FIA technical delegate Charlie Whiting has confirmed that Honda will be allowed to develop its power unit throughout the 2015 season on a similar basis as was allowed for the other manufacturers.
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.
Facts Only wrote:A number of things are banned for safety rather than cost. Magnesium swarf for example has a nasty habit of bursting into flames which is especially dangerous when you are running CNC machines all night to meet race day deadlines for parts (which can affect teams and suppliers alike)
Aircraft industry has been machining magnesium for decades, fires are extremely rare.
Formula 1 and Aerospace are rather different aren't they. Do I need to explain about the decades long process in aerospace vs the absolute speed required to machine race parts? It wasn't a theory either it's true.
You don't have to explain anything actually, having worked in both the aircraft and motor-sport industry I know the difference. In all my years experience of machining magnesium and titanium I have never witnessed any fires - however that's not to say it can't or hasn't happened at all.
To claim that the rapid turn-round necessary for race vs aircraft parts has a correlation to fire risk is unfounded imo.
diffuser wrote:Since the CVC takes 50% of the cash off the top. They would need to be dismantled or purchased it. The going price seems to be $10B USD.
Why blame the CVC?
It is up to the teams not to give away 50% but they let it happen every time it comes for renegotiation
It's the other way around. FOM get the income and the teams have to beg for their share. They only got what they get now by forming FOTA and threatening to break away.
Anyway the issue about small teams going bust isn't due to the total amount of cash. There is enough cash going to the teams in total but it's not spread out.
ps - Regarding magnesium, I guess there was also concern about the fire hazard in a crash?
ps - Regarding magnesium, I guess there was also concern about the fire hazard in a crash?
I guess you are right to a degree, but from a fire point of view Magnesium per-say is a relatively safe material in a F1 car. It must be heated to its melting point before it can burn and this would likely only occur if the fuel tank ignited - a thankfully rare occurrence these days. Even if that did happen I'm not sure solid Magnesium components would be at the top of the list of fire hazardous materials.
with regards to materials I suspect that it is partly driven by regulations outside F1.
Some of the materials in question fall under special regulations. Their use is governed by a complex set of rules and excemptions which is set on a national level (eg Restriction of Hazardous Substances (ROHS) and Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulations)
There is quite some difference between the different regulations, for instance Korea ROHS is much stricter than the European version. In order to be able to race, the cars need to comply to the strictest regulation they meet in the tour as well as the national regulations in the countries the cars are manufactured.
To give some practical examples: thorium oxide is great for retarding creep in alloys and metals. It would be suited for a number of engine components. However it is also considered a nuclear material. Whereas in some countries you go to a shop and buy thorated welding electrodes, in others you risk going to jail for possessing it. Therefore you cannot use it in F1.
Beryllium is a difficult one. Nobody likes beryllium but for some applications like beryllium copper or X-ray windows there is no real alternative. For years it would look like a total ban would come, and for some countries that still might be the case while others are actually relaxing the rules. In this uncertainty I think that not using it unless you absolutely need it is a wise decision.
Magnesium doesn't have these problems. But I think it is not because of the fire risk (which by the way can be reduced by alloying). If I am correct they do race magnesium alloy rims, which are milled.
I think it might be a legacy ruling based on costs. 15 years ago magnesium was like titanium in the 70's. It was very hard to get the reguired specialist knowledge, equipment, and a good materials supply. That made it extremely expensive for manufacturing purposes. Nowadays that is much less the case. It is still a difficult material, but as it's use is increasing and the alloys improve, the cost gap to high end alu alloys is decreasing.
Besides, I think these type of regulations are not so much aimed at the use of commercially available alloys but at preventing that the teams start developing their own alloys. While I would like that from a materials perspective, I have to admit that this is an expensive business and would drive up costs.
Bernie apparently wants to freeze just merc PU and let ferrari and renault develop their own.
“The thing to do is to freeze the Mercedes engine but not the others,” stated Mr E. “That would make sense but it won’t happen. I was saying the other day, that if Renault improved their engine and Ferrari and Mercedes gained similar amounts then it would be status quo.“
“Hamilton and Rosberg would still be racing between themselves as they are competitive men who want to win but it would be better if they were fighting with other teams.”
Juzh wrote:...but it would be better if they were fighting with other teams...
Just Bernie being Bernie. I can't recall if I asked it in this thread or not but has anyone heard anything on how in-season engine development would work? I missed an AMA y Will Buxton and I wanted to ask him if there were any thoughts on the paddock on how these theoretical updates would work with the weighted point system the engine manufacturers use.
If Ferrari wanted to increase the size of the compressor stage of their turbo, would the ~2 be taken from the 2015 points allotment?
Can't really tell what they've agreed on from that link. Just that they've postponed the deadline date. It will allow them the ability to test parts on the PU in season. Not sure what advantages there are over testing on the dyno. They can't make more changes...they just have more time to think about them.
Are they nuts? Just giving away their advantage like that, please don't do it merc!!!
Regardless how superiour the PU106A is, i doubt that Ferrari or Renault will catch up 100% within next year.
Another issue is that Formula 1 as class in long term will loose if only one team / engine supplyer will win. It is in all intrest that at least Red Bull and Ferrari drivers will have competitive material to fight for victories. This year only Williams has been a good nr 2 and RB as nr 3.
