Whether the new qualifying system proposal would be implemented, and in what form...and when, has been a mystery until now. You've seen the original proposal, apparently a lesser-evil proposal (less evil, that is, than Bernie's idea), and meant to start up in Melbourne. It needed to be approved by the WMSC. In the meantime, Bernie announced that the timing systems, etc, wouldn't be ready until a few races into the season. Just a few days ago the plan was altered a bit to use the knockout formula for Q1 and Q2 but revert to what we're used to for Q3. Today the WMSC met but since the recently revamped proposal hadn't yet made its way through the proper bureaucracy the only proposal they had to vote on was the original lesser-evil proposal with three full rounds of knockout qualifying. And that's what they approved. So, assuming it works the way it's supposed to we'll have two drivers on the track at the end, competing for pole. Bernie's company now claims the timing systems can be in place for Melbourne. Q1 -16 minutes duration; - After 7 minutes, the slowest driver is eliminated; - Slowest driver eliminated every 1 minute 30 seconds thereafter until the chequered flag; - 7 drivers eliminated, 15 progress to Q2. Q2 - 15 minutes duration; - After 6 minutes, slowest driver eliminated; - Slowest driver eliminated every 1 minute 30 seconds thereafter until the chequered flag; - 7 drivers eliminated, 8 progress to Q3. Q3 - 14 minutes; - After 5 minutes, slowest driver eliminated; - Slowest driver eliminated every 1 minute 30 seconds thereafter until the chequered flag; - 2 drivers left in final 1 minute 30 seconds. I'm torn. Don't know whether to hope it works better than I expect or to hope it fails immediately and so miserably they decide to scrap it.
While on paper it sounds relatively simple keeping track for anything but the most fervent fan I think will be difficult.
Interesting how Merc gets away with theirs being outside the regulated area by having it in a false nose cover. Engineers will always figure away around the rules.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mq5r_8zT10"]F1 explained: Lewis Hamilton's driving position! - YouTube[/ame]
Sounds like how Porsche put another rear window over the factory rear window on the 935 for better aero.
I'm no expert, clearly, but it's hard to believe there's so much gained by running the rear wing pylon directly through the exhaust pipe that it's worth dealing with that sort of obstruction.
So the mouse ears are there to increase the noise, which the mount in the middle is helping muffle. Shows what the teams care about, and it ain't noise.
So I learned something new over the weekend. Turbo motors don't really save any fuel over NA motors in racing. Because in racing you are hard on the gas or hard on the brake there are very few places where you are not asking for all the horse power. To make the same power you need to burn the same amount of fuel. It makes perfect sense. I feel stupid for not realizing it before. Now maybe with the electric turbos it saves a little more. But for F1 we have all the cost and complication to project a "green" image that isn't really green.
How many kilos of fuel did they carry in the NA days? If it was more than 100, then they're saving some fuel with this setup.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSUUFUGb9Q8"]2016 Australian GP Tyre Selections Examined - YouTube[/ame]
They are saving fuel because of the increased use of electric motors. But gas motor to gas motor making the same hp basically takes the same amount of energy for the use of fuel. In street cars we save fuel because most of us aren't either full throttle or full brake. We aren't asking for full hp most of the time.