Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
If FIA wanted cars to run with enough fuel to avoid lift and coast, why not specify that you *must* (as opposed to ‘you are allowed to’) have a fuel tank capable of contraining 110kgs of fuel?
Surely that’s a quantifiable, measurable compliance test which is easy to mandate?
Teams could obviously still choose to short fuel but it’s at least once they’ve made the compromises necessary to fit that size of tank, they’re more likely to use it than if they have the option to fit a smaller one altogether, taking the performance benefits in terms of packaging in full knowledge that it will require lift and coast. In other words, it weights the decision more in favour of having enough fuel to run flat out.
If FIA wanted cars to run with enough fuel to avoid lift and coast, why not specify that you *must* (as opposed to ‘you are allowed to’) have a fuel tank capable of contraining 110kgs of fuel?
Surely that’s a quantifiable, measurable compliance test which is easy to mandate?
Teams could obviously still choose to short fuel but it’s at least once they’ve made the compromises necessary to fit that size of tank, they’re more likely to use it than if they have the option to fit a smaller one altogether, taking the performance benefits in terms of packaging in full knowledge that it will require lift and coast. In other words, it weights the decision more in favour of having enough fuel to run flat out.
If FIA wanted cars to run with enough fuel to avoid lift and coast, why not specify that you *must* (as opposed to ‘you are allowed to’) have a fuel tank capable of contraining 110kgs of fuel?
Surely that’s a quantifiable, measurable compliance test which is easy to mandate?
Teams could obviously still choose to short fuel but it’s at least once they’ve made the compromises necessary to fit that size of tank, they’re more likely to use it than if they have the option to fit a smaller one altogether, taking the performance benefits in terms of packaging in full knowledge that it will require lift and coast. In other words, it weights the decision more in favour of having enough fuel to run flat out.
Great point!
Even better, if you decide to run less than the allowed 110 kg during the race (so you decide to short fill), then the difference must be fitted as ballast at the roll hoop! But then there goes a strategy play.
Don't know. First of all, why talk yourself up. Let actions speak. But that might be just my mindset. McLaren also talked a lot pre 2018 (and even the first races in still) but grew very quiet. To me that is not a good look.
Renault does have the ex FIA employee Marcin Budkowski and I do see a lot of ideas from other teams already plainly in sight in the first render, so they might actually have something for this year.
On the other hand, especially for the PU I have been "hanging on their lips" for several seasons and it never really materialized. Why should it now be different. But maybe it is. I for one actually do think last years engine although down on power and especially on peak qualy modes was much more dependable then the 2017 units. Most fails were not directly engine related if I recall correctly. So that might mean they have now indeed been able to build on that.
We'll see soon enough, I am just guessing here but likely they rest of the top midfield cars have also made similar steps (and possibly STR can join now?) I don't think they will be the only one closing the gap to the top if any gap closing takes place at all.
If FIA wanted cars to run with enough fuel to avoid lift and coast, why not specify that you *must* (as opposed to ‘you are allowed to’) have a fuel tank capable of contraining 110kgs of fuel?
Surely that’s a quantifiable, measurable compliance test which is easy to mandate?
Teams could obviously still choose to short fuel but it’s at least once they’ve made the compromises necessary to fit that size of tank, they’re more likely to use it than if they have the option to fit a smaller one altogether, taking the performance benefits in terms of packaging in full knowledge that it will require lift and coast. In other words, it weights the decision more in favour of having enough fuel to run flat out.
Great point!
Even better, if you decide to run less than the allowed 110 kg during the race (so you decide to short fill), then the difference must be fitted as ballast at the roll hoop! But then there goes a strategy play.
Come to think of it, why couldn’t they just say ‘you must run 110kgs’ of fuel and they could weigh the car with it’s starting fuel prior to the race?
‘But Cowell has suggested that Mercedes may not opt to fill to the maximum 110kg because of the weight handicap that comes from carrying extra fuel.
“If you have got an efficient engine with efficient aerodynamics and you are prepared to do a little bit of lift and coasting, then you have the opportunity to start the race at less than 110kg,” he said.
“For every 5kg of weight you save, it’s about two tenths of a second a lap quicker, so there is a natural reward to starting the race a little bit lighter. ’
‘But Cowell has suggested that Mercedes may not opt to fill to the maximum 110kg because of the weight handicap that comes from carrying extra fuel.
“If you have got an efficient engine with efficient aerodynamics and you are prepared to do a little bit of lift and coasting, then you have the opportunity to start the race at less than 110kg,” he said.
“For every 5kg of weight you save, it’s about two tenths of a second a lap quicker, so there is a natural reward to starting the race a little bit lighter. ’
This is track and starting position dependant. One some tracks absolutely everyone will run with max fuel.
Even better, if you decide to run less than the allowed 110 kg during the race (so you decide to short fill), then the difference must be fitted as ballast at the roll hoop! But then there goes a strategy play.
Come to think of it, why couldn’t they just say ‘you must run 110kgs’ of fuel and they could weigh the car with it’s starting fuel prior to the race?
On tracks where fuel is not a problem teams would just use various fuel burning technics to get the fuel down as quickly as possible, then just continue normal running.
I predict another battle between Ferrari and Mercedes with RedBull close.
Then a gap with Renault
Then the two most efficient teams on the grid, who proven themselves fast when having a bit of budget: Racing Point Jordan and Alfa Sauber and maybe a HAAS here and there
Then a fight for the back, the most inefficient team in the history of F1: McLaren, Williams who still can't find their way up and Toro Rosso who went quite conservative and have perhaps the least desirable drivers lineup of the grid.
Mercedes
Ferrari
-
RedBull
-
-
Renault
-
Racing Point
Alfa Romeo Racing
HAAS
-
McLaren
Williams
Toro Rosso
A probably too early, but why the hell not prediction;
1. Mercedes - car looks a monster, done 100km without blinking already. I think Hamilton will continue to shade Vettel when it matters. Only question mark is whether Bottas has recovered enough to be capable of helping the team bag the WCC.
2. Ferrari - Consistency and reliability will be their key. Chance of another Vettel meltdown via Hamilton and / or LeClerc
3. Red Bull - May at times be the fastest car, but how reliable? Similar to the end of last year really, fast some places, not so fast others. Weaker driver line up not a help either.
4. Renault - Likely not the 4th fastest car, but advantage of being a works team, and strong driver lineup help.
5. Mclaren - The oft repeated boast about having a great chassis may finally come true! But customer engines and drivers weakens things, unless Norris is the second coming of Hamilton, at best he'll be fast and inconsistent.
6. Alfa - Radical looking car builds on last year, but weaker driver lineup with retirement tour Kimi and Giovinazzi. Kimi will occasionally pull it out the bag when he feels like it though.
7. Racing Point - Making bullish noises, but last year's disruption must have hampered car development. No comparably quick Ocon to push Perez and possibility of strife between Strolls and Perez / rest of the team. Say they will develop all year now, but so will the teams ahead of them.
8. Haas - Uninspiring car with uninspiring drivers combine for uninspiring season - bonus points if Rich Energy disappear mid season.
9. STR - Tidy looking car but poor drivers and likely being used as the test bed for Honda parts limits things - bonus points for Kyvat being punted. Again.
10. Williams - Well. Car looks basic as hell in the renders, presumably since there was no money last year, can they use new sponsor and Stroll payoff cash to rapidly develop ahead of the rate everybody else will? More likely write the year off and go for 2020. Remains to be seen if either driver can occasionally drag the car up the field, Alonso style, but I imagine they'll have to get used to being last. Way last.
I predict another battle between Ferrari and Mercedes with RedBull close.
Then a gap with Renault
Then the two most efficient teams on the grid, who proven themselves fast when having a bit of budget: Racing Point Jordan and Alfa Sauber and maybe a HAAS here and there
Then a fight for the back, the most inefficient team in the history of F1: McLaren, Williams who still can't find their way up and Toro Rosso who went quite conservative and have perhaps the least desirable drivers lineup of the grid.
Mercedes
Ferrari
-
RedBull
-
-
Renault
-
Racing Point
Alfa Romeo Racing
HAAS
-
McLaren
Williams
Toro Rosso
Pretty much the same as last year I guess ;p
Mclaren and Williams are inneficient only due to the fact they are not abusing the current state of F1 like Mercedes, Ferrari and Redbull do. B teams should have been strictly banned, instead we now have atleast 40% of the field made up by B teams.
Mclaren really shot themself in the knees when they didnt decide to take Manor as their B team right from the start of their Honda collaboration, Williams on the other hand never had the money to do so.
If i would get the money to start my own F1 team, i would revive Arrows
Have seen some cars now, so i'm going with a risky prediction:
1. RedBull: Thinking about it for a while, and I do think they go off on a rough start, but manage to nail it at the end. Honda comes trough with delivering a package(after the first update) wich closes the gap to near a tenth(at the less favorable circuits) at the end.
2. Mercedes: I'm not sure, I think Mercedes will also have a good package. But only at the end. Close battle with RB. Their lack of results at the start will cost them at the end.
3. Ferrari: Although, I think they come out on top in the first quarter of the season or so, but they run into development issues and fall back in results(4-6th at the end). Perhaps the switch of Leclerc plays a roll aswell.
4. Toro Rosso: Again, Honda's managing to deliver, and they share more and more components with RedBull, so Toro Rosso benefits aswell.
5. Renault: Not a fan, but i do think their development work pays off and they will be in a tight battle with Toro Rosso.
6/7. Sauber/Haas: Coasting along with Ferrari, they also score most of their points at the start of the season, but fall back from midway onwards.
8. Racing Point: Not sure what to think. Guessing they're barely able to fight with Haas and Renault.
9. Williams: They will start to get things back on track. Perhaps a bit more in the beginning of the season.
10. McLaren: They struggle as we've seen them doing in the last few years. Perhaps the gap stays close because Renault is doing a decent job. Chassis-wise a disaster, like Williams last year.
Merc's sixth consecutive WDC.
A still-winnowing Ferrari with a bigger gap to second than in '18, losing more points to RB.
RB with a test-bed engine for another third place year.
Fourth goes Renault, Haas, or Racing Point.
Merc's main competitors in Ferrari and RB are both contending with major changes (driver lineup for both, PU supplier change for RB). It's Merc's season to lose. Expect more masterful sandbagging with a comfortable late season walk-away.
But then there goes a strategy play.
