to see if the Red Bull front wing could pass a flexion test.
Movement is clearly visible from both the on-board and track side cameras during practice.
The end plates bend down during acceleration and then pop up again under hard braking.
Clip from Silverstone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;feature=player_embedded
Presumably some flexibility is permitted, but is this too much?
Movement is clearly visible from both the on-board and track side cameras during practice.
The end plates bend down during acceleration and then pop up again under hard braking.
Clip from Silverstone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;feature=player_embedded
Presumably some flexibility is permitted, but is this too much?
It's all down to the FIA, if the wing passes the load test then it fine by them but hats off to RB for getting past the system like Mclaren did with the F-duct.
Yeah, then it's all back to the factory p.d.q. to make a new front wing.
yep thats the one, couldn't remember till you posted it.
did you work it out or did you see the article as well ?
Am I the only one to think it actually makes some sence?
Just look at Petrov for example. It took him 4 years to be GP2 runner-up, and get an F1 slot for the 2010 season. If you look at him in 2006 or 2007, he was nowhere, and no one would have bet anything on him I guess, since he didn't prove anything previously in his carreer.
I'm sure there are several examples like this... But I still think F1 is near the pinacle, even if they are a few drivers paying for driving. On the other hand, what Intrepid described look so blatent in feeder series, you'll always see wealthy drivers going for several seasons despite not showing particular talent in the very beginning... and pulling decent results in the end.
Well, that's not what you could call a poor driver IMO, he's done really good stuff in the Minardi, often getting points and even getting a 2nd place in quali at Phoenix in 1990.
Perhaps he could have been on top with a proper car.
Well Anthony Davidson just pretty much repeated what I said in the commentary for FP1 as well, so you're not alone
F1 is certainly a goal for many drivers, this there is no doubt. but the nature of motor racing means many superbly talent drivers rarely have enough wealth to survive.
On-topic - RBR's bendy wings are interesting. Some of the on-board shots are incredible. If they pass the test they pass the test, but didn't McLaren get told off for their bendy wings from 2007?
Either way RBR could walk this race if practise form is representitive
They already passed the test during post-race scrutineering in Germany. There is no doubt that it is legal in accordance with the letter of the rules; the doubt is whether it is legal in accordance with the spirit. So far, both last season and this season with the double-deck diffuser and the f-duct, the FIA have tended to rule in favour of literal interpretation - ie. letter of the rules, rather than the spirit - so RBR and Ferrari should be quite safe.
I've read the article. From memory I think it was in an issue of "Performance Car". I might have a look for it.
Ferrari got a rollockin for havin bendy barge boards a while back, but on a very very light note. Karun Chandhok makes an excellent commentator. Him, Anthony D and Brundle in the commentary box for the race would be fantastic.
Clearly the front wings are passing a static test, with an FIA set weight applied to judge how much flex there is, and these are passing it.
That seems pretty black and white, they've had the thumbs up from the FIA, and the flex test cleared them.
The other rule McLaren are now talking about isthe height difference of >= 85mm from the plank. The wings frequently look like they'd struggle to manage 8.5mm from the ground, let alone 85mm from the plank.
It could well be that the FIA do this from parc ferme and thats their only interest, so just like the flex test is shown to be an useless test of an wings flexability, this minimum distance test could also be about as useful as a ban on team tactics. That wont be a concern for Red Bull or Ferrari, but it does seem pathetic if the way the FIA enforce the rules they set in a way that doesnt meet realistic levels seen in a racing enviroment. Why not just have some odd-job look at it, give it a prod, and come to an uneducated decision?
going ot...
The last couple of seasons more so than many before it seem to be a case of who can abuse a rule without the others knowing or as we've seen at the start of the last 2 seasons, who can pretty much go against verbal agreements between teams (Defusers & Stalled wings) using the classic 'that wasnt what our interpretation of the rule was' as a get out, and the FIA sitting back and in amongst the 'F1 must cut costs' era send 3/4 of the teams back to the drawing board to start prototyping and building almost entirely new cars. Sure they'll always be working on something new, but it seems like they spend 9 month working towards the seasons car, and instead of making the improvements to that which it needs, theyre focusing on copying what they now NEED in order to be competitive.
Theres no perfect solution (carbon copy cars isnt appealing either) but it just seems the biggest gains in F1 are by going around the rules, rather than being innovative within them. RBR had an amazing car last season, only matched by the Honda/Brawn car which blatently ignored the agreed understanding of what the defuser rule meant they could/couldnt do. iirc their car couldnt fit the defuser on there because of how their rear susp was set? F1 design should be about innovation, not whether your legal team can wiggle you round the rules.
That seems pretty black and white, they've had the thumbs up from the FIA, and the flex test cleared them.
The other rule McLaren are now talking about isthe height difference of >= 85mm from the plank. The wings frequently look like they'd struggle to manage 8.5mm from the ground, let alone 85mm from the plank.
It could well be that the FIA do this from parc ferme and thats their only interest, so just like the flex test is shown to be an useless test of an wings flexability, this minimum distance test could also be about as useful as a ban on team tactics. That wont be a concern for Red Bull or Ferrari, but it does seem pathetic if the way the FIA enforce the rules they set in a way that doesnt meet realistic levels seen in a racing enviroment. Why not just have some odd-job look at it, give it a prod, and come to an uneducated decision?
going ot...
The last couple of seasons more so than many before it seem to be a case of who can abuse a rule without the others knowing or as we've seen at the start of the last 2 seasons, who can pretty much go against verbal agreements between teams (Defusers & Stalled wings) using the classic 'that wasnt what our interpretation of the rule was' as a get out, and the FIA sitting back and in amongst the 'F1 must cut costs' era send 3/4 of the teams back to the drawing board to start prototyping and building almost entirely new cars. Sure they'll always be working on something new, but it seems like they spend 9 month working towards the seasons car, and instead of making the improvements to that which it needs, theyre focusing on copying what they now NEED in order to be competitive.
Theres no perfect solution (carbon copy cars isnt appealing either) but it just seems the biggest gains in F1 are by going around the rules, rather than being innovative within them. RBR had an amazing car last season, only matched by the Honda/Brawn car which blatently ignored the agreed understanding of what the defuser rule meant they could/couldnt do. iirc their car couldnt fit the defuser on there because of how their rear susp was set? F1 design should be about innovation, not whether your legal team can wiggle you round the rules.
It was raining at night. Sun is shining now though, so the track won't be wet by the start of the qualy.
why are they lapping alot slower in qualy then in FP3?
Oh I totally forgot about failmula 1 
Redbull is making a mockery of everyone out there.
Vettel pole, red bull 1.2 seconds faster then ferrari
That is redicolous, how on earth is that car legal?
This is stupid. They really are on wings...
That's epic and I love it
FORMULA 1 ENI MAGYAR NAGYDIJ 2010 (Hungarian GP)
(332 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG