Lewis Hamilton
Discussion
A44RON said:
HustleRussell said:
A44RON said:
I see what you're saying, but the hybrids are so expensive and fragile, that if they did make it more of a sprint-race like it used to be (I would love to see it go back to that) then the costs would sky-rocket even higher than they are now and they would need a PU every race weekend... when the V10s pitted for fuel and tyres, they were still pumping in qualy-pace lap times with 20+ laps fuel on board with their fresh tyres, compared to 1-5 laps left of onboard fuel for the hybrids when they bang in their fastest laps.
The hybrids aren't actually particularly expensive for the customers and are certainly not fragile seeing as they are doing full seasons on three units. This is only an opinion but despite the above, the finishing rate doesn't appear to currently be much worse than in the V8 era?"during the most expensive period of the V10 era 2002-2004, teams were using multiple engines every race weekend, spare cars in the garages, loads of test-days throughout the year etc... and despite all of that, Jordan's annual budget was only £40 million per year and race-winning teams budgets were £150 million+ per year... Williams annual budget 2017-2019 was £150 million per year! To be (by far) the slowest team on the grid. There's progress for you."
Hybrids are doing full seasons on 3-4 PUs because they have to be managed. The hybrid era is much more expensive, it's just a fact.
A44RON said:
jsf said:
They go through 10 times as many on the dyno as they use in the car. What do you think the engine builders do all year? The whole 3 engines malarky is bulls
t.
Exactly. And if they were allowed one PU every race weekend the costs would be that much higher againt.The cost of the physical engine is not huge.
jsf said:
They go through 10 times as many on the dyno as they use in the car. What do you think the engine builders do all year? The whole 3 engines malarky is bullst.
Did they not do that with the V10s as well? Or was the number of engines they were swapping out of the cars enough to give them their development data?t.Exige77 said:
A44RON said:
jsf said:
They go through 10 times as many on the dyno as they use in the car. What do you think the engine builders do all year? The whole 3 engines malarky is bullst.
Exactly. And if they were allowed one PU every race weekend the costs would be that much higher againt.The cost of the physical engine is not huge.
A44RON's statement about teams budgets is almost completely irrelevant and independent of the engine deal. Engine deals are less than a tenth of the average team budget.
Edited by HustleRussell on Tuesday 16th June 09:52
Exige77 said:
The main cost is the development.
The cost of the physical engine is not huge.
This. If cost saving were the name of the game it would be far cheaper to use a straightforward ICE and replace it after every session, than spend hundreds of millions developing the engines we have now. The cost of the physical engine is not huge.
F1's irony is, that changes are made in the name of cost saving, yet the cost is in the change itself and they happen so often, there's no saving at all.
The current engines might be masterpieces, but the man on the street doesn't GAF because as soon as you start talking about thermal efficiency or energy recovery their eyes glaze over. You could achieve the marketing benefit by simply having the basic KERS we used to have and call it hybrid or whatever. That's why you don't have a queue of manufacturers willing to spend half a billion pounds to get on the grid and spend 4 years looking as crap as Honda did.
Also, there's no point in pretending F1 is at the cutting edge of road car relevancy because, inconveniently, you have FE, which really is far more relevant, but a relatively boring show because of it.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Also, there's no point in pretending F1 is at the cutting edge of road car relevancy because, inconveniently, you have FE, which really is far more relevant, but a relatively boring show because of it.
Pretty much.F1 has hybrid, FE has full electric.. between the two they have the future, both short and longer term covered. Neither has any technical relevance and I doubt very much of what is developed that will in any way benefit road cars. But that's just not the point - I'm sure those setting the formula's are aware of these things! They're just maintaining token relevancy because the manufacturers wish it, and an increasing number of the general population expect to see efforts being made to be greener.
Although in the case of FE I do sometimes wonder how many first time viewers are surprised to see how slow the cars are and how quickly they're depleted. It must put some off buying an EV... That will change once solid state cells are on the market, it could give an FE car the power of an F1 car, less weight and the same range - although at that point having the two distinct series will make less sense, I imagine that too has been considered from the outset.
TheDeuce said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Also, there's no point in pretending F1 is at the cutting edge of road car relevancy because, inconveniently, you have FE, which really is far more relevant, but a relatively boring show because of it.
Pretty much.F1 has hybrid, FE has full electric.. between the two they have the future, both short and longer term covered. Neither has any technical relevance and I doubt very much of what is developed that will in any way benefit road cars. But that's just not the point - I'm sure those setting the formula's are aware of these things! They're just maintaining token relevancy because the manufacturers wish it, and an increasing number of the general population expect to see efforts being made to be greener.
Todt is allowing the tail to wag the dog.
Thing is they aren't slow though. Compared to an F1 car they are but then what isn't. They don't deplete that fast either given how hard they are driven. It's the old Top Gear issue with the original Tesla roadster. They slagged it off for going flat in (from memory) about 50 miles but they had been hooning it around the test track all day. Hardly what a normal user would be doing it plus they never mention that a lot of the petrol cars they do that to drop into single digits.
I think FE is extremely road relevant and as more and more people get into electric vehicles people will see that. YouTube channels dedicated to the building of electric cars are growing rapidly and I know more and more youngsters who are getting into electric car culture far more than petrol cars.
I think FE is extremely road relevant and as more and more people get into electric vehicles people will see that. YouTube channels dedicated to the building of electric cars are growing rapidly and I know more and more youngsters who are getting into electric car culture far more than petrol cars.
Kraken said:
Thing is they aren't slow though. Compared to an F1 car they are but then what isn't. They don't deplete that fast either given how hard they are driven. It's the old Top Gear issue with the original Tesla roadster. They slagged it off for going flat in (from memory) about 50 miles but they had been hooning it around the test track all day. Hardly what a normal user would be doing it plus they never mention that a lot of the petrol cars they do that to drop into single digits.
I think FE is extremely road relevant and as more and more people get into electric vehicles people will see that. YouTube channels dedicated to the building of electric cars are growing rapidly and I know more and more youngsters who are getting into electric car culture far more than petrol cars.
Not slow no... But slower, heavier and more range limited than endless other motorsport series cars and a growing number of road cars. And in any case, naturally they will be compared to F1 cars as it's effectively a spin off series.I think FE is extremely road relevant and as more and more people get into electric vehicles people will see that. YouTube channels dedicated to the building of electric cars are growing rapidly and I know more and more youngsters who are getting into electric car culture far more than petrol cars.
I'm not knocking electric power - but with current cell technology it's extremely limited right now.
ntiz said:
I’m surprised there isn’t some kind of EV class at Le Man yet. To me that is the ideal proving ground for the technology. As the cars would need the best range with fastest charging.
It could Make Le Man very important to the manufacturers again as well.
It's in the post! I believe that over the next couple of years, LMP1 (or whatever they'll be called) will have to travel the first 1k after leaving the pits on electric power only. It could Make Le Man very important to the manufacturers again as well.
In terms of road-relevant technology, you're right. The whole concept of sports prototype racing is that you could bolt a set of road tyres to the to Toyota TS050 and drive it home to the factory after the race. So the connection to road car tech is much closer.
F1 is less about relevance and more about process. It provides a brilliant platform to develop rapid design>prototype>manufacturing processes which can then be transferred into road car design and manufacture. Marketing departments have come to ride off the back of this through 'brand alignment' which carries its own risks (as with Honda a few years back).
MikeStroud said:
I'm a massive Lewis fan-boy but even I had to smile at the hypocrisy implied below. Is it unfair to suggest it's hypocrisy or reasonable?
It's not hypocrisy a statue of a slave trader is very different to working Mercedes Benz one is a company that's moved on from it's past also they were a car company pre war.No one looks at a Mercedes badge & thinks of the world wars but if you look at a statue of a slave trader there's only one thing you can think of but you already knew that.
It's already been discussed elsewhere, but there are clear differences: Daimler Benz/Mercedes have apologised for the actions of the company during the war, & have contributed to reparations to those remaining victims. Many German companies have done the same, as has the German government. The debate is about whether it is appropriate to be celebrating & commemorating people whose actions were reprehensible, or whether we should learn from history & recognise that the place for that information is in the context where the lessons can be learned. I'm sure Hamilton is well aware of that, as are the rest of the team.
Mercedes acknowledge their past on their website... And the statues acknowledge those persons history. What's the difference?
Don't need to pull the statue down, just view it differently! The whole point of a statue is to record a moment of human influence in history.. what that means to us today might have changed... But it's still a moment in history.
Or pull it down and delete all the history that lead to today's enlightened society..? Except we might need that history to remind us how we got here.
Activism over and above progress imo.
Don't need to pull the statue down, just view it differently! The whole point of a statue is to record a moment of human influence in history.. what that means to us today might have changed... But it's still a moment in history.
Or pull it down and delete all the history that lead to today's enlightened society..? Except we might need that history to remind us how we got here.
Activism over and above progress imo.
dibbers006 said:
If we took issue with every product we consume, utilise, craft, create, or allow into our lives based on the history and cultural heritage of the companies that supply them, I'm pretty sure we'd be crouched naked in our front yard eating grass.
Even then, it would still be leveraging the oppression of someone's forefather.
At least Merc have, and are trying to address and redress some balance and moral equality in and to the world. To a greater or lesser degree.
Where everyone's line sits is open for debate. But as a species we're trying to pursue it collective human rights together and moving forward.
Which is all we can do no?
Exactly. Also, all of us including Lewis would have to move out of Britain in protest. And I'm not sure which country we'd go to without a racist history to be honest... Even then, it would still be leveraging the oppression of someone's forefather.
At least Merc have, and are trying to address and redress some balance and moral equality in and to the world. To a greater or lesser degree.
Where everyone's line sits is open for debate. But as a species we're trying to pursue it collective human rights together and moving forward.
Which is all we can do no?
Overall I'd say it's best to look forwards, not backwards. That applies to all of life imo
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff