2009 car launches thread

Has Alonso tested yet? Are there any pics around?

---

Here ya go mate this site is where I get all my F1 photos from:

[www.motorsport.com]

And here's one of Alonso testing:

---

Circuit Thermalito

Liverpool Waterfront Circuit (WIP)




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 09:38AM by Fincent.

Brilliant thanks a lot. I recon I have seen pics of him already but thought it was Piquet, there helmets look s similar now.

---

Alonso's the one not in the wall

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Watching the video that Renault looks bad compaired to the other new cars. The rear of the car looks so twitchy and it just looks a handful.

i just really hate that nose of the r29

---

Is it this year that the drivers can change their front wing angle twice in a lap or something??

I was sure it was a few months ago, or has something changed??

Just thought it was a bit funny that nothing seems to have been said about it (either from the paddock or on here) :-/

**Taylor** Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it this year that the drivers can change their
> front wing angle twice in a lap or something??
>
> I was sure it was a few months ago, or has
> something changed??
>
> Just thought it was a bit funny that nothing seems
> to have been said about it (either from the
> paddock or on here) :-/


rules are very moot at the moment, whitmarsh was complaining about 8 engine rule stating he understands nothing of it. Penalties in particular...

I guess rule on adjusting FW is equally moot. besides how will they police that they would have to use teams telemetry, but then again since it is not direct feed, how can they be sure it is genuine

I am leaving, I am actually offended

IMO There wont be any significant win by changing the front wing angle of attack twice in a lap...

And it can be dangerous, if u are locked to a wing where you shouldnt be, you have to wait the next lap to change it back? It's too much stuff for the drivers to do behind a wheel, there are a gazillion of buttons for them to mess with... Why dont they allow the flexi wings again? It would be much better than changing front wing angle twice in a lap. These wings would adapt to each circumstances and is easier to police than the device proposed for the front wing.

same goes for KERS, its a boost for a very small time, I doubt that it will be enough for an overtaking attempt. I dont even think that the gain produced by the KERS is worth the money & effort being put on it by teams. Its quite hypocritical to see teams talking about cost cutting measures while wasting time and money in a device that will only produce a small boost for a very small time.

These things according to kimi will only give them a gain of very few tenths.

So all in all, good ideas but I dont think that they are great "weapons" for them.

---

Its not really twice a lap in a way, you can lower the wing to over take and then raise it again for the corner thats it.

I can see there being mistake made and the wing move thing going wrong, the drivers have buttons for wings and KERS.

So you lower the wing try and pass at the same time you raise the wing, they wont know if the wing has gone back up or not as they can not see it so they wont know the level of downforce when they get to the corner.

They could have save money and time by just using push to pass, no need for KERS no need for the moveable wings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 01:40PM by marcl.

I am really shocked those sharkfins are still alowed. The 2009 cars look quite smooth from expecially the sides, but Renault seems to try to make their car as ugly as possible from all angles.

And the new helmetlivery from Alonso... The red is not very nice, but I guess he doesn't have to change it too radically next year then...

________________________________________

Some say... he's even smaller than 20kb.
And some say... he's so offensive he could get you into trouble...
The only thing we know is that he's called...

THE SIG


Felipe Massa, World Champion 15:34:11pm- 15:34:21pm.

It's too much stuff for the drivers to do behind a wheel, there are a gazillion of buttons for them to mess with... Why dont they allow the flexi wings again?

No it isn't. The drivers used to be able to cope with selecting the correct brake balance and engine mapping settings for every corner. If they can do that, they can cope with the the wing adjustments. If they get the wing setting wrong, it is there own fault, just like if they got the brake bias and engine mapping settings wrong.

Flexi-wings cannot be compared to adjustable ones, and do not adjust to any given situation. They bend more when more presure is on them, and bend back when it isn't. The reason flexi-wings were banned was because they are illegal. The only time the wing is legal is when it is sitting still being measured. As soon as you put presure on it, it bends too low and is illegal by the regulations, and therefore shouldn't be run in the first place.

KERS boost system has worked fine in CART and Champ Car for years, first as the simple Turbo boost options, and then later as Push-To-Pass. If Champ Car can do it, there is no reason why F1 cannot.

Its quite hypocritical to see teams talking about cost cutting measures while wasting time and money in a device that will only produce a small boost for a very small time.

How is it hypocritical of the teams? They have to take advantage of the new regulations or they will be left behind.

These things according to kimi will only give them a gain of very few tenths.

Yeah, "only". Except for a "few tenths" is a massive amount in F1.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

I did not think KERS was used in the USA, they just gave them more boost or higher revs but there was no KERS involved?

marcl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its not really twice a lap in a way, you can lower
> the wing to over take and then raise it again for
> the corner thats it.
>
> I can see there being mistake made and the wing
> move thing going wrong, the drivers have buttons
> for wings and KERS.
>
> So you lower the wing try and pass at the same
> time you raise the wing, they wont know if the
> wing has gone back up or not as they can not see
> it so they wont know the level of downforce when
> they get to the corner.
>
> They could have save money and time by just using
> push to pass, no need for KERS no need for the
> moveable wings.

Thats exactly what I was trying to say.

---

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's too much stuff for the drivers to do behind a
> wheel, there are a gazillion of buttons for them
> to mess with... Why dont they allow the flexi
> wings again?
>
> No it isn't. The drivers used to be able to cope
> with selecting the correct brake balance and
> engine mapping settings for every corner. If they
> can do that, they can cope with the the wing
> adjustments. If they get the wing setting wrong,
> it is there own fault, just like if they got the
> brake bias and engine mapping settings wrong.
>

Well... You can't blame me for saying that, I'm from an era where the drivers didnt had to do all that. They just had to drive and nothing more. Thing is they can do these things one at a time. not at the same time for an overtaking manoeuver.

> Flexi-wings cannot be compared to adjustable ones,
> and do not adjust to any given situation. They
> bend more when more presure is on them, and bend
> back when it isn't. The reason flexi-wings were
> banned was because they are illegal. The only time
> the wing is legal is when it is sitting still
> being measured. As soon as you put presure on it,
> it bends too low and is illegal by the
> regulations, and therefore shouldn't be run in the
> first place.
>

But wouldnt they be better than the adjustable ones? Safer? If we have the flexi wings technology, why dont they make it legal and surely it would work better than the adjustable ones.

> KERS boost system has worked fine in CART and
> Champ Car for years, first as the simple Turbo
> boost options, and then later as Push-To-Pass. If
> Champ Car can do it, there is no reason why F1
> cannot.
>

Fair enough, but cart is cart and F1 is F1. one thing doesnt fit in another.

> Its quite hypocritical to see teams talking about
> cost cutting measures while wasting time and money
> in a device that will only produce a small boost
> for a very small time.
>
> How is it hypocritical of the teams? They have to
> take advantage of the new regulations or they will
> be left behind.
>

Its hypocritical because they talk about cost cutting measures to save money, yet they are throwing money in that technology, see my point? Just the destination of the money wasted has changed (from aerodynamics to KERS), its not a cost cutting measure either. Like marcl said, why dont use a simple turbo boost?

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 02:56PM by Bruninho.

Well... You can't blame me for saying that, I'm from an era where the drivers didnt had to do all that.

You've been watching F1 for the last few years along with the rest of us. Even in 2006 they were still messing about with brake and engine mappings. And stuff like the Chapparel is well before your era, and that had adjustable wings.

And drivers back then had just as much to cope with. Turbo boost settings and all the rest of it. 1000bhp qualifying trim engines. And nursing the cars to the finish in the hope they don't blow up.

But wouldnt they be better than the adjustable ones? Safer? If we have the flexi wings technology, why dont they make it legal and surely it would work better than the adjustable ones.

Why would it be safer? And why would it be better? Front wings have a minimum mandated height in the regulations. The only thing flexable wings were designed to do was make the car illegal when on the track, and legal when being checked by the FIA. The technology has been around since 1997 btw, when Ferrari first introduced it at the Japanese GP.

Fair enough, but cart is cart and F1 is F1. one thing doesnt fit in another.

That isn't the point. You said its just another thing for the drivers to do, and I pointed out that Champ Car managed it. Are you saying Champ Car drivers are smart enough to be able to cope with doing all that at once, but F1 drivers aren't? It is a different series, but the principle is exactly the same.

Its hypocritical because they talk about cost cutting measures to save money, yet they are throwing money in that technology, see my point? Just the destination of the money wasted has changed (from aerodynamics to KERS), its not a cost cutting measure either. Like marcl said, why dont use a simple turbo boost?

No, I don't see your point because your point relies on the incorrect assumption that the teams make up the rules - which they don't. The teams are using KERS because they have to exploit every possible advantage in the regulations. If they don't, they lose. And losing is bad. The FIA makes the regulations, so it is hypocritical of THEM to want KERS in, whilst trying to save money. The teams are doing what they have to do to try and compete for a championship. They can't be blamed for that. That's like suggesting Williams are morons for using a wind tunnel. If they didn't, it'd be cheaper. Well yeah, but the car would also suck. It is an utterly ridiculous point to make.

Not that this actually matters. If you actually read about the KERS system, and hybrid vehicles, both for the road, and for racing, you realise what it actually is. A PR system. Nothing more. The system that F1 is developing (both the electrical and the mechanical flywheel which Williams is developing) are useless and redundant. The FIA claims that it'll go into road car technology, but as Toyota said, it won't. It has no use what so ever. There is no use in road cars for technology which collects energy from braking and turns it into power to the drive wheels once a lap. The F1 KERS system is designed to be a recharge, discharge system that will be used a maximum of 78 times in one session (the amount of laps in the Monaco GP). It has 1 single large battery which is basicly the same technology as you'll find in a laptop battery. F1 is using KERS simply as a green PR stunt, to make it look like it cares about trees and bunnies, rather than pounds around a race track doing almost no MPG, burning up fossil fuels.

On the other hand, Peugeot are currently developing a KERS system for the Le Mans Series in the 908 (ironicly a series they may not even run in now, given Audi has pulled out and the regulations are changing for 2011). Now that technology has (limited) use in road cars. The 908 uses a system similar to the Prius, where it has a bank of batteries and is constantly charging and discharging to power the drive wheels. It is a system designed to be in constant use, not whenever the driver presses a button, and it isn't limited to once a lap.

But not that this matters again. Hybrid systems are not the answer to ecological and fuel problems, and won't go anywhere. It still relies on petrol and oil supplies and will hopefully be replaced by Hydrogen fuel cell technology asap, since that actually has potential.

On a side note, I can't wait to see how bad the Williams KERS system is. 64,000RPM fly wheel? Sounds like an absolutely mental idea. Williams system may be cheaper, but there is a good reason for that, and there is a good reason why nobody else is using it.

Like marcl said, why dont use a simple turbo boost?

Wat? Having turbo pressure boosts relies on the car being fitted with a turbo. How do you propose they do that without raising costs?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 03:24PM by DaveEllis.

Bruninho you've completely misunderstood why the adjustable wing and KERS are being introduced into F1.

The adjustable wing is intended as a once a lap tool for the driver to ease the following of the car in front through a corner. Since the angle can only be raised once and then put down again there is limited scope for using it a balance trim tool. (something the drivers fear will happen).

This is intended as a tool for overtaking. A flexible wing is completely missing the point, as the flex as Dave pointed out is caused by pressure and not the driver pressing a button. Flex wings are designed to reduce drag on the straights whilst retaining downforce in the braking zone and corners. It would have no bearing on how a car follows another cars wake through a corner.

KERS is being introduced as part of Mosley's misguided "make F1 green and relevant to road technology" plan. Only this is likely to fail. It is likely to be a push to pass button in all effectiveness, although the technology also has scope for stored energy and reduced emissions.

Can I just say one thing, I never once said fit the cars with a simple turbo boost.

But they could have just allowed a raise in the rev limit for a timed period in a race.

But the idea of KERS was to reuse the wasted energy so it was either this or nothing. No matter what Kimi says both Mclaren and BMW have said with a fully workinf KERS they expect to shave .4 to .6 off a lap time depending on the track.

That is the difference between a win and 3rd for a team that does not have it. If mclaren and BMW use it and another team does not there is no way they will compete in quali and they will not be able to make ground in the race.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2009 03:31PM by marcl.

Oh KERS is faster, no doubt about it. And with enough development, it works fine. But it is still a useless PR stunt.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've been watching F1 for the last few years
> along with the rest of us. Even in 2006 they were
> still messing about with brake and engine
> mappings. And stuff like the Chapparel is well
> before your era, and that had adjustable wings.
>
> And drivers back then had just as much to cope
> with. Turbo boost settings and all the rest of it.
> 1000bhp qualifying trim engines. And nursing the
> cars to the finish in the hope they don't blow up.
>

Fair enough. I just dont like to see them messing with these settings while driving, and as for nursing te cars to the finish, now today it is easier with all these buttons onboard to drop revs and stuff like that. Where's driver skill in it? I thought racing was about driver skill not strategy?

> But wouldnt they be better than the adjustable
> ones? Safer? If we have the flexi wings
> technology, why dont they make it legal and surely
> it would work better than the adjustable ones.
>
> Why would it be safer? And why would it be better?
>

I am not discussing whether it is legal or illegal, neither assuming that teams are doing the rules. My aim was FIA for doing these rules. Its safer in my view because drivers dont need to adjust them in an overtaking manoeuver at 300 kph with other cars closer to them and its easier to police than driver-adjustable front wings.

> Fair enough, but cart is cart and F1 is F1. one
> thing doesnt fit in another.
>
> That isn't the point. You said its just another
> thing for the drivers to do, and I pointed out
> that Champ Car managed it. Are you saying Champ
> Car drivers are smart enough to be able to cope
> with doing all that at once, but F1 drivers
> aren't? It is a different series, but the
> principle is exactly the same.
>

Right, I accept your argument. But there are lot more buttons and stuff to mess behind a wheel of a F1 than in a CART/Champ Car wheel. Far more complicated.

> Its hypocritical because they talk about cost
> cutting measures to save money, yet they are
> throwing money in that technology, see my point?
> Just the destination of the money wasted has
> changed (from aerodynamics to KERS), its not a
> cost cutting measure either. Like marcl said, why
> dont use a simple turbo boost?
>
> No, I don't see your point because your point
> relies on the incorrect assumption that the teams
> make up the rules - which they don't.

I didnt said that. I know FIA does the rules. I was pointing my finger to FIA and FOTA, they both agreed on cost cutting measures and they are going to put the same wasted amount of money & efforts (previously in aerodynamics) to develop a KERS system for 2009/2010. So, they arent saving any money at all!

> The FIA makes
> the regulations, so it is hypocritical of THEM to
> want KERS in, whilst trying to save money.

That's what I said!

> The teams are doing what they have to do to try and
> compete for a championship. They can't be blamed
> for that. That's like suggesting Williams are
> morons for using a wind tunnel. If they didn't,
> it'd be cheaper. Well yeah, but the car would also
> suck. It is an utterly ridiculous point to make.
>
> Not that this actually matters. If you actually
> read about the KERS system, and hybrid vehicles,
> both for the road, and for racing, you realise
> what it actually is. A PR system. Nothing more.
> The system that F1 is developing (both the
> electrical and the mechanical flywheel which
> Williams is developing) are useless and redundant.
> The FIA claims that it'll go into road car
> technology, but as Toyota said, it won't. It has
> no use what so ever. There is no use in road cars
> for technology which collects energy from braking
> and turns it into power to the drive wheels once a
> lap. The F1 KERS system is designed to be a
> recharge, discharge system that will be used a
> maximum of 78 times in one session (the amount of
> laps in the Monaco GP). It has 1 single large
> battery which is basicly the same technology as
> you'll find in a laptop battery. F1 is using KERS
> simply as a green PR stunt, to make it look like
> it cares about trees and bunnies, rather than
> pounds around a race track doing almost no MPG,
> burning up fossil fuels.
>

As I suspected. You're right.

> On a side note, I can't wait to see how bad the
> Williams KERS system is. 64,000RPM fly wheel?
> Sounds like an absolutely mental idea. Williams
> system may be cheaper, but there is a good reason
> for that, and there is a good reason why nobody
> else is using it.
>

o_O lol... yet they havent shown any sign of problems with their KERS in testing?

> Like marcl said, why dont use a simple turbo
> boost?
>
> Wat? Having turbo pressure boosts relies on the
> car being fitted with a turbo. How do you propose
> they do that without raising costs?

Well... surely it is cheaper than a KERS project.

---