April 29, 2009
That's it, that's all. Nothing to see here, move along.
Hey, check this out:
It was confirmed that from 2010, refuelling during a race will be forbidden in order to save the costs of transporting refuelling equipment and increase the incentive for engine builders to improve fuel economy (to save weight).
That should be amusing...
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 01, 2009 07:35 PM (+rSRq)
Amusing indeed, however...
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 01, 2009 08:49 PM (/nYBT)
What I wonder is what they'll have to do to the cars in order to carry a full race's worth of fuel in them. It'll make them heavier, especially at the start, and bigger too. That much fuel requires a lot of space.
The cars are going to look pregnant.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 01, 2009 08:58 PM (+rSRq)
(note: the fuel tank in a F1 car is not like the hard tank like we have in our road cars. It's more like a bag, similar to the rubberized tanks they had in airplanes in WWII.)
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 01, 2009 10:18 PM (/nYBT)
I'm also interested in the "greater technical freedoms" you get for agreeing to the cost cap. Moveable wings, as in mid-race dynamic? Or just "we can adjust them in the pit"? And how much of an advantage would a non-rev-limited engine give you?
Posted by: Avatar at May 02, 2009 03:12 AM (vGfoR)
As far as non-rev-limited engines goes, it's nearly impossible to get accurate horsepower numbers out of the teams. I went looking for something to compare, though, and using the fastest lap in Bahrain Quals over the past few years is... well, look:
2008 - 1:31.188 (19000 rpm limited)
2007 - 1:31.359 (20000 rpm limited)
2006 - 1:31.215 (20000 rpm, unlimited, known to produce 740hp)
2005 was the last year of the V10 engine in F1, so I can't go back farther than that for adequate comparisons. Of course this year they've got all the aero changes, so the 2009 numbers don't really apply either.
At least if you look at the numbers above, the loss of 1000rpm means nothing, and in truth that's probably the case. You're taking the very top end of the engine's performance off... maybe now you can only go 195mph instead of 200mph. Your usual F1 track has a car spend about 60% of the lap at max throttle. So, maybe you've lost a little top speed, but you don't lose that much on the average, since you're going at the same speed around the curves, etc.
*shrug* Rev-limiting in F1 isn't really to lower the top speeds anyway, but to increase engine life.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 02, 2009 07:37 AM (/nYBT)
Posted by: Avatar at May 02, 2009 12:59 PM (vGfoR)
Last I saw, the cap'll be 40million Euros, and that's for everything. Not just the car, but everything. Tools. Transportation. Catering. Staff salaries. Computers. Sponsorship logos for the car. Fuel. Cool graphics in the pit boxes. Safety gear. Depending on who you believe, it may or may not include driver salaries. Not for tires, though, because I'm pretty sure Bridgestone donates those.
For 18 races, or whatever number they'll run next year.
The top NASCAR teams run budgets around $30million/season per car. The top IndyCar teams used to have budgets around $50mil/multi-car team per season. Considering that right now, Ferrari, Toyota, and McLaren have budgets around $500 million/year or more, and even Farce India is around $150 million, I can't see any of them approving the cap.
Maybe they'll get V10s for being under, though... yeah, in my dreams.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 02, 2009 06:41 PM (/nYBT)
I can't see such a stringent budget cap getting approved.
The NFL and NBA have salary caps, because it's in the interest of owners. Otherwise the player salary negotiations would be headed for the sky. (Even with the caps, they're ridiculous.)
But MLB doesn't have, and the reason is that Steinbrenner won't agree. Because of his situation with the Yankees, he can afford to spend a lot more each year than anyone else and still make a profit, because by spending more he keeps creating winning teams, which bring in the audiences, and keep his revenues high. If he agreed to a stringent salary cap, the Yankees would stop being the team that's in the playoffs nearly every year and become just the same as everyone else.
And by the same token, I can't see the teams who have huge financial resources, who have been winning because of it (except this year), giving away that advantage.
So unless some mechanism exists whereby the governors can cram a budget cap down the throats of unwilling teams, I can't see it happening.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 02, 2009 09:31 PM (+rSRq)
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 02, 2009 10:29 PM (/nYBT)
47 queries taking 0.0082 seconds, 206 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.