Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Engine freeze questions
Re: Engine freeze questions
On Thu, 01 May 2008 03:15:32 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 11:31:47 +1000, Frank Adam
><fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote:
>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:46 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
>>wrote:
>>>>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
>>>>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
>>>>
>>>>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
>>>
>>>Didn't go far enough.
>>>
>>Was it not V or eight enough ?
>
>Iirc, he wanted to force all engine manufacturers to supply another
>team; increase supply - lower price.
>
1) Isn't cost saving what the whole engine change bullshit was about,
the wagon of which Ferrari jumped on as if it was a spaghetti delivery
truck ?
2) It would not lower the price substantially as development costs
would virtually not change.
In theory, you might think that the extra competition would dictate a
price drop, however checkout-chick-like that thought process is, but
it would create a wider competition and each manufacturer would need
an edge on the other to secure the best contracts, so the costs of
finding that edge would increase their own costs. Those costs would
then be passed on to the client.
3) It would provide privateers with "options" and would guarantee not
being held to ransom by only a couple of manufacturers.
What you forget is FW had a rather bad time with BMW at the time.
Understandably, BMW was not happy with the performance(loose term) of
the Williams, but obviously it was not for the lack of trying from the
team. No team wants to lose. None the less, the shit hit the fan
between them and left FW in a bind with only one available engine
supplier, being Toyota, which was almost a rescue mission in itself.
Privateers are part of F1, like it or not, and they have all the
rights to compete fairly. Without them, there would be no F1 by now,
unless you'd enjoy perhaps 2-3 teams circulating.
>It's all about maximizing profits for the garagistes and their cottage
>industrialists, old boy.
>
Are you saying Ferrari are not selling 10 cent coffee cups at 15,000%
profit anymore ? $1.00 T shirts for 50 bucks ? Really ?
It is a business. Your guys are doing their best to make money and so
is everyone else.. now stop being an arse.
--
Regards, Frank
On Thu, 01 May 2008 03:15:32 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 11:31:47 +1000, Frank Adam
><fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote:
>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:46 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
>>wrote:
>>>>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
>>>>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
>>>>
>>>>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
>>>
>>>Didn't go far enough.
>>>
>>Was it not V or eight enough ?
>
>Iirc, he wanted to force all engine manufacturers to supply another
>team; increase supply - lower price.
>
1) Isn't cost saving what the whole engine change bullshit was about,
the wagon of which Ferrari jumped on as if it was a spaghetti delivery
truck ?
2) It would not lower the price substantially as development costs
would virtually not change.
In theory, you might think that the extra competition would dictate a
price drop, however checkout-chick-like that thought process is, but
it would create a wider competition and each manufacturer would need
an edge on the other to secure the best contracts, so the costs of
finding that edge would increase their own costs. Those costs would
then be passed on to the client.
3) It would provide privateers with "options" and would guarantee not
being held to ransom by only a couple of manufacturers.
What you forget is FW had a rather bad time with BMW at the time.
Understandably, BMW was not happy with the performance(loose term) of
the Williams, but obviously it was not for the lack of trying from the
team. No team wants to lose. None the less, the shit hit the fan
between them and left FW in a bind with only one available engine
supplier, being Toyota, which was almost a rescue mission in itself.
Privateers are part of F1, like it or not, and they have all the
rights to compete fairly. Without them, there would be no F1 by now,
unless you'd enjoy perhaps 2-3 teams circulating.
>It's all about maximizing profits for the garagistes and their cottage
>industrialists, old boy.
>
Are you saying Ferrari are not selling 10 cent coffee cups at 15,000%
profit anymore ? $1.00 T shirts for 50 bucks ? Really ?
It is a business. Your guys are doing their best to make money and so
is everyone else.. now stop being an arse.
--
Regards, Frank
Re: Engine freeze questions
Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 11:31:47 +1000, Frank Adam
> <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:46 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
> > wrote:
> >>>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone
> else. >>>>
> >>>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
> >>>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
> > > >
> > > > If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
> > >
> > > Didn't go far enough.
> > >
> > Was it not V or eight enough ?
>
> Iirc, he wanted to force all engine manufacturers to supply another
> team; increase supply - lower price.
>
> It's all about maximizing profits for the garagistes and their cottage
> industrialists, old boy.
Damn the manufacturers and damn the independents...hell damn F1 to hell
and go watch something more American, eh, fuckwit!
A1GP 2009, Marks version of F1.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 11:31:47 +1000, Frank Adam
> <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:46 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
> > wrote:
> >>>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone
> else. >>>>
> >>>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
> >>>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
> > > >
> > > > If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
> > >
> > > Didn't go far enough.
> > >
> > Was it not V or eight enough ?
>
> Iirc, he wanted to force all engine manufacturers to supply another
> team; increase supply - lower price.
>
> It's all about maximizing profits for the garagistes and their cottage
> industrialists, old boy.
Damn the manufacturers and damn the independents...hell damn F1 to hell
and go watch something more American, eh, fuckwit!
A1GP 2009, Marks version of F1.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Re: Engine freeze questions
ric zito wrote...
> How long for?
>
> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>
> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>
>
I'll give you a clue.
Whips and tarts.
IIRC the engines they are using now, had to be given to the FIA at the
end of 2006 or near the beginning of 2007. Honda were the last to pass
theirs over.
ric zito wrote...
> How long for?
>
> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>
> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>
>
I'll give you a clue.
Whips and tarts.
IIRC the engines they are using now, had to be given to the FIA at the
end of 2006 or near the beginning of 2007. Honda were the last to pass
theirs over.
Re: Engine freeze questions
Engine development was frozen last year
* tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
Engine development was frozen last year
* tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
Re: Engine freeze questions
Jon wrote:
>
> Engine development was frozen last year
>
> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>
> I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's
> been an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
Perhaps they are simply applied differently. It is a trait.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Jon wrote:
>
> Engine development was frozen last year
>
> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>
> I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's
> been an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
Perhaps they are simply applied differently. It is a trait.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Re: Engine freeze questions
"Jon" <me@privvy . net > wrote in message
news:MPG.227fdb38bddffba79896db@66.250.146.159...
>
> Engine development was frozen last year
>
> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>
> I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
> an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
>
>
Didn't Blair get an opt out for the UK? One of his red line issues?
AC
"Jon" <me@privvy . net > wrote in message
news:MPG.227fdb38bddffba79896db@66.250.146.159...
>
> Engine development was frozen last year
>
> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>
> I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
> an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
>
>
Didn't Blair get an opt out for the UK? One of his red line issues?
AC
Re: Engine freeze questions
Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote in
news:MPG.227fdb38bddffba79896db@66.250.146.159:
>
> Engine development was frozen last year
>
> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>
> I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
> an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
>
Apparently you can modify such things as valve placement. How *this* is
not included in an engine freeze is beyond me. Yet another thing that
will be fixed after the revolution that starts soon. Yeah, I know I'm an
optimist, but do we have a choice in that?
Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote in
news:MPG.227fdb38bddffba79896db@66.250.146.159:
>
> Engine development was frozen last year
>
> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>
> I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
> an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
>
Apparently you can modify such things as valve placement. How *this* is
not included in an engine freeze is beyond me. Yet another thing that
will be fixed after the revolution that starts soon. Yeah, I know I'm an
optimist, but do we have a choice in that?
Re: Engine freeze questions
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:02:20 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>
>Engine development was frozen last year
>
> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>
>I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
>an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
None of the rules apply in Italy - It's not just F1 but a whole way of
life.
--
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:02:20 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>
>Engine development was frozen last year
>
> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>
>I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
>an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
None of the rules apply in Italy - It's not just F1 but a whole way of
life.
--
Re: Engine freeze questions
On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:43:07 +0100, Not Bernie Ecclestone
<nospam@nospam . com > wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:02:20 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>
>>
>>Engine development was frozen last year
>>
>> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>>
>>I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
>>an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
>
>None of the rules apply in Italy - It's not just F1 but a whole way of
>life.
>
Heard something on radio that they won't be allowed to scratch their
balls, or adjust the snake in public. Presume getting half stiffy,
while kissing that hot chick for the first time at a restaurant, will
carry a fine too and the offender will have to take educational
classes to avoid this. Third offence is the snip.
Training kids for pick pocket and bag grab work is still ok though.
;-)
ps: * news.sky . com /skynews/article/0,,30200-1307267,00.html
--
Regards, Frank
On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:43:07 +0100, Not Bernie Ecclestone
<nospam@nospam . com > wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:02:20 +0100, Jon <me@privvy . net > wrote:
>
>>
>>Engine development was frozen last year
>>
>> * tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411317/809120
>>
>>I have a feeling that the rulz didn't apply in Italy, cos there's been
>>an obvious increase in power from the Ferrari engines.
>
>None of the rules apply in Italy - It's not just F1 but a whole way of
>life.
>
Heard something on radio that they won't be allowed to scratch their
balls, or adjust the snake in public. Presume getting half stiffy,
while kissing that hot chick for the first time at a restaurant, will
carry a fine too and the offender will have to take educational
classes to avoid this. Third offence is the snip.
Training kids for pick pocket and bag grab work is still ok though.
;-)
ps: * news.sky . com /skynews/article/0,,30200-1307267,00.html
--
Regards, Frank
Re: Engine freeze questions
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>How long for?
>
>Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>
>An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>
Well, you just have to remember which engine had the highest output at
the time when this idea was tossed up.
--
Regards, Frank
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>How long for?
>
>Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>
>An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>
Well, you just have to remember which engine had the highest output at
the time when this idea was tossed up.
--
Regards, Frank
Re: Engine freeze questions
"Frank Adam" <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote in message
news:2rnb149ur52v339bik02ub22kqmt34ue7u@4ax . com ...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>
>>How long for?
>>
>>Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>
>>An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>
>>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>
> Well, you just have to remember which engine had the highest output at
> the time when this idea was tossed up.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Frank
Is this the same as whose engine was gobbling up lots of fuel when
refuelling got bought in?
AC
"Frank Adam" <fajp@notthis.optushome . com .au> wrote in message
news:2rnb149ur52v339bik02ub22kqmt34ue7u@4ax . com ...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>
>>How long for?
>>
>>Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>
>>An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>
>>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>
> Well, you just have to remember which engine had the highest output at
> the time when this idea was tossed up.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Frank
Is this the same as whose engine was gobbling up lots of fuel when
refuelling got bought in?
AC
Re: Engine freeze questions
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, ric zito wrote:
> How long for?
>
> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>
> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
Don't know but I do know the regulations
stink anyway IMHO. Many things are simply not allowed,
the engine manufacturers could develop, test, learn and make
much better and more efficient engines if only the rules
would allow that.
Edmund
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, ric zito wrote:
> How long for?
>
> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>
> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
Don't know but I do know the regulations
stink anyway IMHO. Many things are simply not allowed,
the engine manufacturers could develop, test, learn and make
much better and more efficient engines if only the rules
would allow that.
Edmund
Freeze & regen?
How can they keep the engines frozen and add regenerative braking?
Considering how high strung F1 engines are I'd think they'd need lots of
tweeking if not a whole new design.
How can they keep the engines frozen and add regenerative braking?
Considering how high strung F1 engines are I'd think they'd need lots of
tweeking if not a whole new design.
Re: Freeze & regen?
NewMan wrote:
> How can they keep the engines frozen and add regenerative braking?
> Considering how high strung F1 engines are I'd think they'd need
> lots of tweeking if not a whole new design.
Cutting the normal rev limit by 500 rpm should cover it, no?
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
NewMan wrote:
> How can they keep the engines frozen and add regenerative braking?
> Considering how high strung F1 engines are I'd think they'd need
> lots of tweeking if not a whole new design.
Cutting the normal rev limit by 500 rpm should cover it, no?
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
