The Official 2016 Hungarian Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**

[Quickmoose]

cgt2 said:

Or Brundle could be sensationalising. Only two weeks ago, Hamilton, Toto Wolff and others were complimenting his racecraft in very glowing terms after the pass at Silverstone.

Racecarft on passing and, giving space and on the brakes seem worthy of praise, especially given his age.
Racecraft on defending whatever line he wants after a long straight, hmmm less so...

[cgt2]

Quickmoose said:

Racecarft on passing and, giving space and on the brakes seem worthy of praise, especially given his age.
Racecraft on defending whatever line he wants after a long straight, hmmm less so...

It wasn't after the straight, it was the following corner (turn 2). Brundle still seems to be in a minority. He speaks with a lot of authority and is usually spot on but every other experienced driver/pundit felt Max was just on the edge of being legal with that move but was ok, hence no enquiry. And Ferrari usually always get things their way.

I can't think of a world champion who did not push things right to the edge. At his age he still has a lot to learn and there are some rough edges but far less than most other drivers 10 years older than him. He could have done a Rosberg of course and got crossed up, turned hard left, tripped over a stray squirrel and ended up in the Danube.. (though actually, fair credit, Rosberg's opening lap move on Ricciardo was the most accomplished thing he has done all year).

[Vaud]

Quickmoose said:

WEC edited highlights are played on Ch4 OD

Ah thanks - I don't know. Handy. I might start watching.

[Quickmoose]

cgt2 said:

Quickmoose said:

Racecarft on passing and, giving space and on the brakes seem worthy of praise, especially given his age.
Racecraft on defending whatever line he wants after a long straight, hmmm less so...

It wasn't after the straight, it was the following corner (turn 2). Brundle still seems to be in a minority. He speaks with a lot of authority and is usually spot on but every other experienced driver/pundit felt Max was just on the edge of being legal with that move but was ok, hence no enquiry. And Ferrari usually always get things their way.

I can't think of a world champion who did not push things right to the edge. At his age he still has a lot to learn and there are some rough edges but far less than most other drivers 10 years older than him. He could have done a Rosberg of course and got crossed up, turned hard left, tripped over a stray squirrel and ended up in the Danube.. (though actually, fair credit, Rosberg's opening lap move on Ricciardo was the most accomplished thing he has done all year).

He did it in more than one location.
And I think every other experienced driver/pundit, thinking him being 'on the edge' isn't really glowing feedback...
Of course being on the edge could be the mark of a true racer...and I'd agree if it was in overtaking and braking etc, just not when you're playing with another person and they're machine travelling faster down the inside, no knowing who will come off worse if...when... you touch..

Anyway lets hope it is a mark of him growing and becoming a real force to be reckoned with and that last millisecond jinks to either side don't end up with him having a competitor's car spear through his or something...

[VladD]

Had Max and Kimi connected harder than they did, it would have been interesting to see who, if anyone, got a penalty, or whether it would have been judged a racing incident.

[HustleRussell]

HustleRussell said:

To me there's no doubt Rosberg could've gone faster if Hamilton hadn't been immediately in front of him. Hamilton was basically cruising though. He would've been aware that he was backing Nico up but as per the China 2015 quote, wouldn't have cared in the slightest.

37chevy said:

and I wouldn't expect him to do any differently. while its a team sport its also an individual drivers championship. why risk your championship and aid your main rival and team mate, who lets face it would do exactly the same to you given the chance....

NJK44 said:

Why should he care? He knows Mercedes will win constructors, so does everyone else In F1, so making Nico lose points doesn't really matter.

Why are you feeling the need to defend Hamilton, my comment wasn't a criticism...

[rsbmw]

I'm not convinced Roseberg could have gone faster, surely if that was the case he would have closed the gap and had a go at an overtake at least.

[cgt2]

rsbmw said:

and had a go at an overtake at least.

And what has happened every time he has tried that before..

[37chevy]

HustleRussell said:

Why are you feeling the need to defend Hamilton, my comment wasn't a criticism...

I didn't think you were criticising....just reinforcing/ adding to your point :-)

[entropy]

Redlake27 said:

The answer is to take some of the sporting regs from WEC and apply it to F1. One of the most simple, but clever WEC rules is to limit the number of people working on a car during a pitstop. It means a tyre stop can be 20 - 40 seconds. This creates several factors that make a good race:

1) A pitstop can be a strategic advantage if it is a switch to a much faster tyre. (Think of Mansell's comeback at Silverstone 87)
2) It can be an advantage to stay out and not pit (just like we saw in the early 90s when the nimble Nannini Benetton combo could make its tyres last longer than a Ferrari or McLaren)
3) With such varying strategies (unlike F1) teams have to risk passing on track because they don't know if their rival is two or three stopping.


The current F1 cars are brilliant. But they need WEC tyres and sporting regulations to bring them to life.

Fewer people working in the pits wouldn't work especially if you want to variate pit strategy because of pit delta: fewer people working pits = longer pit stops = less incentive to variate strategy. Another example of this was the increase in the pit lane speed limit in 2003 - IIRC - and that helped with pit strategy.

The option for 3 tyre compounds helped with pit strategy earlier in the season with the softs, mediums and hards as the track evolution changed over a race weekend on the quick ciruits. The problem has been that the ultra softs and supersofts are quite similar - IIRC the ultra soft has a higher operating than SS tyres.

In the 80s and early 90s you could races without having to pit unless tyre company advised the teams for optional compound/strategy (and hence why the softer option compound is so called). A good example of this is '86 Australian GP when Goodyear claimed a pitting wouldn't be necessary but turned it would and henced wrecked Mansell's WDC hopes; in the early 90s Goodyear was criticised for its rock hard tyres.

[rdjohn]

Gary C said:

Fuel is virtually the same as pump fuel ( the special mixes were banned ages ago)

And yes, I can see heat recovery being used in a road car, why is it not relevant ? A motorway is especially relevant to harvesting wasted heat energy from the exhaust. The braking recovery is already being used, and don't belittle software development. Integrating all these items takes a lot of effort that can easily be transferred to road cars. What's missing is the need to do so as it inevitably adds cost, but as fuel prices rise (as they will) then, why not ?

Bit blinkered thinking.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-how-jet-technology-is-shaping-f1-engine-battle-690156/

My point is that this technology is meaningless for the millions of road cars that most people can afford.

As for the fuels being the same as at the pumps, that is very much not the case with these Hybrids, though it was true before. Shell reckons that their research into fuels last year for Ferrari was worth 0.5 sec per lap at typical circuits. Getting fuels to burn at different rates under both compression and spark ignition is massively complex.

I read once that the Petronas oil support contract for a Mercedes engines was several millions per year - they are not using standard 0W-40 synthetics either. The tolerances used in racing PUs is unaffordable in the manufacture of normal road cars.

I keep reading that there will be trickle down technology, and yet 5 years, or more, of research has yet to produce concepts that are significantly superior to the Toyota Prius. I am including La Ferrari, 918 and P1 in this statement, but they are hardly big sellers, but use similar concepts.

Electrically boosted Turbos may be coming the year, but manufactured by Peiburg rather than Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda or Renault. These will boost power, but will not be cheaper than similar powered NA units. Accepted that they will inevitably be cleaner. But so is a single motored EV.

High performance Hybrids are relevant for high value supercars - but they aren't going to save the planet.

[AlexS]

rdjohn said:

AlexS said:

They are currently pushing past 900bhp and using less fuel than the older v8s.

So what? Are they every likely to appear in the sort of family cars that sell by the millions. No! Because the technology and the fuels they are using are way too expensive.

The F1 engines have been built to too precriptive rules. The real clever bit is the software that controls them, but it is not applicable to cruising down the Motorway, or crawling through city traffic. By now they were supposed to be only using electrical power in the pitlane, but that reg was conveniently forgotten.

At least WEC has gone down diffent routes and fuels to arrive at their varying engines and ancillaries. But above all, they are racing flat-out, flag to flag. That is the key point.

I think that Lewis's tardy times were nothing more than him conserving engine life. He needs this PU to survive Germany, before taking grid penalties for Spa. And what a dumb idea that was. Does it stop them actually spending the cash on new engines? It will make Spa a more interesting race - the only question is can he get P2? He certainly won't get P1.

In one of your earlier posts you seemingly claimed that the WEC were superior, and now, you don't consider an F1 engine being vastly more efficient than it was thought possible an achievement. Anyway, part of the reason for the F1 efficiency is the use of HCCI (pioneered by Mercedes) and that does have application in road cars.

WEC has also converged. Last year we had 3 different methods of storing energy, now they all use a battery. Two teams now use a small capacity highly turbocharged petrol, and the 3rd only remains with diesel because of marketing reasons. There is also the use of balance of performance, so it doesn't really matter if someone gets there systems slightly wrong, they will receive a performance break to offset it.

[Gary C]

rdjohn said:

Gary C said:

Fuel is virtually the same as pump fuel ( the special mixes were banned ages ago)

And yes, I can see heat recovery being used in a road car, why is it not relevant ? A motorway is especially relevant to harvesting wasted heat energy from the exhaust. The braking recovery is already being used, and don't belittle software development. Integrating all these items takes a lot of effort that can easily be transferred to road cars. What's missing is the need to do so as it inevitably adds cost, but as fuel prices rise (as they will) then, why not ?

Bit blinkered thinking.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-how-jet-technology-is-shaping-f1-engine-battle-690156/

My point is that this technology is meaningless for the millions of road cars that most people can afford.

As for the fuels being the same as at the pumps, that is very much not the case with these Hybrids, though it was true before. Shell reckons that their research into fuels last year for Ferrari was worth 0.5 sec per lap at typical circuits. Getting fuels to burn at different rates under both compression and spark ignition is massively complex.

I read once that the Petronas oil support contract for a Mercedes engines was several millions per year - they are not using standard 0W-40 synthetics either. The tolerances used in racing PUs is unaffordable in the manufacture of normal road cars.

I keep reading that there will be trickle down technology, and yet 5 years, or more, of research has yet to produce concepts that are significantly superior to the Toyota Prius. I am including La Ferrari, 918 and P1 in this statement, but they are hardly big sellers, but use similar concepts.

Electrically boosted Turbos may be coming the year, but manufactured by Peiburg rather than Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda or Renault. These will boost power, but will not be cheaper than similar powered NA units. Accepted that they will inevitably be cleaner. But so is a single motored EV.

High performance Hybrids are relevant for high value supercars - but they aren't going to save the planet.

My point is I don't believe it will be meaningless to the millions of normal road cars in the future, and fuels are similar to pump petrol, not the benzine and toluene blends of the 80's turbo era that required special PPE just to handle. As they fuel is similar, research into fuels and the inclusion of bio components will cross over to pump fuels too. The jet ignition will make it to road cars as the drive for higher VE continues.

https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1...

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 26th July 18:58

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 26th July 18:59

[Trabi601]

Gary C said:

Here it is, on sky's web page. I imagine it was sky enforcing their copyright.


http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/969...

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 26th July 13:05

I'm sure there was another one involving a banana.

[rdjohn]

AlexS said:

In one of your earlier posts you seemingly claimed that the WEC were superior, and now, you don't consider an F1 engine being vastly more efficient than it was thought possible an achievement. Anyway, part of the reason for the F1 efficiency is the use of HCCI (pioneered by Mercedes) and that does have application in road cars.

WEC has also converged. Last year we had 3 different methods of storing energy, now they all use a battery. Two teams now use a small capacity highly turbocharged petrol, and the 3rd only remains with diesel because of marketing reasons. There is also the use of balance of performance, so it doesn't really matter if someone gets there systems slightly wrong, they will receive a performance break to offset it.

My original post stated that the qually lap time at the Nurburgring was 1:39 and race laps, for 6 hours, were 1:40.

The F1 Hybrid units may now have more power than the old V8s, but they tend to only use it during Q3. Engine modes allow drivers to dial-in, more or less, whatever laptime they want. Albeit to save fuel, tyres, engine life, or simply P-off their team mate.

This point has been emphasised time and again by those drivers who remember performance of their cars when they had refuelling and decent tyres and before they had DRS etc. etc. The cars may have been slower, but the race was a race for the duration of the event. I am not saying we need to go back to 2008, but the rules need to reflect that this is a race with every conceivable technology available to the teams that allows them to actually race, nose to tail, wheel to wheel.

Knowing which team has the biggest budget available just does not cut it with the vast majority of casual TV viewers.

[M3ax]

I don't watch any sport that I don't like. I watch F1

[Gary C]

Trabi601 said:

Gary C said:

Here it is, on sky's web page. I imagine it was sky enforcing their copyright.


http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/969...

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 26th July 13:05

I'm sure there was another one involving a banana.

Hee hee, will look for that one