Your Reject of the Race - Malaysia!

[DemocalypseNow]

Maybe Petrov's car

Yes it is...parked next to Alonso's Ferrari. Must be the used car lot.

[Phoenix]

And for the record, it's worth checking out the monster of a diffuser which Renault are using

Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is on that car? It looks like fire extinguishing foam or something

When I first saw it I thought it was ice

[Jordan]

And for the record, it's worth checking out the monster of a diffuser which Renault are using

Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is on that car? It looks like fire extinguishing foam or something

When I first saw it I thought it was ice

OOOh I see, so this is a mixture of whatever comes out when a Renault goes kaboom

[thehemogoblin]

I think it's actually ground-up, recycled steeds...

... because there's a lot of horse powder being put out by that engine.

[hunzerug]

Thinking of three categories.

Drivers - Barrichello. Outpaced by team-mate, made a complete mockery of the start and then was going backwards, one of the few who had to make two stops.
?

Going backwards? Look at this: http://cliptheapex.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 2&start=50
Nobody overtook more cars after lap 1 than Rubinho
(OK, he sacrificed something for that )

[mario]

And for the record, it's worth checking out the monster of a diffuser which Renault are using

Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is on that car? It looks like fire extinguishing foam or something

It is indeed the residue from the foam from the fire fighters who dealt with Petrov's car (I should have mentioned that in the original post). It is indeed the Parc Ferme where the cars which have retired during the race are taken to (you can see one of the Sauber's in the background).
Certainly, though Renault will be tearing their hair out over this - not only has that foam helped show up a lot of the details, but there are lots of high resolution photographs of that diffuser all over the net. The camera man who took those photos must be raking it in from all of the other teams buying up his photos...
And from the chatter over at F1 Technical, they are very interested in it - some are suggestion Renault may have a triple deck diffuser. Others have pointed out that Renault have been very clever with the floor - they have incorporated some slots, but carefully changed the floor above it so it obeys the "no bodywork visible from below" restrictions. It might explain why Renault have good cornering speed, yet are still very fast on the straights - if the diffuser is so effective, then they can get away with running less wing on the car.

[Jordan]

And for the record, it's worth checking out the monster of a diffuser which Renault are using

Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is on that car? It looks like fire extinguishing foam or something

It is indeed the residue from the foam from the fire fighters who dealt with Petrov's car (I should have mentioned that in the original post). It is indeed the Parc Ferme where the cars which have retired during the race are taken to (you can see one of the Sauber's in the background).
Certainly, though Renault will be tearing their hair out over this - not only has that foam helped show up a lot of the details, but there are lots of high resolution photographs of that diffuser all over the net. The camera man who took those photos must be raking it in from all of the other teams buying up his photos...
And from the chatter over at F1 Technical, they are very interested in it - some are suggestion Renault may have a triple deck diffuser. Others have pointed out that Renault have been very clever with the floor - they have incorporated some slots, but carefully changed the floor above it so it obeys the "no bodywork visible from below" restrictions. It might explain why Renault have good cornering speed, yet are still very fast on the straights - if the diffuser is so effective, then they can get away with running less wing on the car.

Well, where the heck are the pics of the F10 then?! This guy couldn't have been sleeping at the switch. In fact, I think what surprises me most about this is the fact the teams don't get to cover the car up or at least store the thing out of sight. I'm recalling the pre-season testing video of the Ferrari boffins errecting those barriers infront of the faces of gawking Mclaren engineers to keep them from getting a peek at what's going on with their car, so now that the season's underway, have they lost that need to hide everything?

[CarlosFerreira]

I think it's actually ground-up, recycled steeds...

... because there's a lot of horse powder being put out by that engine.

Too funny!

I actually looked at the pictures and thought "that's a poor paint finish, they're really not putting that much effort into Petrov's car"...

[AndreaModa]

The sponsor-less BMW Sauber Ferrari's for being shockingly mediocre and generally rubbish on race day. Peter has a lot to be worried about if he's going to find some cash for next season.

[LionZoo]

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/13837.html

Sorry, but this really rankles me. What Hamilton did was ridiculous and I think the drivers in F1 agree. The reasoning for issuing a warning goes over my head; so is everyone allowed one blatantly illegal maneuver per race now? Can I show up with a 2.8 liter engine and get only a warning as well?

[mario]

Well, where the heck are the pics of the F10 then?! This guy couldn't have been sleeping at the switch. In fact, I think what surprises me most about this is the fact the teams don't get to cover the car up or at least store the thing out of sight. I'm recalling the pre-season testing video of the Ferrari boffins errecting those barriers infront of the faces of gawking Mclaren engineers to keep them from getting a peek at what's going on with their car, so now that the season's underway, have they lost that need to hide everything?

The quick witted photographer who happens to be in the right place at the right time is a nightmare for some designers, and a godsend for others - remember Darren Heath and the shots of the Mclaren footwell, which revealed the turning brake?
It is true that Ferrari have been more cautious with protecting their cars from photographers - there was one scene during testing where they were covering up the back of the car as it was towed into the pits (somewhat pointless, since photographers had already taken shots of the diffuser when Ferrari got their drivers to do a practise start at the end of the pit lane). Mclaren were also using a cover for their diffuser in testing (which was a bit of sheet metal with a hastily cut hole for the rain light to fit through).
Nevertheless, there are still quite a few pictures of the F10 out there - it's just the fact that the Renault diffuser is attracting a lot of attention, as they seem to have optimised their design quite well. As I also mentioned, they have got quite a few interesting features on there which enable them to open up extra channels in the floor, yet stay within the regulations - which the other teams are very interested in.

Continuing the discussion on the Ferrari engines, they are now getting worried about Alonso's engine supply - so, ironically, whilst we have been harping on about Red Bull's reliability problems, Ferrari have problems of their own. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82727
So, those teams had better hope that they sort out their problems - although Mclaren and Mercedes are slower then them, they have been pretty bullet proof in terms of reliability. As a result, Mclaren are on 66 points, only 10 behind Ferrari and 5 ahead of Red Bull (Mercedes are some way back, on 44 points). Now, Mclaren are going to be bringing several new parts to China - possibly including an adjustable ride height mechanism, like Ferrari and Red Bull, which will cut those team's advantage in qualifying trim. If they can hit back soon, then they could well profit when the others have to make extra engine changes.

The engine which Alonso blew at Sepang was the same engine he had used at Melbourne (but only during the race). That means that he was only able to get about 760km on that engine before it blew. Now, compare that to Kubica, who has managed to get 1320km on his engine (and he has only used one engine for both the race at Bahrein, practise and Sepang).
It only seems to be the Ferrari works team which has been hit, though - Sauber managed more mileage, with De La Rosa and Kobayashi clocking up nearly 1100km on their engines (they have only used one engine so far). Toro Rosso have used two engines for each driver, with about 800km on Jaime's engine and 515km on Buemi's engine. So why is the works engine having problems, but the customer engine seems to be fine? They can't have that may differences (as the new engine supply regulations means that you have to supply the same specification engines to customer teams as to the works outfit).

That means that Ferrari have now used three engines - the first one for Bahrein during the practise and qualifying session, and which is now only really fit for use in practise sessions. The second was used for the race at Bahrein, and the third was the one Alonso used at Melbourne and Sepang, until it failed. Massa has also used three engines already, clocking up a similar mileage, and for the same races as Alonso - although he might be able to get some more miles out of his Melbourne/Sepang engine.
It seems to be Renault that are stretching their engines out the furthest - Kubica has only used one engine, as had Petrov, so it wasn't so much of a disaster for Petrov that his engine failed. Vettel has used two, whilst Mark has only used one, which might play into his hands later in the season. Most of the other big teams, meanwhile, are on their second engine.

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/13837.html

Sorry, but this really rankles me. What Hamilton did was ridiculous and I think the drivers in F1 agree. The reasoning for issuing a warning goes over my head; so is everyone allowed one blatantly illegal maneuver per race now? Can I show up with a 2.8 liter engine and get only a warning as well?

Considering that there is quite a lot of bickering going on, I would say that there was not an obvious answer to what the stewards should have done, and that the manoeuvre was not "blatantly" right or wrong. However, I can't see what complaint you have about the reasoning of the stewards, as the stewards have not given their reasons in that article. In fact, the stewards have not released their report yet - so perhaps it would be best to wait until they have released their report and explained their decision.

[CarlosFerreira]

So, those teams had better hope that they sort out their problems - although Mclaren and Mercedes are slower then them, they have been pretty bullet proof in terms of reliability.

Any news on what caused Sutil's engine to revert to 4-pot mode in Australia? Was it an electronics problem, or a mechanic issue? Do you know if the engine is recoverable?

[mario]

So, those teams had better hope that they sort out their problems - although Mclaren and Mercedes are slower then them, they have been pretty bullet proof in terms of reliability.

Any news on what caused Sutil's engine to revert to 4-pot mode in Australia? Was it an electronics problem, or a mechanic issue? Do you know if the engine is recoverable?

I would suspect that it is more likely to be an electronic problem, instead of mechanical.
It is known that the engines are designed to reduce the number of cylinders which fire when behind the safety car, or when the car is forced to wait for some time (as the Force India cars did at the start of qualifying at Sepang, where they happily sat at the end of the pit lane for several minutes), via changing the engine mapping. What often happens is that the engine fires on four cylinders, as if it was a V4 (but they fire on alternate cylinders, so the stress is split between the cylinders), in order to cut fuel consumption and keep the temperature of the engine under control.
I would therefore suspect that the ECU malfunctioned, with the engine stuck in that fuel saving mode. The engine can probably be reused in the future, although I suspect that Force India would want to replace the ECU first.
What does surprise me is that Ferrari chose to let Alonso continue at Sepang when it was clear that he was not able to downshift correctly, due to a damaged clutch. Given that the gearbox would probably have been quite badly damaged by the end of the race, he would probably have had to replace it for China. Alonso was having to work the engine quite hard too, as he was having to rev the engine hard in order to get it to select the gear he wanted. Surely it would have been more sensible to call Alonso in - if he did not finish due to mechanical problems (Ferrari could, quite legitimately, claim that the gear box was indeed damaged and that it was unsafe to proceed), he would have been free to use a new gearbox for China, and would have had a fresher engine too.

[TomWazzleshaw]

What does surprise me is that Ferrari chose to let Alonso continue at Sepang when it was clear that he was not able to downshift correctly, due to a damaged clutch. Given that the gearbox would probably have been quite badly damaged by the end of the race, he would probably have had to replace it for China. Alonso was having to work the engine quite hard too, as he was having to rev the engine hard in order to get it to select the gear he wanted. Surely it would have been more sensible to call Alonso in - if he did not finish due to mechanical problems (Ferrari could, quite legitimately, claim that the gear box was indeed damaged and that it was unsafe to proceed), he would have been free to use a new gearbox for China, and would have had a fresher engine too.

I understand where you're coming from but the downside to that is Alonso was comfortably running in the points for the second half of the race so Ferrari would have left him out there and hoped he finished to score those points he would have picked up had the engine not called it quits with 2 laps to go.

[CarlosFerreira]

What does surprise me is that Ferrari chose to let Alonso continue at Sepang when it was clear that he was not able to downshift correctly, due to a damaged clutch. Given that the gearbox would probably have been quite badly damaged by the end of the race, he would probably have had to replace it for China. Alonso was having to work the engine quite hard too, as he was having to rev the engine hard in order to get it to select the gear he wanted. Surely it would have been more sensible to call Alonso in - if he did not finish due to mechanical problems (Ferrari could, quite legitimately, claim that the gear box was indeed damaged and that it was unsafe to proceed), he would have been free to use a new gearbox for China, and would have had a fresher engine too.

I understand where you're coming from but the downside to that is Alonso was comfortably running in the points for the second half of the race so Ferrari would have left him out there and hoped he finished to score those points he would have picked up had the engine not called it quits with 2 laps to go.

Yeah, but you have to wonder if Alonso wouldn't have been told to hold station behind Button in the very least. It was well known that Button was struggling with tyres, so it's a tough call; I'm glad Alonso went for it at the risk of a mechanical failure (it was the best blow-up lately, the sort we all love, with lots of smoke and a fountain of oil - beautiful mess).

One has to wonder if the fact we are discussing this doesn't mean the cost-cutting rules actually give incentive against taking risks and going for the overtake.