2010 Formula 1 Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

[Akmuq]

When I look back at the season I think of that dirty pass vettel made on sutil. Unfortunutley that's what made him champion. I suppose it's better then alonso and his ''pass'' on massa winning it and webber taking points off Hamilton in Australia and in Singapore.

 

[Louie_Schumii]

On a different note, Toyota has terminated their partnership with HRT.


Bloody hell. I got a lot more confidence in them than I had earlier when I heard all their plans for 2011 ,and now this? -_-

One of the teams need to get that Toyota chassis a.s.a.p.

Any of you guys think that Sauber can broker a deal of some sort with them since Kobayashi was backed by Toyota before they left F1?

 

[Radracing]

Regardless of the technical development side, and having a possible advantage there - without question Mark Webber had an advantage when he was let through by Aguelsuari (from the sister team). Of course this didn't have an affect on the Championship, so there wasn't a big controversy around it.

Maybe Ferarri can buy into the mid fielder teams and use them to block the race leaders too after pitting for new tires. Seems like a flaw there when you are cutting budgets and track testing. Then you get teams with unlimited budgets to have two teams and just use the second team as a test mule to gain more testing.

 

[Northstar]

Maybe Ferarri can buy into the mid fielder teams and use them to block the race leaders too after pitting for new tires. Seems like a flaw there when you are cutting budgets and track testing. Then you get teams with unlimited budgets to have two teams and just use the second team as a test mule to gain more testing.

Red Bull bought Minardi before all the budget and testing restrictions were in place though.

Even that aside I do feel that running two teams should be banned for the reasons you posted.

 

[lmanion]

If I remember correctly Torro Rosso had to build their own car for the first time this year without the help of Red Bull. Of course there is nothing to say they didn't get any unofficial help other than the performance of the car. It would have been interesting if the race played out differently after Webber was let through to see what the reactions might have been.

Vettel was obviously the fastest driver in the fastest car this year but the few times he had to try and overtake people his racecraft was really lacking and he will have a lot to prove next season if the Red Bull doesn't have the outright speed advantage it had this year at just about every track. He may also have been his own worst enemy at times with the reliability of his car, I mean how often this year did we see him thrashing the car trying to top all the practise sessions and take fastest lap of the race rather than turning the engine down when there was no chance of him being overtaken or picking up a place.

Alonso is a guy I don't like but I'm not really suprised or upset about the whole team orders debacle, it has always and will always be a part of F1 and he really did outdrive his car this year and almost took the title despite the car advantage that RB had which really showed his class behind the wheel.

Hopefully next year will be even tighter than this year as it seems Mercedes and Renault are going to be close to Ferrari, Mclaren and Red Bull. I think Mclaren with their experience of KERS last year and also the performances they put in towards the end of that season will have them well on their way compared to the other teams.

I say bring on 2011

 

[niky]

Second teams, IMHO, are good for the sport. Having client teams to buy engines saves money for all teams because multiple teams can support engine development by one supplier. Customer bodies would do the same. Having different teams using similar hardware would show us which teams are better at setting up their cars and which drivers are best. There would still be variations... permutations of engines in certain bodies... of different wings on customer bodies and the like... it would make the sport more interesting.

Maybe Ferarri can buy into the mid fielder teams and use them to block the race leaders too after pitting for new tires. Seems like a flaw there when you are cutting budgets and track testing. Then you get teams with unlimited budgets to have two teams and just use the second team as a test mule to gain more testing.

Given that Scuderia Toro Rosso is using Ferrari engines, a case could be made for STR's support going either way.

 

[Radracing]

Second teams, IMHO, are good for the sport. Having client teams to buy engines saves money for all teams because multiple teams can support engine development by one supplier. Customer bodies would do the same. Having different teams using similar hardware would show us which teams are better at setting up their cars and which drivers are best. There would still be variations... permutations of engines in certain bodies... of different wings on customer bodies and the like... it would make the sport more interesting.



Given that Scuderia Toro Rosso is using Ferrari engines, a case could be made for STR's support going either way.

Its not like Ferrari supplies their engines for free as a sponsor. Red Bull is the major sponsor and owner of Toro Rosso. It would be totally different if Ferrari owned Torro Rosso. Then they would be developing data for them. The only thing good about it really is that they fill up the grid but I'm sure their are other teams that would love to be in F1. Just that if they are sharing data for developement parts then I think its not fair to other teams since they are limited. They should really give the new teams more test times to catch up to the top teams and then cut their test acess once they are on pace with the midfielders at least. this way they are not holding up traffic.

 

[Louie_Schumii]

Its not like Ferrari supplies their engines for free as a sponsor. Red Bull is the major sponsor and owner of Toro Rosso. It would be totally different if Ferrari owned Torro Rosso. Then they would be developing data for them. The only thing good about it really is that they fill up the grid but I'm sure their are other teams that would love to be in F1. Just that if they are sharing data for developement parts then I think its not fair to other teams since they are limited. They should really give the new teams more test times to catch up to the top teams and then cut their test acess once they are on pace with the midfielders at least. this way they are not holding up traffic.

Can't they just allow the sale of customer chassis between teams? I know there's plenty of issues with allowing this to happen but if you've got the bottom half of the field running competitive chassis' then it will even out the performance gap a lot easier.

The only catch is that whatever chassis the big teams sell; they can't use the customer teams as a test mule to increase the amount of testing data they have (for new parts, settings, etc.). Instead; the new teams must be forced to come up with their own developments to the car they purchased at the beginning of the year (if they bought one).

As a side note; the quicker teams don't exactly have to sell their most up to date car. They can sell the the designs of the previous years car (or equivalent - e.g. Toyota TF110, Toro Rosso, Super Aguri...).


EDIT: Mercedes' post-race celebration - http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/11/16/mercedes-crew-pelt-jock-clear-with-flour-and-eggs-in-video/



This is supposedly what Nico Rosberg received as payback from Jock Clear .

 

[Ardius]

Instead; the new teams must be forced to come up with their own developments to the car they purchased at the beginning of the year (if they bought one).

As a side note; the quicker teams don't exactly have to sell their most up to date car. They can sell the the designs of the previous years car (or equivalent - e.g. Toyota TF110, Toro Rosso, Super Aguri...).

I'd just like to point out - that wouldn't be much cheaper. Nor would it be competitive.
The new teams would still have to understand the design philosophy of that car before they can begin to bolt parts onto it. And bolting parts on costs money.
Plus, if they don't have the most up to date car, what's the point? May as well make your own car that has copied the design ideas (e.g. Lotus - has several Brawn and Toyota ideas on it).

 

[lmanion]

F1 is supposed to be the pinacle of motorsport and to compete in it you have to build your own car, having customer cars would defeat the purpose of it in my opinion.

 

[Louie_Schumii]

I'd just like to point out - that wouldn't be much cheaper. Nor would it be competitive.
The new teams would still have to understand the design philosophy of that car before they can begin to bolt parts onto it. And bolting parts on costs money.
Plus, if they don't have the most up to date car, what's the point? May as well make your own car that has copied the design ideas (e.g. Lotus - has several Brawn and Toyota ideas on it).

Not unless that Toyota was 2010's Brawn .

Toro Rosso did a good job developing their own car in 2008 didn't they? A couple of near podiums and that Monza win wasn't bad for what was formerly Minardi who got gifted a same-year Red Bull chassis (with a Ferrari engine bolted on?).

I'm not too clear on how they handled Toro Rosso's case that year though. Can someone please clarify how their car was developed in 2008 (i.e. - did they just use Red Bull's upgrades; did they develop their own alongside Red Bull or was it just all them and no technical support allowed from the A-team?).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Abu Dhabi advised to get better. I recommend this:

It’s not perfect, though. I’m not happy with the switchback. The first turn needs to be a little tighter, but the drivers should be able to accelerate through the second turn.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You're suggesting by-passing the main grandstand? How's that even 1% likely to happen!?

[EDIT] It's not a grandstand, it's the hotel. Still, vital to the tracks identity.

 

[Sureboss]

Yup, there's also no run-off going to down to what would be Turn 5/6 (the one before the long straight, if you can't the flatout bit as three turns...) so that won't happen. The layout is a bit naff.

 

[Tired Tyres]

It's not about what's at the side of the track that matters. It's the track itself and that version is much better that the real one. It looks like a proper race track now. The lack of run off at the top doesn't look health though.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The layout is a bit naff.

There's not a hell of a lot that could be done in the first place. The general idea was to increase the speed of the final section. But I do have an alternative:

Okay, it wouldn't require the demolition of the grandstand at the switchback. It just ran the circuit over it so you could see the general idea: the crossover running down into a constant-radius corner under the hotel. I supose it could actually loop in under the grandstand in question because the run-off goes under the grandstand.

It could also work better run in reverse.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Desert track/circuit locations suck; only 50,000 (expensive) seats available at Abu Dhabi; season finale would be better somewhere else though the long season and weather plays a role in track selection among other things (Bernie's fee for race organizers for hosting F1 race).

 

[Roo]

Re interludes' second variation - as I'm sure you know, what is currently the turn 5/6 chicane has to be included for F1 as there's not enough runoff at turn 7. I'm sure they wouldn't use the chicane if they didn't have to.

 

[Rossticles]

There are so many different possible variations of this circuit. I would like to see another one of those before most asphalt is laid. The overtaking problem is in the 3rd sector which is pretty much the signature section with the track passing the Yas Marina Hotel.

 

[Dan360]

To start off, Yas Marina needs some esses, and medium speed sweeping curves (not corners).

I never saw any action on the long straight, which is a disappointment. The corner into the straight needs to be reconfigured.

 

[KobayashiFan]

Changes...

a) First corner tightened to allow cars to pass easier.

b) Chicane removed to allow cars to slip stream up to (and pass at) the hairpin. This should allow more overtaking.

c) Sequence of corners replaced by single hairpin as hairpins at the end of a long straight are great for overtaking (just look at Shanghai and Spa).

d) Corner tightened slightly and track would also be widened as well. Again, to allow for more overtaking.

 

[The Outlaw]

Hopefully next years race will be much more interesting with KERS, moveable wings, and no DDD & F-ducts

 

[PeterJB]

This race was good, but only because it was so tense. Not much action happened apart from Schumacher's brush with death.

 

[Anes]

Abu Dhabi advised to get better.

I told you so.

 

[Anghammarad]

Yes, how many overtakes was there after the first lap? Kubica did one I think and Webber "passed" Jaime but other than that? What the point of having an überlong straight if there's a hairpin leading onto it? Better to have tricky sequence of flowing corners which, if a skilled driver get them just right, means he will come out onto the straight with higher speed than a driver with lesser skills.

 

[Ardius]

Not unless that Toyota was 2010's Brawn .

Toro Rosso did a good job developing their own car in 2008 didn't they? A couple of near podiums and that Monza win wasn't bad for what was formerly Minardi who got gifted a same-year Red Bull chassis (with a Ferrari engine bolted on?).

I'm not too clear on how they handled Toro Rosso's case that year though. Can someone please clarify how their car was developed in 2008 (i.e. - did they just use Red Bull's upgrades; did they develop their own alongside Red Bull or was it just all them and no technical support allowed from the A-team?).

Basically Toro Rosso's car was designed by "Red Bull Technology" (not Red Bull Racing) so it wasn't technically designed by another team. It just happens that Red Bull Racing also came from there .
Toro Rosso did have to design some upgrades themselves because they had a different engine and gearbox package but its only been really since 2009 that they've had to start building up their design department for themselves. This season the Toro Rosso has been purely of their own design.

And Toro Rosso were always upgrades behind the main team. The only reason they got ahead in 2008 was because of 1. Ferrari engine and 2. Apparently Bourdais' troubles meant they went through such an intense test of setups each race weekend, that they understood their car far better than Red Bull. They started 2008 with the 2007 car and only upgraded it half way through the season.

Toro Rosso wasn't a "new team". It was Minardi bought out and funded by Red Bull. Its hardly a case for new teams and customer cars.
Super Aguri was a new team but again, it was somewhat bankrolled by Honda (not that much mind!). It was very fortunate of them to be able to buy the old Arrows but the fact it was competitive at all was a testament to how good the Arrows were aerodynamically. And even then they were always seconds off the pace, no different to todays new teams.

 

[Rossticles]

To start off, Yas Marina needs some esses, and medium speed sweeping curves (not corners).

After turns 2 and 3 there is another S sweeping left-right.

 

[happycorey]

Arghhhh I can't wait until next season now. Glad to see Red Bull win for the 2010 season, but 2011 is going to hold so much better results and hopefully even closer racing!

 

[F1 fan]

This race was good, but only because it was so tense. Not much action happened apart from Schumacher's brush with death.

You're not kidding.

From one Vettel fan to another, I was a bag of nerves. And that could have been very bad for Schumi.

 

[Peter]

Isn't this the first year in a loong time that the driver who wins race 1, doesn't win the championship?