Charles Leclerc looked set for his first ever victory in Formula One until an technical issue brought an end to that hope 10 laps from the end. He still limped to 3rd, completing the podium along the Mercedes drivers.
On Sky, I am not sure if it was Paul Di Resta or Anthony Davidson, who did a comparison of both Ferrari cars going through same turns. One car was derating (lights blinking), which is normal when the recovery is going on, which was of Vettel and they showed Leclerc's car, where there were no lights working in the same corners. Due to which they concluded that there is some problem in energy recovery and the car is running without battery power.
I dont think anyone thinks the same. Like someone said, less that 1% of races have finished under safety car out of 999 races. I know the safety car wasn't around for all those, but its really not a problem.ispano6 wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 19:14This is to prevent it from recurring. Fine, then red flag the grid, have them line up in pitlane with no tire or setting changes allowed (not a new idea) , perhaps only cooling fans, and release them according to the time deltas prior to the red flag so as to keep things fair(my new idea).Tom145145 wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 18:32What recurring problem would this solve? I think more can be done like partial course VSC etc as others have said. But no team will add more fuel just in case, you would just get extra laps of fuel conservation. Also the nature of a GP is a fixed distance so I think this fundamentally goes against that, even the formation lap is included in the distance.ispano6 wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 18:20
Nonsense? So you know for a fact that all teams fill the fuel tank to 100% capacity at the beginning of a race? And even if they did everyone is just as much at risk of running out of fuel unless you were smart and measured to lift and coast to save enough to finish. If you don't want to run out of fuel for an extended race after don't cause a safety car.
You've solved the problem of a racing finish, of race distance, saving fuel idling, no cars on track while marshals work, more race time (unless they cut your program short, which never happens because we have ceremonies time to bleed into).
Some might complain that the cars might overheat while idling, or the tires will fall out of operating window, but everyone will deal with it. Seriously, ending on a safety car needs to be looked at.
It would be 'smart' to drive more slowly and carry more weight throughout the entire race, just in case there is a Safety Car on the last lap so a handful of fans can have an 'exciting' fake last lap?ispano6 wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 18:20Nonsense? So you know for a fact that all teams fill the fuel tank to 100% capacity at the beginning of a race? And even if they did everyone is just as much at risk of running out of fuel unless you were smart and measured to lift and coast to save enough to finish. If you don't want to run out of fuel for an extended race after don't cause a safety car.
Primarily by tip-toeing around the track on tyres with no grip until they crawl over the line / their engines blow up? I'm not sure how that would be exciting?
F1 has lots of problems as a spectacle. Safety Car finishes are pretty much at the bottom of that list.
How would this work?GrandAxe wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 19:19The race engineer would most certainly be looking at engine data. He would know if the MGU-K failed, the driver would also be able to feel the loss of a cylinder in the amount of vibrations.mzso wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 18:39Just because you state something repeatedly doesn't make it true. For one the race engineer in contact with the driver is certainly not looking at engine data, he could have been plain wrong. It could be that the H was automatically switched off because of the problem. He didn't say it failed. Many things are possible.
There is enough reason to claim that the MGU-K failed if for instance, the mode of engine operation and the visible loss of 40Kph straight line speed would give opponents an insight into how Ferrari manages to deploy longer than other teams.
The same way it did last year. The other teams analyzed the data, and were able to dray very specific conclusion from it, this lead to the entire second sensor fiasco.
I won't agree with you. Alonso is a very good driver and he is the one who can beat Hamilton using Ferrari machinery.ringo wrote: ↑31 Mar 2019, 22:15Its not as simple as thatselvam_e2002 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2019, 20:41Indeed. should be replaced with Alonso with Immediate effect.. Alonso's speed comes with a team devouring political cancer. I think he sucks the air out of a team. He is his own worst enemy. Vettel can be replaced with Riciardo, Perez, Ocon or Hulkenberg. Not as good as Alonso but they wont implode the team and demotivate Charles.
The second sensor fiasco and all the restrictions of this year don't seem to have influenced Ferrari's power. Let's see, if the opponents' very specific conclusions will lead to a third and fourth sensor.dans79 wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 20:20The same way it did last year. The other teams analyzed the data, and were able to dray very specific conclusion from it, this lead to the entire second sensor fiasco.
Keep in mind the other teams have even better data now to work with. They will have Data for both Vettel and Leclerc, running at the same time on the same tires. Thus they can compare and contrast the data between a normally working car and one that isn't.
You'd do that on the dyno, not in a race. You might also try it in testing - that's what testing is for after all. But you wouldn't do that in a race.selvam_e2002 wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 20:37It is my assumption that, ferrari tried two modes with each driver to see how engine works during the race distance.
1. Lecrec with full qualification mode i.e more power from engine and ERS
2. Vettel with normal racing mode(conservative) so it won't affect the engine.
They may try to understand how far they can push the engine. But It is just an assumption and only Ferrari knows how they operate the engine in race with two drivers.
Better than that, she's a baseball fan, not an F1 fan, it appears.
That will depend if anything what they learn from the data they are gathering.
Can you translate that to English? google translate absolutely murders it.etusch wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 21:04strange news at tr motorsport
https://tr.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... r/4363100/
I have a humongous typo in that post. The words "There is enough reason to claim that the MGU-K failed if for instance ..." should be; "There is enough reason to claim that a cylinder failed if for instance ..."LM10 wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 19:59How would this work?GrandAxe wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 19:19The race engineer would most certainly be looking at engine data. He would know if the MGU-K failed, the driver would also be able to feel the loss of a cylinder in the amount of vibrations.mzso wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 18:39Just because you state something repeatedly doesn't make it true. For one the race engineer in contact with the driver is certainly not looking at engine data, he could have been plain wrong. It could be that the H was automatically switched off because of the problem. He didn't say it failed. Many things are possible.
There is enough reason to claim that the MGU-K failed if for instance, the mode of engine operation and the visible loss of 40Kph straight line speed would give opponents an insight into how Ferrari manages to deploy longer than other teams.
