- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Both car or just Hamilton? That might be just Lewis being Lewis....manchild wrote:Let them have it. As far as it matters Bahrain GP, MP4/25 is a tyre-eating monster enjoying both compounds (especially softs).
It's the opposite. Any moveable device has to be a sprung part of the car. The argument was that the mass damper wasn't. That's a rather different set of regulations, mainly because the mass damper wasn't really an aerodynamic device. You can't have a moveable aerodynamic device on the car, and the regulations are actually pretty clear. I don't know what people do now.hybridreload wrote:but the fia stated the movable part cannot be a part (sprung or not) of the car. The mass damper was a sprung part of the car.
Hmmmm, that's a very weak argument in this case. What we have is a driver operating something that clearly changes the car aerodynamically and has one purpose.A driver can already alter the aero characteristic of the car by moving/turning his head, he also alters the airflow when turning the wheels as his hands pop over the cockpit rim.
That's not the issue. What we have as a whole here is a moveable aerodynamic device that affects the car - no ifs no buts - regardless of whether the driver is involved in the process at some point. Assuming of course that this is driver operated, but whatever, it still falls under the same set of regulations.Just_a_fan wrote:The driver isn't a device nor is he part of the car.
Because that's all specifically allowed by the regulations. This........falls outside of it because it is described and excluded.The driver adjusts the front wheels and they probably have the biggest aero effect on the car. Perhaps we should ban steerable wheels...
The driver is not the issue - it's the system as a whole. I don't know why people are focusing on the driver. As a whole, this system with the driver in the middle, is a system that acts as an aerodynamic device making active decisions.siskue2005 wrote:why do people have problems understanding that Driver cannot be considered as a movable aero device.....
Is that just based on the radio clip from Hamilton? Ive seen nothing else to suggest this. Team quotes seem positive and Vettel doesnt think they are looking too bad...manchild wrote:Let them have it. As far as it matters Bahrain GP, MP4/25 is a tyre-eating monster enjoying both compounds (especially softs).
The FIA / stewards disagree with you on that though. And it's their game so I guess you'll just have to find something else to worry about...segedunum wrote:That's not the issue. What we have as a whole here is a moveable aerodynamic device that affects the car - no ifs no buts - regardless of whether the driver is involved in the process at some point. Assuming of course that this is driver operated, but whatever, it still falls under the same set of regulations.Just_a_fan wrote:The driver isn't a device nor is he part of the car.
I simply have to agree. People are focusing on the driver and thinking they can make exceptions, but you can't. The system as a whole is designed to change the aerodynamics and make active decisions about when to do so. Whether a driver is in the middle of that and whether there are no other moving parts is irrelevant. The whole system is a moveable and changeable aerodynamic device.Raptor22 wrote:This whole thing is ridiculous.
the driver activates a system that changes the cars rear wing aerodynamics. It's illegal, pure and simple.
It's very clear that this is more than just for cooling. If it was for cooling then the outlet would stop at the cockpit. It doesn't. There is not even very much grey about this at all.The ducted air is used for a purpose other than cooling, the moving air is used to disrupt the flow (apparently) therefore that air stream is a movable device and is illegal.
It is not illegal. If it were, the FIA/stewards would have refused McLaren permission to race the system this weekend.Raptor22 wrote:This whole thing is ridiculous.
the driver activates a system that changes the cars rear wing aerodynamics. It's illegal, pure and simple.
The ducted air is used for a purpose other than cooling, the moving air is used to disrupt the flow (apparently) therefore that air stream is a movable device and is illegal.
thestig84 wrote:Is that just based on the radio clip from Hamilton? Ive seen nothing else to suggest this.manchild wrote:Let them have it. As far as it matters Bahrain GP, MP4/25 is a tyre-eating monster enjoying both compounds (especially softs).
ESPNF1 Staff March 12, 2010 wrote: McLaren pair struggling with tyre wear
McLaren drivers Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton are both hoping to revise their driving styles after they experienced excessive rear tyre wear during free practice.
The high temperatures in Bahrain combined with the heavy fuel loads needed to start the race are putting extra strain on the Bridgestone rubber. Hamilton said the problem was immediately obvious but is confident he will find a way to drive around the problem.
"Out on track, it's been very hot so tyre degradation of both compounds has been pretty high", he said. "But I think the degradation is something we can handle; you build it into your driving style and moderate the approach to each lap. Still, it's difficult to know what lap time to target when you're on a long run. The less you push at the beginning of a stint, the more there is left to push at the end. But it's difficult to know exactly, and we're still trying to understand that."
Button had similar complaints ahead of the first qualifying session on Saturday and said that the new section of the track, added for this year's grand prix, wasn't helping the problem.
"Today's shown us that looking after the rear tyres is very difficult here, especially on the softer compound," Button said. "So you find yourself driving with a lot of oversteer through most of the stint. The new section of track is very bumpy. Turns Six and Seven are particularly tough because you're trying to brake as late as you can, and, if you do that, the car hits the ground, you bounce all over the place and it's very difficult to see where you're going. So you have to brake earlier, and more gently, so the front doesn't dip through that part of the corner - and that positions you better for the next turn."
Cost cutting!?!! I dont think it cost Mclaren much to come up with the device! It shouldnt cost anything like DDD development costs, Only £££ if teams need massive work to incorporate it. Why should Mclaren suffer if some teams will find it hard or costly to incorporate....unlucky they should have thought of it. This is F1, for me and many people on here a large reason for the love of sport is technical aspect and the innovation. These days there is so little innovation, we see a small, simple cleaver idea and sore loosers like Mike Gascoyne are shouting mouths of to ban it. Sour grapes...I think Lotus have other worries to devote effort to!djones wrote:for cost cutting alone this should have been banned.
Like the lotus bloke said - it now just opens the door to a load of development in that area and you have to do it or you will be left behind.
Shaddock, this thread was "drowning" the MP4/25 one. As you can see, we have had 30 pages of posts on this subject.Shaddock wrote:Can a mod move this thread back to the MP4/25 section where it now BELONGS!
