2016 F1 Constructor tech info/development thread. (READ 1ST POST)Formula 1 

Always. That's all that site is.

Ron Dennis cancelled Christmas at Woking.
I realise this is slightly off topic, and beating a dead horse...

You guys says Motorsport.com is so terrible, and I agree there is a lot of speculative reporting on there (not impossible to sift through though). If that's the case though, why do I see a trend of Motorsport.com publishing articles one day, and JAonF1 publishing the same thing a day later.

It happened with the post I made about the results of the meetings, and the exact same thing about Dennis cancelling Christmas. These two examples are far from the only times I've witnessed this as well.
 
Back to actual news:

1) Renault's 2016 car has passed its crash test.

2) Manor will formally be known as "MRT" ("Manor Racing Team"). It seems that Bernie likes smaller teams, teams without a long history of racing, or teams who are struggling financially to use acronyms because it makes it easy for them to pick up sponsors and offload the team later on.
 
I posted this in the driver thread for some unknown reason, it should have gone here...

...Sky describe this as a "credible source", the source claims that Honda will have an extra 200+ horsepower this season and that they've made significant engine changes to solve last year's issues.

EDIT: My evening goes from bad to worse... tree'd by @Jimlaad43 in the correct thread :D
 
My understanding of the additional horsepower is that the additional 233 bhp is made up of being able to deploy the 163 bhp from the ers for the full allotted time and an increase of 70 bhp from the ice due to a bigger turbo. So whilst they'd have got an increase of 233 bhp compared to last year they were already 163 bhp down due to ers issues. So in real terms they have found 70 bhp which still leaves them short of Merc and Ferrari compared to last year and that's before eiter of those make gains in this off season.
 
My understanding of the additional horsepower is that the additional 233 bhp is made up of being able to deploy the 163 bhp from the ers for the full allotted time and an increase of 70 bhp from the ice due to a bigger turbo. So whilst they'd have got an increase of 233 bhp compared to last year they were already 163 bhp down due to ers issues. So in real terms they have found 70 bhp which still leaves them short of Merc and Ferrari compared to last year and that's before eiter of those make gains in this off season.

To be sure you'd have to know the actual running numbers on the ICE for Mercedes and Ferrari compared to last year.
 
From what I've read, it's just for Monza to be able to host motorcycle races, I don't think it should have any effect on the layout used by F1.
 
I'm fine with that. Parabolica is held as one of the best turns on any current circuit so it'd be quite the joke to ruin it especially when the F1 circus arrives.

Also what happened to the F1 track thread?
 
I'm one of the few that don't find run offs a way to neuter, when you actually change the shape of the turn like the proposed Monza then you've neutered or ruined.
The suggestion is that the proposed chicane would make Monza more appealing to series outside Formula One; Formula One wouldn't actually use it. It's like the reprofiling that was done to Chapel at Silverstone - MotoGP uses it, but Formula One doesn't.
 
The suggestion is that the proposed chicane would make Monza more appealing to series outside Formula One; Formula One wouldn't actually use it. It's like the reprofiling that was done to Chapel at Silverstone - MotoGP uses it, but Formula One doesn't.


Tilke ruined the whole circuit anyway.
 
The suggestion is that the proposed chicane would make Monza more appealing to series outside Formula One; Formula One wouldn't actually use it. It's like the reprofiling that was done to Chapel at Silverstone - MotoGP uses it, but Formula One doesn't.

Yeah someone pointed that out to me already hence why I said "if it isn't for F1 then I don't mind the change"
 
No, he didn't. The 2010 reconfiguration was done by a British firm, Apex Circuit Design.
Completely wrong thread but anyway. I know that the new section was built to suit other racing series buy what was the whole reason for F1 wanting to use the new section and not let Silverstone keep the old section to race on that? (Why didn't F1 treat the old section of Silverstone like they are supposedly treating Monza with the original corner aka still using it?)
 
Because the old section through Bridge was single file only. I know everyone used to wax lyrical about the challenge that it presented, and maybe it was true once upon a time - but in a modern Formula One car, it was taken flat out, or at least as close to flat out as possible in a modern car. Like so many of the classic corners, it was castrated by the advent of aerodynamics. Whatever challenge it once presented was long gone.
 
Plus Bernie's stupid money grabbing contract for F1 meant it was too expensive to keep both layouts in use and licensed.
 
You know that at least half of the race sanctioning fees go to the teams, right? It costs about $2 million to run two cars over a Grand Prix weekend. Given that there are twenty races in a season, that's $40 million before you pay for engines, develop chassis, or hire anyone; for race organisers, that's $20 million just to get the teams there before you take into consideration the finite number of race weekends in a year and they need to start competing with each other.

Where did you think the money went? A numbered Swiss bank account? Tamara Ecclestone's bathrooms?
 
According to Alexander Wurz, the drivers have decided unanimously to implement head protection. So, the halo device looks like it will be happening.
 
Back