I'm back and WEF?

[Dillon Pyron]

So really, is this group gone?
--

- dillon I am not invalid

"You can't beat hockey when it comes to
regulated, sanctioned violence for children"

[Duncan Snowden]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:55:02 +0000
Dillon Pyron <invalid...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> So really, is this group gone?

Well, I'm still here. And I recall saying about a year ago (in a very
similar thread) that those of us still lurking should probably make a
special effort in 2013 to give it a kick up the backside.

So much for that. I'm as guilty as anyone.

As a bit of a geek, I much prefer Usenet to all these forums bolted on
to the Web with string and duck tape (in which category I include the
Twitface behemoths). It's open, without subscription, and runs on a
proper, documented, protocol of its own. It is, as someone once said,
"internet-shaped" in a way these web services aren't. We shouldn't just
let it die.

So next season, definitely. There should be plenty to talk about, at
least, with these new regs.

--
Duncan Snowden.

[Mark Jackson]

On 12/2/2013 9:55 AM, Duncan Snowden wrote:

> So next season, definitely. There should be plenty to talk about, at
> least, with these new regs.

Noble intentions. I had the same last year:

> On 12/30/2012 8:05 AM, Mark Jackson wrote:
>> On 12/30/2012 7:35 AM, Duncan Snowden wrote:

>>> I think these things take on a momentum. If nobody posts,
>>> everybody thinks nobody's reading so there's no point in posting,
>>> and it turns into a vicious circle. But there are obviously still
>>> a few of us lurking. Maybe we should all make more of an effort
>>> next season.
>>
>> Fair enough. I more or less gave up over a year ago, but I'll give
>> it a shot once we get closer to the season.

And that was the last post until late November of this year.

We could discuss uncertainty. Here's my list of who goes where:

Caterham-Renault
Ferrari Alonso (2016), Räikkönen (2015)
Force India-Mercedes
Lotus-Renault Grosjean, Maldonado
Marussia-Ferrari Bianchi
McLaren-Mercedes Button (2014), Kevin Magnussen (DK)
Mercedes Hamilton (2015),
Red Bull-Renault Vettel (2015), Ricciardo
Sauber-Ferrari Sergey Sirotkin (RUS)???,
Toro Rosso-Renault Vergne, Daniil Kvyat (RUS)
Williams-Mercedes Massa (2016), Bottas (2014)

Sirotkin's drive seems to be hung up over the non-arrival of both money
and Superlicense; some controversy over which comes first.

For that matter it isn't clear all of these teams will make it to 2014 -
there are reports of a possible merger between Sauber and Marussia. And
the finances at Force India continue to look extremely dodgy.

--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Don’t worry about selling out. Worry about buying in.
- Guillermo Del Toro

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

We could have a theoretical discussion of the new regs now.

I, for one, haven't looked them up to see what they'll be.

The correct Usenet approach would obviously be for me to declare them
pointless and likely to cause even less overtaking, but actually I'll
ask for either considered opinions or decent pointers thereto.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
I like my coffee how I like my women...
but I can't get coffee that's independent, intelligent and has a
career of its own. - Eric Jarvis, urs

[Duncan Snowden]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:30:08 +0000
Mark Jackson <mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Sirotkin's drive seems to be hung up over the non-arrival of both
> money and Superlicense; some controversy over which comes first.

It seems every unfilled place is unfilled because of money. Sign of the
times. It's a real a pity that guys like Di Resta and Kovalinen are
struggling to find seats. I still expect Heikki to end up back at
Caterham, mind you. Wouldn't be surprised if PDR ends up following in
his cousin's Indycar footsteps. And I suppose Sirotkin's arrival at
Sauber will be speeded by Maldonado's, with his PDVSA cash. Kvyat's
superlicence didn't seem to be a problem.

Is Rosberg really not confirmed at Mercedes? I hadn't spotted that.
It's hard to believe he won't be. Wikipedia says that he's in, for what
that's worth. No mention of a contract, though.

> For that matter it isn't clear all of these teams will make it to
> 2014 - there are reports of a possible merger between Sauber and
> Marussia. And the finances at Force India continue to look extremely
> dodgy.

Yep. But then, they always did. I can't help feeling it's going to end
in tears for that team, worse than a simple closure or sale; some kind
of scandal or other. Mallya reminds me too much of Briatore.

Again, Maldonado might help Sauber stay independent of Marussia too.
Remember that there were rumours of a Marussia/Caterham merger last
year. Actual talks, from what I heard. I think Banbury just likes to
look at all the options. They'll have the same engine supplier, of
course, unlike Caterham, which certainly removes that stumbling-block.
But surely it's a bit late in the day to be thinking of that kind of
thing? What chassis does the merged team use next year? Or would they
continue to run two race teams in 2014, merging certain operations to
save costs, and one from 2015? Would that even be allowed?

I'm not saying it won't happen - nothing would surprise me in F1 -
but they'd both have to be really desperate. Which they might be.

--
Duncan Snowden.

[John Briggs]

Maldonado had been confirmed at Lotus.
--
John Briggs

[Mark Jackson]

On 12/2/2013 2:00 PM, Duncan Snowden wrote:
> Is Rosberg really not confirmed at Mercedes? I hadn't spotted that.

Oversight on my part; he's clearly continuing although if there was an
official announcement of his contract renewal I missed it.

[Mark Jackson]

On 12/2/2013 11:00 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> We could have a theoretical discussion of the new regs now.
>
> I, for one, haven't looked them up to see what they'll be.
>
> The correct Usenet approach would obviously be for me to declare them
> pointless and likely to cause even less overtaking, but actually I'll
> ask for either considered opinions or decent pointers thereto.

As adopted in July the 2014 regs are in the usual place:

http://www.fia.com/sport/regulations?f[0]=field_regulation_category%3A82

and there's an informed summary of the changes here:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108682

Note however that there are a number of proposals for change on the
table, and due to various disagreements (including a dispute over the
legality of the new rule-making procedure) the Strategy Group and
Formula 1 Commission have put off their meetings until next week,
*after* the scheduled Thursday meeting of the WMSC which would need to
ratify changes.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:00:11 +0000, Mark Jackson
<mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>On 12/2/2013 11:00 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> We could have a theoretical discussion of the new regs now.
>>
>> I, for one, haven't looked them up to see what they'll be.
>>
>> The correct Usenet approach would obviously be for me to declare them
>> pointless and likely to cause even less overtaking, but actually I'll
>> ask for either considered opinions or decent pointers thereto.
>
>As adopted in July the 2014 regs are in the usual place:
>
>http://www.fia.com/sport/regulations?f[0]=field_regulation_category%3A82
>
>and there's an informed summary of the changes here:
>
>http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108682

Ta.

Apart from the stuff we've know for a couple of years, it's mostly
twiddles and sensible loophole covering, by the look of it.

The increase in base weight is interesting - I take it that's due to a
much larger ERS-K mass than previous seasons. I had expected the
weight limit to be lower to match the littler engines, but I didn't
know about the increased kWh'age of ERS.

>Note however that there are a number of proposals for change on the
>table, and due to various disagreements (including a dispute over the
>legality of the new rule-making procedure) the Strategy Group and
>Formula 1 Commission have put off their meetings until next week,
>*after* the scheduled Thursday meeting of the WMSC which would need to
>ratify changes.

Fun. Kind of them to leave the change tracks in the current version of
the PDF on the FIA site, hopefully they'll keep doing that. Makes
those semi-readable docs a lot more browseable.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." - Oscar Wilde

[Mark Jackson]

On 12/3/2013 10:50 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:00:11 +0000, Mark Jackson
> <mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>> As adopted in July the 2014 regs are in the usual place:
>>
>> http://www.fia.com/sport/regulations?f[0]=field_regulation_category%3A82
>>
>> and there's an informed summary of the changes here:
>>
>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108682
>
> Ta.
>
> Apart from the stuff we've know for a couple of years, it's mostly
> twiddles and sensible loophole covering, by the look of it.

There appears to be an ugly side-effect. Did you hate the stepped
noses? Take a look at

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111262/

> The increase in base weight is interesting - I take it that's due to a
> much larger ERS-K mass than previous seasons. I had expected the
> weight limit to be lower to match the littler engines, but I didn't
> know about the increased kWh'age of ERS.

This is a real problem for some of the current drivers - Ricciardo for
one has been told to lose 2kg, which for someone at his presumed fitness
level is not trivial.

>> Note however that there are a number of proposals for change on the
>> table, and due to various disagreements (including a dispute over the
>> legality of the new rule-making procedure) the Strategy Group and
>> Formula 1 Commission have put off their meetings until next week,
>> *after* the scheduled Thursday meeting of the WMSC which would need to
>> ratify changes.
>
> Fun. Kind of them to leave the change tracks in the current version of
> the PDF on the FIA site, hopefully they'll keep doing that. Makes
> those semi-readable docs a lot more browseable.

It's a convenience, but not as much fun as when the FIA posted the
transcript of the McLaren "spygate" hearing, with the "sensitive" parts
redacted by blackout - which could be trivially overcome by
copy-and-paste of the text.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:25:01 +0000, Mark Jackson

<mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

>On 12/3/2013 10:50 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:00:11 +0000, Mark Jackson
>> <mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>> As adopted in July the 2014 regs are in the usual place:
>>>
>>> http://www.fia.com/sport/regulations?f[0]=field_regulation_category%3A82
>>>
>>> and there's an informed summary of the changes here:
>>>
>>> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108682
>>
>> Ta.
>>
>> Apart from the stuff we've know for a couple of years, it's mostly
>> twiddles and sensible loophole covering, by the look of it.
>
>There appears to be an ugly side-effect. Did you hate the stepped
>noses? Take a look at
>
>http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111262/

Oh, huh. Not all loopholes covered, then! I read that section and
thought it sounded reasonable - but typical of the FIA to have written
it so that the designers can come up with that. As if the noses
weren't ugly enough anyway! I wonder if mandating that the wing
support point is at the nose tip would help, the nose would then both
be dropped and have to be wide in order to provide lateral stability.

What's the push to keep raising the chassis, btw? Still trying to
avoid any possibility of undercar 'suction' downforce?

>> The increase in base weight is interesting - I take it that's due to a
>> much larger ERS-K mass than previous seasons. I had expected the
>> weight limit to be lower to match the littler engines, but I didn't
>> know about the increased kWh'age of ERS.
>
>This is a real problem for some of the current drivers - Ricciardo for
>one has been told to lose 2kg, which for someone at his presumed fitness
>level is not trivial.

That's not good at all, in-race dehydration leads to enough problems
as it is without forcing a quick reduction in muscle mass as well.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical." - Niels Bohr

[Duncan Snowden]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:15:02 +0000
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Maldonado had been confirmed at Lotus.

Bugger. I *knew* that. :) So much for my considered analysis. Maybe
that's why nobody's been posting...

--
Duncan Snowden.

[Mike Fleming]

In article <bg54ua...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Jackson

<mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> On 12/2/2013 2:00 PM, Duncan Snowden wrote:
> > Is Rosberg really not confirmed at Mercedes? I hadn't spotted that.
>
> Oversight on my part; he's clearly continuing although if there was an
> official announcement of his contract renewal I missed it.

His contract signed in 2011 is reported here as being "to 2013 and
beyond":

http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-news/f1-nico-rosberg-extends-mercedes-contract-for-2013-and-beyond?artid=137503

Make of that what you will.

--
Mike Fleming

[Mike Fleming]

In article <bg6erv...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Jackson

<mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> There appears to be an ugly side-effect. Did you hate the stepped
> noses? Take a look at
>
> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111262/

From alligator to aardvark. At least there's no walrus reappearing
yet.

--
Mike Fleming

[Duncan Snowden]

On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:55:02 +0000
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:25:01 +0000, Mark Jackson
> <mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111262/
>
> Oh, huh. Not all loopholes covered, then! I read that section and
> thought it sounded reasonable - but typical of the FIA to have written
> it so that the designers can come up with that. As if the noses
> weren't ugly enough anyway!

Ouch. I hadn't seen Scarb's rendering before. That *is* ugly. I know
they've all been talking about "hooked noses", but I didn't expect
that. I imagined something similar to the BGP 001, or, with a narrow
tip, the "pointy-nosed" McLarens from around that period, and they were
quite attractive. It looks like some teams might yet take the McLaren
approach, in fact. Hard to write something that mandates it, though. "A
smooth transition from nose tip to chassis cross-section", maybe. But
how would *that* be interpreted? The more detailed the regulations get,
the more they turn into a game of Whack-a-Mole.

> I wonder if mandating that the wing support point is at the nose
> tip would help, the nose would then both be dropped and have to be
> wide in order to provide lateral stability.

Might work. That would force them into a Brawn-like design. Or simply
increasing the minimum width at the nose tip.

> What's the push to keep raising the chassis, btw? Still trying to
> avoid any possibility of undercar 'suction' downforce?

Probably. I'm no aerodynamicist, but it's always seemed the wrong way
to go to me. Isn't underbody aero “cleaner”, in terms of wake? I
realise there are safety issues related to porpoising, but as long as
there *is* a minimum height, and skirts are banned, how bad can it be?
The Delta Wing guys seem happy enough without wings.

--
Duncan Snowden.

[Mark Jackson]

Hey, I was rather taken with that; see third-from-bottom-right at
http://alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson/F1.html.

(Why doesn't anyone make an affordable 1/43 BRM Type 1, proper Lancia
D50, or Eagle T1G-Weslake?)

[John Briggs]

It means that it was extended to at least 2013 and 2014.
--
John Briggs

[Mike Fleming]

In article <bg6noa...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Jackson

<mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> On 12/3/2013 1:00 PM, Mike Fleming wrote:
> >
> > From alligator to aardvark. At least there's no walrus reappearing
> > yet.
>
> Hey, I was rather taken with that; see third-from-bottom-right at
> http://alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson/F1.html.

I'd been participating in Robot Wars around the start of that season.
I kept wondering when JPM would come up behind Schumacher and flip
him.

--
Mike Fleming

[Mower Man]

On 02/12/2013 1:55 PM, Dillon Pyron wrote:
> So really, is this group gone?
>

Just very, very quiet...

--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Mark Jackson]

On 12/3/2013 9:00 AM, Mark Jackson wrote:
> On 12/2/2013 11:00 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> We could have a theoretical discussion of the new regs now.
>>
>> I, for one, haven't looked them up to see what they'll be.

[snip]

> Note however that there are a number of proposals for change on the
> table, and due to various disagreements (including a dispute over the
> legality of the new rule-making procedure) the Strategy Group and
> Formula 1 Commission have put off their meetings until next week,
> *after* the scheduled Thursday meeting of the WMSC which would need to
> ratify changes.

Well, apparently this little detail has been finessed. Since the new
rules were not available to be rubber-stamped when the WMSC met they
simply rubber-stamped a flat, shiny surface, from which the ink could
later be transferred to the new rules. In other words, these "will
automatically become part of the regulations as the FIA World Motor
Sport Council agreed last week to give the Strategy Group and Commission
a mandate to agree rule changes on this occasion."

That bit is from http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111795.
There are several other stories on the site detailing the new
regulations, but to summarize:

Double drivers and constructors points at the last race of the season,
in the hope of keeping the championship competitions alive to the end.

Drivers will get to choose their own numbers for their cars, which will
then follow them throughout their careers. #1 will still be reserved
for the reigning WDC (if he chooses to use it).

A five-second time penalty has been added to the sentences the stewards
can mete out.

There will be a budget cap, but not until 2015, which leaves plenty of
time for arguments (and preparing the ground for evasive accounting).

My take is, respectively: ugh, meh, seems OK, and I'll believe it when
they catch someone near the front breaking it.

[Ian Dalziel]

On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 17:00:02 +0000, Mower Man
<chris...@nospamf2s.com> wrote:

>On 02/12/2013 1:55 PM, Dillon Pyron wrote:
>> So really, is this group gone?
>>
>
>Just very, very quiet...

SSSSSSHHH!!!!!

--

Ian D

[Mike Fleming]

In article <bgn94o...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Jackson

<mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> Double drivers and constructors points at the last race of the season,
> in the hope of keeping the championship competitions alive to the end.
>
> Drivers will get to choose their own numbers for their cars, which will
> then follow them throughout their careers. #1 will still be reserved
> for the reigning WDC (if he chooses to use it).
>
> A five-second time penalty has been added to the sentences the stewards
> can mete out.
>
> There will be a budget cap, but not until 2015, which leaves plenty of
> time for arguments (and preparing the ground for evasive accounting).
>
> My take is, respectively: ugh, meh, seems OK, and I'll believe it when
> they catch someone near the front breaking it.

Yes, agreed on all counts. Not that the numbers thing is meaningful
these days, I can't recall having been able to discern the number on a
car for years.

--
Mike Fleming

[Mark Jackson]

It's all a matter of priorities. I'm sure that, once they're firmly
associated with the driver's "brand," they'll be quite legible in the
ads for things the driver endorses. . . .