Pit lane would be right next to the media center/Suite Complex (I think) in the center of the track there. Or is that suppose to be Hard Rock Stadium there? It's hard to tell in the drawing. If it's the Hard Rock Stadium, That will be a tough pass. Miami Gardens is already causing a huge stink on this one. They were up in arms about it a couple of weeks ago on it.
The question here is more that this is in addition to or replacement for the race at COTA. The contract for COTA expires in 2023. I really don't see 23-24 races on the schedule. It's too grueling of a task for the teams adding in more than just the Hanoi race.
In reply to wae :
Ahem...
Awesome! I can't wait to visit Miami family and see an F1 race too! The track looks interesting. Maybe a bit boring in some sections for the drivers but it looks to have passing opportunities built in.
They should just go through the stadium!
Ground hogs in Montreal vs lizards in Miami which is worse to clean out of radiator ducts?!
I am actually closer to Montreal than any other race. But yo be within a short trip to three F1 races would be cool.
84FSP
SuperDork
10/18/19 8:39 a.m.
I like the idea of it but struggle to see it happening. I ned to get back to COTA - we had a great time at the inaugural event.
Just heard that Toro Rosso is being renamed Alpha Tauri. Alpha Tauri is Red Bull's fasion arm.
In reply to alfadriver :
Just came to say the same thing. Wow, what a shocker.
Dave M
Reader
10/23/19 9:56 p.m.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
An auto bias adjustment seems like a pretty big driver aid. There seems to be a lot of whinging about this penalty but it seems fairly straightforward!
The FIA said the stewards concluded after a telephone hearing that the brake bias system “used innovative solutions to exploit certain ambiguities” and did not breach the technical regulations.
Innovative solutions to exploit ambiguities sounds like exactly what we all want to see!
Anyone have more details on what this system was? The cars have to juggle regen vs friction brakes all the time already, but this said they didn't have to adjust the bias multiple times per lap.
Keith Tanner said:
Anyone have more details on what this system was? The cars have to juggle regen vs friction brakes all the time already, but this said they didn't have to adjust the bias multiple times per lap.
In the V8 and earlier eras, the rules said that the brake bias had to be adjusted manually, via a mechanical lever in the cockpit attached to the balance bar. Most people would set it to a particular level for a particular track and leave it there -- one of the things Schumacher was known for was adjusting the bias for every single corner.
When they went to the turbo/hybrid power plants, with regen braking, now the balance couldn't be purely mechanical any more because of energy harvesting. It needed to be electronically controlled by the ECU, but they wanted to retain the "driver must adjust by himself" aspect. It sounds like the rules were written to try to specify the equivalent behaviour to the old balance bar.
So my understanding is that Renault had a system where it would count off the meters travelled and automatically set the bias to a predetermined level based on that. Essentially it knew which corner was coming up and would set it to the ideal level for that corner without the driver needing to touch any controls. It sounds like it was technically legal under a lawyer's reading of the brake bias rules but arguably illegal under the "driver must drive the car alone and unaided" catchall rule. (I say arguably because if you interpret that rule completely literally, it would seem like it should ban power steering and paddle-shift gearboxes, which it clearly doesn't).
In reply to codrus :
WRT the power steering and paddle shifter- if those adjusted during the race w/o much driver input, and that lead to a significant advantage on the track, then yes. But since all teams are doing essentially the same thing- where the aid is even across the board, it's not a driver aid.
That's the curious thing- the FIA saw this not as a self adjusting system (which is what RP alleged), they saw it as a simpler driver adjustment, which then gave them an advantage. And that was deemed illegal. The other interesting conclusion is that they thought the benefit was much greater than Alfa's was for Kimi and Antonio- who both got 30 second penalties. Their system worked just once, and gained from just the start, whereas Renault's was running every corner of every lap.
Renault is going to appeal, and it will be interesting to hear how it plays out- having a non driver aid system (which is legal) that gains an advantage (which is not?)...
I dunno. Like every thing that is on the hairy edge of being legal- I can see both sides pretty clearly. And if this tool actually increases the vehicle efficiency by doing a better job of harvesting the braking energy- I'd be totally in favor of having it.
wae
UltraDork
10/24/19 7:16 a.m.
I've always found it a little contradictory that they talk about the series being the pinnacle of engineering and so on the cutting edge, but when it comes to cutting edge engineering solutions like this we suddenly revert to driving the car unaided.
codrus said:
Keith Tanner said:
Anyone have more details on what this system was? The cars have to juggle regen vs friction brakes all the time already, but this said they didn't have to adjust the bias multiple times per lap.
In the V8 and earlier eras, the rules said that the brake bias had to be adjusted manually, via a mechanical lever in the cockpit attached to the balance bar. Most people would set it to a particular level for a particular track and leave it there -- one of the things Schumacher was known for was adjusting the bias for every single corner.
When they went to the turbo/hybrid power plants, with regen braking, now the balance couldn't be purely mechanical any more because of energy harvesting. It needed to be electronically controlled by the ECU, but they wanted to retain the "driver must adjust by himself" aspect. It sounds like the rules were written to try to specify the equivalent behaviour to the old balance bar.
So my understanding is that Renault had a system where it would count off the meters travelled and automatically set the bias to a predetermined level based on that. Essentially it knew which corner was coming up and would set it to the ideal level for that corner without the driver needing to touch any controls. It sounds like it was technically legal under a lawyer's reading of the brake bias rules but arguably illegal under the "driver must drive the car alone and unaided" catchall rule. (I say arguably because if you interpret that rule completely literally, it would seem like it should ban power steering and paddle-shift gearboxes, which it clearly doesn't).
The article says that it wasn't based on distance:
They also found that the system was not pre-set or lap distance-dependent as alleged
I understand what was going on overall, I'm just wondering how it was implemented. How exactly were the adjustments initiated?
I have been known to tweak brake bias between corners. Really freaks out your passenger.
I am also very interested in what the system actually did. Similar to my curiosity about the "innovative" battery system Ferrari are using. It may be likey that some small thing needs to be changed by Renault and then the rest of the system is within the rules and still valuable to keep secret.
As others wrote, the current systems have to automatically control regenerative braking power and adjust rear brake power to maintain the same brake balance set by the driver.
Could the system be based on brake temps and adjusting balance based on regen limitations due to temp?
Or regen limitations due to power generation system as a whole?
I guess many years from now it will come out.
I agree with Renault that it is not usually to disqualify a team when the decision is that the system did not violate the rules but instead found a great area of improvement that the rules should be changed to prevent. Usually the team is told not to use it in the next race which is a challenge in itself. Sad judgement.
I guess the most recent situation was the issue surrounding the rear wheels used by MB that some considered a moving aero device vs a cooling device. MB had to revert to their old wheels until it was worked out.
The protest was placed by Racing Point (or whatever they're called this week, the pink cars). And wouldn't you know, after the penalty there's only 5 points between Renault and Racing Point in the championship. This may work out to be a very lucrative protest.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
An article I read said it was based on the GPS location of the car.
Has anyone else heard the rumors that Ferrari's engine may not be legal? It may still be burning oil, but other than a few things on Autosport and Mark Priestly's vlogs, I've not really seen anything solid. The theory is that it could have a leak in the air to oil intercooler system.
alfadriver said:
Has anyone else heard the rumors that Ferrari's engine may not be legal? It may still be burning oil, but other than a few things on Autosport and Mark Priestly's vlogs, I've not really seen anything solid. The theory is that it could have a leak in the air to oil intercooler system.
I read an article about it having a controlled leak for extra power, but haven't seen anything else.
But I also don't keep up with F1 as religiously as I used to.
Renault got screwed here.
In reply to z31maniac :
Something about an oil ""leak" into the intetcooler. My impression was that Merc wanted to ensure it was legal before they implemented their version.
Streetwiseguy said:
In reply to z31maniac :
Something about an oil ""leak" into the intetcooler. My impression was that Merc wanted to ensure it was legal before they implemented their version.
They're basically using a combustable oil to cool the intake air with the intercooler, and oops, it leaks a bit.
Verstappen had the best time of Q3, and did it early.
But he didn't slow for Bottas' accident and the yellows that were out, so he was penalized 3 spots and got 2 penalty points
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.verstappen-stripped-of-mexican-gp-pole-for-ignoring-yellow-flag-leclerc.1DiWB8Fo9O0tZcbG8RJYvA.html
Oh snap! I was wondering about that.
Another pole for leclerc.
Renault had been using their brake balance system since 2015 when they were still Lotus...
Dave M
Reader
10/26/19 8:30 p.m.
wvumtnbkr said:
Oh snap! I was wondering about that.
Another pole for leclerc.
Pretty bush-league move by Verstappen. He got off easy too! They should have sent him to the back of the grid.
