Grand Prix Rejects

Jocke1 wrote:Will China ever lose their number one spot in the list of countries by population?
And will Russia move past Bangladesh in the not so distant future?


1 China ----------- 1,360,720,000
2 India ------------ 1,240,380,000
3 United States -- 317,541,000
4 Indonesia ------ 249,866,000
5 Brazil ---------- 201,032,714
6 Pakistan ------ 185,649,000
7 Nigeria -------- 173,615,000
8 Bangladesh --- 152,518,015
9 Russia -------- 143,657,134
10 Japan ------- 127,220,000
82 Somalia ---- 10,496,000

Well, this is a rather bizarre question - we usually do not deal with questions on national demographics here.

Since you ask, there are studies that suggest that India will become the most populous nation on earth as a consequence of rapidly slowing population growth rates in China that are linked to the "one child" policy of China and sharply declining infant mortality rates in India. The indication is that the crossover from China to India being the most populous nation will be somewhere between 2020 and 2030.

As for Russia and Bangladesh, it is unlikely that Russia will surpass Bangladesh in terms of population any time soon - it is worth remembering that the population of Russia was in decline until 2009 and is now only slowly beginning to grow. As recently as 2010 though, there have been UN studies that considered it plausible that the population of Russia would continue declining over the foreseeable future though due to high adult male mortality rates (much of which is associated with chronic alcohol abuse).
As for Bangladesh, although the population growth rate has been sharply slowing, it is still markedly higher than in Russia and so it is likely that the population of Bangladesh will continue to grow over the foreseeable future.

mario wrote: Well, this is a rather bizarre question - we usually do not deal with questions on national demographics here.

Bizarre questions often appear in my head whenever my hippocampus gets carried away.

Jocke1 wrote:

mario wrote: Well, this is a rather bizarre question - we usually do not deal with questions on national demographics here.

Bizarre questions often appear in my head whenever my hippocampus gets carried away.

My head also turns bizarre when my hippocampus becomes a camp for us hippos...

dr-baker wrote:

Jocke1 wrote:

mario wrote: Well, this is a rather bizarre question - we usually do not deal with questions on national demographics here.

Bizarre questions often appear in my head whenever my hippocampus gets carried away.

My head also turns bizarre when my hippocampus becomes a camp for us hippos...

My head went bizarrely berserk reading this...

I always have weird questions to ask, but none of them are usually relevant here.

Mario, is there anything you don't know?

watka wrote:Mario, is there anything you don't know?

I bet he doesn't know what I had for breakfast this morning.

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

watka wrote:Mario, is there anything you don't know?

I bet he doesn't know what I had for breakfast this morning.

You strike me as a Captain Crunch kind of guy.

watka wrote:

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:

watka wrote:Mario, is there anything you don't know?

I bet he doesn't know what I had for breakfast this morning.

You strike me as a Captain Crunch kind of guy.

Who knows, maybe it will turn out to be something like eggs benedict instead (I would have pictured UgncreativeUsergname to be a more sohpisticated poster than you might imagine).

watka, whilst flattered by your comments I shall freely admit that there will be a great many things in this world that I do not know about and shall never know about, much as I may like to be a modern incarnation of Eratosthenes. If there is anything that I can recommend though, it is a continued intellectual curiosity with the world - it was just that Jocke1's question triggered a memory of an old newspaper article that I'd read some time ago about the impact of alcoholism on Russian health, particularly for adult males (resulting in an average lifespan for men of about 60 at the time that article was written, one of the lowest lifespans in the developed world outside of the most deprived parts of Glasgow (the official average lifespan of the poorest sectors of Glasgow is 58)), and the fact that it was proceeding to skew the gender balance of Russia towards women as a consequence.

mario wrote:watka, whilst flattered by your comments I shall freely admit that there will be a great many things in this world that I do not know about and shall never know about, much as I may like to be a modern incarnation of Eratosthenes. If there is anything that I can recommend though, it is a continued intellectual curiosity with the world

This is actually very similar to me. I find out random things and gain more (usually useless) knowledge just based upon intellectual curiosity, which I imagine many of us humans have and will have for the remainder of our lives. It's like, I might be bored one day - as I am very often bored in winter - and then get some random thought in my head, being curious as normal, and just go to the Internet and look up what I then sought to know. Or it may be something completely different, like wondering how to finish a Sudoku puzzle that I've been stuck on for a long time, or reading the regulations of a racing series and seeing if I have any mind whatsoever to see if I can find a loophole in those regulations, and write them down on paper - usually I can't find any. I for one have no idea why humans have this intellectual curiosity about them to know something completely random or possibly knowledgable, and probably will never know why this is caused.

Which leads me to another thought, are there any other loopholes in this year's F1 regulations that could work and prove to be either competitive or not competitive?

Since apparently someone is interested, here's what I had for breakfast that fateful morning:

Small brand Cheerios.

No tea?

go_Rubens wrote:

mario wrote:watka, whilst flattered by your comments I shall freely admit that there will be a great many things in this world that I do not know about and shall never know about, much as I may like to be a modern incarnation of Eratosthenes. If there is anything that I can recommend though, it is a continued intellectual curiosity with the world

This is actually very similar to me. I find out random things and gain more (usually useless) knowledge just based upon intellectual curiosity, which I imagine many of us humans have and will have for the remainder of our lives. It's like, I might be bored one day - as I am very often bored in winter - and then get some random thought in my head, being curious as normal, and just go to the Internet and look up what I then sought to know. Or it may be something completely different, like wondering how to finish a Sudoku puzzle that I've been stuck on for a long time, or reading the regulations of a racing series and seeing if I have any mind whatsoever to see if I can find a loophole in those regulations, and write them down on paper - usually I can't find any. I for one have no idea why humans have this intellectual curiosity about them to know something completely random or possibly knowledgable, and probably will never know why this is caused.

Which leads me to another thought, are there any other loopholes in this year's F1 regulations that could work and prove to be either competitive or not competitive?

On the topic of loopholes, I guess that some of the various tricks that might exist are probably not being exploited yet as teams focus on more critical aspects, such as optimising the performance of the engines and electrical systems on the car. Besides, some teams might be fearful of showing their hand too early in case their rivals copy their ideas.

That said, a few teams are beginning to exploit a few small loopholes here and there - Williams appear to have spotted a little loophole in the rules that has allowed them to create a device that is similar to the beam wing. There is a horizontal extension of the base of the rear wing on the car - it is legal because it counts as part of the rear wing, but fits above the diffuser and seems to partially replicate the function of the beam wing.


Asides from that, there are McLaren's rear suspension aero shrouds that attempt to also enhance the efficiency of the diffuser, whilst there is some interesting speculation surround Ferrari too (there is a suggestion that Ferrari have modified their transmission system so they have 'seamless' downshifts as well as 'seamless' upshifts - perhaps not so much of a loophole as a logical extension of an existing technology that nobody else seems to have adopted so far).

mario wrote:On the topic of loopholes, I guess that some of the various tricks that might exist are probably not being exploited yet as teams focus on more critical aspects, such as optimising the performance of the engines and electrical systems on the car. Besides, some teams might be fearful of showing their hand too early in case their rivals copy their ideas.

That said, a few teams are beginning to exploit a few small loopholes here and there - Williams appear to have spotted a little loophole in the rules that has allowed them to create a device that is similar to the beam wing. There is a horizontal extension of the base of the rear wing on the car - it is legal because it counts as part of the rear wing, but fits above the diffuser and seems to partially replicate the function of the beam wing.


Asides from that, there are McLaren's rear suspension aero shrouds that attempt to also enhance the efficiency of the diffuser, whilst there is some interesting speculation surround Ferrari too (there is a suggestion that Ferrari have modified their transmission system so they have 'seamless' downshifts as well as 'seamless' upshifts - perhaps not so much of a loophole as a logical extension of an existing technology that nobody else seems to have adopted so far).

The wing mirrors on the FW36 are another clever circumvention of the technical regulations. In spite of the FIA's attempts to restrict the exploitation of the mirrors as an aerodynamic device, Williams have positioned their's on unorthodox, elongated mountings which rather blatantly serves an aerodynamic purpose, presumably as an airflow conditioner.



In addition to the "mushroom/butterfly" suspension shrouds, the MP4-29 boasts another interesting design detail in the form of sidepod "snorkels", an addition likely owing to Matt Morris' arrival in the summer of last year. From what I understand, the lower pressure heated gases released by the snorkels attracts the cooler, higher pressure surrounding airflow, actuating an aerodynamic chain reaction which serves to seal off and subsequently protect the airflow directed towards the sidepods. No doubt due to the influence of the snorkels, the McLaren also has noticeably shortened sidepod airflow conditioners (the vanes mounted on the sides of the car) relative to the rest of the grid, which may or may not represent an aerodynamic advantage.

kevinbotz wrote:In addition to the "mushroom/butterfly" suspension shrouds, the MP4-29 boasts another interesting design detail in the form of sidepod "snorkels", an addition likely owing to Matt Morris' arrival in the summer of last year. From what I understand, the lower pressure heated gases released by the snorkels attracts the cooler, higher pressure surrounding airflow, actuating an aerodynamic chain reaction which serves to seal off and subsequently protect the airflow directed towards the sidepods. No doubt due to the influence of the snorkels, the McLaren also has noticeably shortened sidepod airflow conditioners (the vanes mounted on the sides of the car) relative to the rest of the grid, which may or may not represent an aerodynamic advantage.

I think that it might be the first time that McLaren have started using that configuration, but the use of those turning vanes that also act as cooling ducts do seem reminiscent of a similar design of cooling vent that was in use back in 2006 on a number of cars.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Canada.jpg [image is quite large and so won't fit on the page properly]



A number of teams also carried that design over into 2007 and 2008 as well - McLaren were one, as were Toyota (at least for the early part of the season), Honda and Super Aguri, although in those cases the outlets tended to be towards the rear, rather than the front, of the cockpits and tended to be incorporated into the extended turning vanes that were on the sidepods of the cars of the time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nada_2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... laysia.jpg

If Red Bull issues hopefully continue, and Ferrari/Mercedes are relatively equally matched, we could be looking at an amazing, truly classic 4 man battle for the championship.

However, if this double points system damages the respectability of the final season result (a la 1988), would it be scrapped the following year? Would heels be dug in and excuses rolled out? I honestly don't know.

Would it almost be better that one championship result is damaged in its initial year of inception, and consequently scrapped, than have it lay latent for a few years and cause far more issues, but be more entrenched by then?

SgtPepper wrote:If Red Bull issues hopefully continue, and Ferrari/Mercedes are relatively equally matched, we could be looking at an amazing, truly classic 4 man battle for the championship.

However, if this double points system damages the respectability of the final season result (a la 1988), would it be scrapped the following year? Would heels be dug in and excuses rolled out? I honestly don't know.

Would it almost be better that one championship result is damaged in its initial year of inception, and consequently scrapped, than have it lay latent for a few years and cause far more issues, but be more entrenched by then?

It'd be better in many ways if it could be scrapped without causing such a contentious issue, but sadly it probably will require a major scandal for the rule to be revoked (and it would be sad to see whichever party might be particularly heavily hit by that have to suffer for a bad rule to be righted). It probably would be the case that some parties would try to hold onto the rule if they could, but it would probably be easiest to drive the rule out in the first couple of seasons before it became solidly entrenched.

mario wrote:

SgtPepper wrote:If Red Bull issues hopefully continue, and Ferrari/Mercedes are relatively equally matched, we could be looking at an amazing, truly classic 4 man battle for the championship.

However, if this double points system damages the respectability of the final season result (a la 1988), would it be scrapped the following year? Would heels be dug in and excuses rolled out? I honestly don't know.

Would it almost be better that one championship result is damaged in its initial year of inception, and consequently scrapped, than have it lay latent for a few years and cause far more issues, but be more entrenched by then?

It'd be better in many ways if it could be scrapped without causing such a contentious issue, but sadly it probably will require a major scandal for the rule to be revoked (and it would be sad to see whichever party might be particularly heavily hit by that have to suffer for a bad rule to be righted). It probably would be the case that some parties would try to hold onto the rule if they could, but it would probably be easiest to drive the rule out in the first couple of seasons before it became solidly entrenched.

But who would honestly have something to gain from holding onto it?

SgtPepper wrote:

mario wrote:

SgtPepper wrote:If Red Bull issues hopefully continue, and Ferrari/Mercedes are relatively equally matched, we could be looking at an amazing, truly classic 4 man battle for the championship.

However, if this double points system damages the respectability of the final season result (a la 1988), would it be scrapped the following year? Would heels be dug in and excuses rolled out? I honestly don't know.

Would it almost be better that one championship result is damaged in its initial year of inception, and consequently scrapped, than have it lay latent for a few years and cause far more issues, but be more entrenched by then?

It'd be better in many ways if it could be scrapped without causing such a contentious issue, but sadly it probably will require a major scandal for the rule to be revoked (and it would be sad to see whichever party might be particularly heavily hit by that have to suffer for a bad rule to be righted). It probably would be the case that some parties would try to hold onto the rule if they could, but it would probably be easiest to drive the rule out in the first couple of seasons before it became solidly entrenched.

But who would honestly have something to gain from holding onto it?

FOM. They gain monies from the UAE government to hold a double points race in Abu Dhabi, which they can actually pay. It's probably why Interlagos was off the season finale.

go_Rubens wrote:FOM. They gain monies from the UAE government to hold a double points race in Abu Dhabi, which they can actually pay. It's probably why Interlagos was off the season finale.

Exactly - the authorities in the UAE have been particularly keen to pay a premium if they perceive their track to be getting additional prominence, which is why they have reportedly paid a surcharge in the past when their race was the season finale. However, with the title battle proving to be unpredictable from year to year and therefore not always decided in Abu Dhabi, they now place less of a premium on being the season finale given that interest tends to rapidly wane in the sport if the title is already decided before the final race (hence why they have shifted to slightly earlier in the year now).

Awarding double points, therefore, gives the UAE that sense of being more important and prestigious than the other races in the calendar, which directly feeds into the fee that they are therefore willing to pay. It also creates a sense of competition amongst the tracks that can then be exploited by FOM to gouge higher fees from them - there are a few suggestions that the Brazilians are pressing FOM so they can have a 'double points' round, which no doubt FOM will exploit by charging a commensurately higher fee for the privilege of effectively being more 'valuable' than the other races.

The other potential group that benefits would be the broadcasters - as has been seen several times in the past, if the title is decided quite early on in the season the viewing figures tend to drop off very sharply in the final races, cutting into their potential to generate revenue from advertising. Artificially extending the season is therefore very beneficial for them too, which has lead some to suspect that some broadcasters, whilst publicly critical, may at the same time be taking a more neutral line with FOM until they see whether or not the 'double points' rounds are successful in offsetting some of the decline in viewing figures that would normally happen.

mario wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:FOM. They gain monies from the UAE government to hold a double points race in Abu Dhabi, which they can actually pay. It's probably why Interlagos was off the season finale.

Exactly - the authorities in the UAE have been particularly keen to pay a premium if they perceive their track to be getting additional prominence, which is why they have reportedly paid a surcharge in the past when their race was the season finale. However, with the title battle proving to be unpredictable from year to year and therefore not always decided in Abu Dhabi, they now place less of a premium on being the season finale given that interest tends to rapidly wane in the sport if the title is already decided before the final race (hence why they have shifted to slightly earlier in the year now).

Awarding double points, therefore, gives the UAE that sense of being more important and prestigious than the other races in the calendar, which directly feeds into the fee that they are therefore willing to pay. It also creates a sense of competition amongst the tracks that can then be exploited by FOM to gouge higher fees from them - there are a few suggestions that the Brazilians are pressing FOM so they can have a 'double points' round, which no doubt FOM will exploit by charging a commensurately higher fee for the privilege of effectively being more 'valuable' than the other races.

The other potential group that benefits would be the broadcasters - as has been seen several times in the past, if the title is decided quite early on in the season the viewing figures tend to drop off very sharply in the final races, cutting into their potential to generate revenue from advertising. Artificially extending the season is therefore very beneficial for them too, which has lead some to suspect that some broadcasters, whilst publicly critical, may at the same time be taking a more neutral line with FOM until they see whether or not the 'double points' rounds are successful in offsetting some of the decline in viewing figures that would normally happen.

Great explanation as always but the thing that I still can't understand is why does Bernie think that double points would be a good idea?

roblomas52 wrote:

mario wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:FOM. They gain monies from the UAE government to hold a double points race in Abu Dhabi, which they can actually pay. It's probably why Interlagos was off the season finale.

Exactly - the authorities in the UAE have been particularly keen to pay a premium if they perceive their track to be getting additional prominence, which is why they have reportedly paid a surcharge in the past when their race was the season finale. However, with the title battle proving to be unpredictable from year to year and therefore not always decided in Abu Dhabi, they now place less of a premium on being the season finale given that interest tends to rapidly wane in the sport if the title is already decided before the final race (hence why they have shifted to slightly earlier in the year now).

Awarding double points, therefore, gives the UAE that sense of being more important and prestigious than the other races in the calendar, which directly feeds into the fee that they are therefore willing to pay. It also creates a sense of competition amongst the tracks that can then be exploited by FOM to gouge higher fees from them - there are a few suggestions that the Brazilians are pressing FOM so they can have a 'double points' round, which no doubt FOM will exploit by charging a commensurately higher fee for the privilege of effectively being more 'valuable' than the other races.

The other potential group that benefits would be the broadcasters - as has been seen several times in the past, if the title is decided quite early on in the season the viewing figures tend to drop off very sharply in the final races, cutting into their potential to generate revenue from advertising. Artificially extending the season is therefore very beneficial for them too, which has lead some to suspect that some broadcasters, whilst publicly critical, may at the same time be taking a more neutral line with FOM until they see whether or not the 'double points' rounds are successful in offsetting some of the decline in viewing figures that would normally happen.

Great explanation as always but the thing that I still can't understand is why does Bernie think that double points would be a good idea?

Once again, money is the answer. I wish FOM wasn't so money freedy so maybe we'd see rules that are actually half decent.

mario wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:FOM. They gain monies from the UAE government to hold a double points race in Abu Dhabi, which they can actually pay. It's probably why Interlagos was off the season finale.

Exactly - the authorities in the UAE have been particularly keen to pay a premium if they perceive their track to be getting additional prominence, which is why they have reportedly paid a surcharge in the past when their race was the season finale. However, with the title battle proving to be unpredictable from year to year and therefore not always decided in Abu Dhabi, they now place less of a premium on being the season finale given that interest tends to rapidly wane in the sport if the title is already decided before the final race (hence why they have shifted to slightly earlier in the year now).

Awarding double points, therefore, gives the UAE that sense of being more important and prestigious than the other races in the calendar, which directly feeds into the fee that they are therefore willing to pay. It also creates a sense of competition amongst the tracks that can then be exploited by FOM to gouge higher fees from them - there are a few suggestions that the Brazilians are pressing FOM so they can have a 'double points' round, which no doubt FOM will exploit by charging a commensurately higher fee for the privilege of effectively being more 'valuable' than the other races.

The other potential group that benefits would be the broadcasters - as has been seen several times in the past, if the title is decided quite early on in the season the viewing figures tend to drop off very sharply in the final races, cutting into their potential to generate revenue from advertising. Artificially extending the season is therefore very beneficial for them too, which has lead some to suspect that some broadcasters, whilst publicly critical, may at the same time be taking a more neutral line with FOM until they see whether or not the 'double points' rounds are successful in offsetting some of the decline in viewing figures that would normally happen.

I was completely unaware of this financial situation behind the scenes, though its existence completely fails to surprise me, thankyou for the elucidation.

Edit - Can I also just add how utterly disgusting this entire scenario is? Before I just thought it was a naive blunder to try improve viewing figures, but this utterly undermines the entire calendar for short-term financial thinking. I don't just find this pathetic, but also potentially quite dangerous in the long run.

SgtPepper wrote:

mario wrote:

go_Rubens wrote:FOM. They gain monies from the UAE government to hold a double points race in Abu Dhabi, which they can actually pay. It's probably why Interlagos was off the season finale.

Exactly - the authorities in the UAE have been particularly keen to pay a premium if they perceive their track to be getting additional prominence, which is why they have reportedly paid a surcharge in the past when their race was the season finale. However, with the title battle proving to be unpredictable from year to year and therefore not always decided in Abu Dhabi, they now place less of a premium on being the season finale given that interest tends to rapidly wane in the sport if the title is already decided before the final race (hence why they have shifted to slightly earlier in the year now).

Awarding double points, therefore, gives the UAE that sense of being more important and prestigious than the other races in the calendar, which directly feeds into the fee that they are therefore willing to pay. It also creates a sense of competition amongst the tracks that can then be exploited by FOM to gouge higher fees from them - there are a few suggestions that the Brazilians are pressing FOM so they can have a 'double points' round, which no doubt FOM will exploit by charging a commensurately higher fee for the privilege of effectively being more 'valuable' than the other races.

The other potential group that benefits would be the broadcasters - as has been seen several times in the past, if the title is decided quite early on in the season the viewing figures tend to drop off very sharply in the final races, cutting into their potential to generate revenue from advertising. Artificially extending the season is therefore very beneficial for them too, which has lead some to suspect that some broadcasters, whilst publicly critical, may at the same time be taking a more neutral line with FOM until they see whether or not the 'double points' rounds are successful in offsetting some of the decline in viewing figures that would normally happen.

I was completely unaware of this financial situation behind the scenes, though its existence completely fails to surprise me, thankyou for the elucidation.

Edit - Can I also just add how utterly disgusting this entire scenario is? Before I just thought it was a naive blunder to try improve viewing figures, but this utterly undermines the entire calendar for short-term financial thinking. I don't just find this pathetic, but also potentially quite dangerous in the long run.

On the financial side, there is also another party who will benefit directly from the double points rounds, and that would be the FIA - with the team licence fees directly tied to the number of points that a team scores in the previous season, doubling the points haul for one race effectively increases their income by 5% without any additional effort on their part.
If anything, the move probably represents an even easier source of profits than it will for FOM. Whilst FOM will only reap about a third of any additional fees they might raise from 'prestige' payments to host a double points event, with the rest going directly to the teams under the terms of the new Concorde Agreement, the FIA's additional revenue represents pure profit given that there is no cost to them if the number of points available in a race is doubled.

Will the Abu Dhabi round be worth double points in the Predicament Predictions game as well?

watka wrote:Will the Abu Dhabi round be worth double points in the Predicament Predictions game as well?

Will the Japanese GP be worth double points in RWRS?
Given Alitalia's late season form, I certainly hope so!

Biscione wrote:

watka wrote:Will the Abu Dhabi round be worth double points in the Predicament Predictions game as well?

Will the Japanese GP be worth double points in RWRS?
Given Alitalia's late season form, I certainly hope so!

Good luck getting that past the F1RTA. Anyone below about 6th or so in the constructors championship will likely try to veto it

Given the problems the teams are facing during preseason testing, how many races would have taken for HRT to get their car running?

Bonus track: there may be two possible answers for this, depending on whether we talk about HRT-Renault or about HRT-Whatever.

Ferrim wrote:Given the problems the teams are facing during preseason testing, how many races would have taken for HRT to get their car running?

Bonus track: there may be two possible answers for this, depending on whether we talk about HRT-Renault or about HRT-Whatever.

The question would be which engine manufacturer would be prepared to supply them? Renault and Ferrari supply Caterham and Marussia respectively and would it not be a bit of a conflict of interest for either of those to supply HRT? At the very least, HRT wouldn't have any technical support/"mentoring" from the bigger teams in the way that Caterham and Marussia do. That leaves Mercedes, who are already supplying 4 teams, which is a stretch, and will be cutting back when McLaren (and I'm guessing maybe Force India) switch to Honda next year. That would leave them with a Cosworth engine, who wouldn't have the resources to develop the engine thoroughly and would possibly have the same problems as a Renault are experiencing.

So basically, I couldn't see them making the grid.

Thinking about it, the one thing that is rather striking is that, thinking back to late 2013, how the predictions on the turbo engines have turned out to be rather surprising in some ways.

Whilst Mercedes do currently seem to have the upper hand that they were suggested to have - although probably nowhere near what was rumoured at the time - what is striking is that most figures seemed to believe that it would be Ferrari, not Renault, who would be the ones that would struggle the most. Although Ferrari did have a few issues in Bahrain, on the whole their development program has run reasonably smoothly - they are perhaps a little short on mileage, but still some way ahead of Renault and reportedly having pulled off something of a coup by having the lowest cooling requirements out of all three engines.

One thing that hasn't been considered yet is how will these new cars fare when they are waiting for the grid to form up after the warm-up lap? Could we possibly see race starts where multiple cars are stranded on the grid as they've overheated or broken down, ala Austria 2001?

Why the hell has the smiley face emoticon been replaced by the I <3 Grosjean picture that is my avatar?!

Here's a thought, inspired by some of the testing photos. First of all, Daniel Juncadella driving for Force India:



Also, Felipe Nasr driving for Williams:



And finally, Robin Frijns driving for Clatterham:



They've all got their own numbers, already, even though none of them have a race drive. Which set me thinking: is there any evidence of any of the other "third" drivers also picking their personal numbers for the upcoming season, just in case they're called on to drive?

And - with all this fuss about Susie Wolff becoming the first woman to drive in an official Grand Prix weekend session since Giovanna Amati, what are the chances that Sauber will organise one of those 100 km straight line tests, get Simona de SIlvestro to drive the whole lot to gain her Superlicence, and then usurp Die Wolff from the title she seems to have been prematurely crowned with?

dinizintheoven wrote:They've all got their own numbers, already, even though none of them have a race drive. Which set me thinking: is there any evidence of any of the other "third" drivers also picking their personal numbers for the upcoming season, just in case they're called on to drive?

The teams have picked two reserve numbers each in the event they need to call up a replacement, according to Ted's Notebook.

Ataxia wrote:

dinizintheoven wrote:They've all got their own numbers, already, even though none of them have a race drive. Which set me thinking: is there any evidence of any of the other "third" drivers also picking their personal numbers for the upcoming season, just in case they're called on to drive?

The teams have picked two reserve numbers each in the event they need to call up a replacement, according to Ted's Notebook.

But would the drivers be obliged to run that number for the rest of their career, or do they get to choose only when they get their first 'permanent' drive?

East Londoner wrote:One thing that hasn't been considered yet is how will these new cars fare when they are waiting for the grid to form up after the warm-up lap? Could we possibly see race starts where multiple cars are stranded on the grid as they've overheated or broken down, ala Austria 2001?

I think nowadays, if a car breaks down on the grid, another formation lap would be called, unless it happened really late in the start sequence. If anything, the front-runners could be most at risk here, and then you always have the worst-case scenario of someone ploughing straight into a stalled car. It's more likely in my opinion, but I'd thought the teams may have already considered that.

dr-baker wrote:

Ataxia wrote:

dinizintheoven wrote:They've all got their own numbers, already, even though none of them have a race drive. Which set me thinking: is there any evidence of any of the other "third" drivers also picking their personal numbers for the upcoming season, just in case they're called on to drive?

The teams have picked two reserve numbers each in the event they need to call up a replacement, according to Ted's Notebook.

But would the drivers be obliged to run that number for the rest of their career, or do they get to choose only when they get their first 'permanent' drive?

The indication is that the number is allocated to the replacement driver on a temporary basis, so presumably they would then have the option of choosing a number as and when they were given a permanent race seat.

andrew2209 wrote:

East Londoner wrote:One thing that hasn't been considered yet is how will these new cars fare when they are waiting for the grid to form up after the warm-up lap? Could we possibly see race starts where multiple cars are stranded on the grid as they've overheated or broken down, ala Austria 2001?

I think nowadays, if a car breaks down on the grid, another formation lap would be called, unless it happened really late in the start sequence. If anything, the front-runners could be most at risk here, and then you always have the worst-case scenario of someone ploughing straight into a stalled car. It's more likely in my opinion, but I'd thought the teams may have already considered that.

A few teams did get the drivers to come into the pits and sit in their pit box for an extended period of time to simulate the conditions at the start of a race, suggesting that it is indeed something the teams, especially the top teams (who usually sit on the grid the longest).

andrew2209 is right that the usual protocol would be for another formation lap to be called (which would then reduce the race distance by one lap accordingly), which would hopefully give the marshals enough time to move the stranded cars off the grid and into the pit lane (where the mechanics would then take over). The only exception would be where the driver stalled so late into the start procedure that nobody had enough time to respond, an event that is thankfully relatively rare these days.
That said, the issue might not necessarily just be drivers stalling but also drivers who cannot utilise the full power of their hybrid engine systems immediately off the line. If a driver was to suddenly find themselves with a defective energy recovery system, the power deficit would result in a fairly large difference in performance, and closing speed, between two cars.

mario wrote:That said, the issue might not necessarily just be drivers stalling but also drivers who cannot utilise the full power of their hybrid engine systems immediately off the line. If a driver was to suddenly find themselves with a defective energy recovery system, the power deficit would result in a fairly large difference in performance, and closing speed, between two cars.

In other words, this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SO53ivP1fs

andrew2209 wrote:

mario wrote:That said, the issue might not necessarily just be drivers stalling but also drivers who cannot utilise the full power of their hybrid engine systems immediately off the line. If a driver was to suddenly find themselves with a defective energy recovery system, the power deficit would result in a fairly large difference in performance, and closing speed, between two cars.

In other words, this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SO53ivP1fs

Exactly like that, unless the drivers are lucky enough to be able to avoid the slow car. If Renault still have a somewhat defective recovery system, could we see them all get horribly slow starts?

F1's new penalty system involving drivers getting 5 seconds whacked off their time without serving a drive through is clearly ripped off of the TM Master Cup series' use of Active Time Penalties (which are done because you can't manually give AI cars drive through penalties in NR2003), but I still reserve the right to claim that I did it before F1.

Even though it was probably more inspired by F1 2013.

...

mario wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

Ataxia wrote:[quote="dinizintheoven
They've all got their own numbers, already, even though none of them have a race drive. Which set me thinking: is there any evidence of any of the other "third" drivers also picking their personal numbers for the upcoming season, just in case they're called on to drive?
quote]

The teams have picked two reserve numbers each in the event they need to call up a replacement, according to Ted's Notebook.[/quote]
But would the drivers be obliged to run that number for the rest of their career, or do they get to choose only when they get their first 'permanent' drive?[/quote]
The indication is that the number is allocated to the replacement driver on a temporary basis, so presumably they would then have the option of choosing a number as and when they were given a permanent race seat. [/quote]

That kind of defeats the purpose of a permanent number, IMO, because if I see a new guy on track, I'm going to learn his number and connect it to him even though he doesn't have a race drive yet.

Personally, I think it's something that should be done at the time super licenses are given out -- you pick your three numbers, and if all three happen to be taken, you get whacked upside the head and given a new one for your career.

I get that the teams probably want to save time on printing decals, so why not make all car numbers use the same font and put them all in the same places on the car -- you know, kind of like in F3.



Only maybe a bit less yellow. Maybe something like the Indy Racing League used from 1999 to 2001...



But granted, those number boxes don't look good with every livery. In many instances, they are a bit distracting. What I would prefer, more than that, is something more like this:



Nice and visible -- no problems telling what number that car is, unless you're illiterate, and if that's the case, then there are other problems that need to be addressed.

Cynon wrote:Nice and visible -- no problems telling what number that car is, unless you're illiterate, and if that's the case, then there are other problems that need to be addressed.

What?