james Allen

[Raquel1986]

En mi opinión Ferrari si que hizo. Es cierto que a Fernando le obligaron a cambiar sus declaraciones, pero desde ese mismo momento la web de Ferrari, el departamento de prensa y el mismo Montezemolo tomaron la iniciativa y fueron contra la Fia y Waiting. Quizás no se ensañaron demasiado públicamente, pero en los despachos si que debieron actuar ya que desde entonces las "decisiones arbitrales" dejaron en paz a Fernando y a Ferrari. Con el tema de Alemania pudo haberles caído la del pulpo, al menos tuvieron la oportunidad, pero a Ferrari solo le dieron una palmadita. Creo que algo se coció en el lado oscuro...

Pues si no se vuelve a repetir, será verdad lo que dices y yo me alegraré un huevo, pero como el año que viene vuelvan a pasar cosas de ese tipo, perderé toda esperanza. Además, en Alemania sí que pasó, pasó que se le dio mucho bombo, hubo mucha polémica y que a Ferrari la sancionaron (aunque no le quitarán puntos). Todo eso pasó, pero bueno...

[Melif1]

Quise decir que en ese momento de la carrera no hicieron mucho quejándose a los comisarios de lo que había pasado con Hamilton y el safety car .... y lo digo por la conversación por radio de Alonso con su ingeniero. Eso contribuyó también a la tardanza en la sanción.

En mi opinión Ferrari si que hizo. Es cierto que a Fernando le obligaron a cambiar sus declaraciones, pero desde ese mismo momento la web de Ferrari, el departamento de prensa y el mismo Montezemolo tomaron la iniciativa y fueron contra la Fia y Waiting. Quizás no se ensañaron demasiado públicamente, pero en los despachos si que debieron actuar ya que desde entonces las "decisiones arbitrales" dejaron en paz a Fernando y a Ferrari. Con el tema de Alemania pudo haberles caído la del pulpo, al menos tuvieron la oportunidad, pero a Ferrari solo le dieron una palmadita. Creo que algo se coció en el lado oscuro...

Exacto

Yo leí declaraciones un poco fuertes de Montezemolo apoyando las declaraciones de Fernando.......No con las mismas palabras que él , pero casi casi.

[miranda]

eloy ¿cómo puedes decir que fue igual?. En primer lugar sí devolvió la posición, pero antes de la siguiente curva ya le adelantó, así que no hubo tiempo para que consultaran con Charli y éste les respondiera que todo estaba correcto. Así que no es lo mismo. Y tampoco tardaron varias vueltas en contestar y ponerle la sanción de forma que saliera aún más perjudicado. Y sí, alguna vez le sancionan, pero son las mínimas. Incluso en algunas ocasiones en las que se le dice que es la última vez que se puede hacer eso (circular por la línea azul de boxes) vuelve a hacerlo y ni siquiera se analiza si cometió una infracción, porque si lo hacen, con los antecedentes, no tendrían más remedio que sancionarlo

He dicho "muy parecido" no igual. Y refiriéndome a la ineptitud de Charlie Whiting, en ningún momento comparando las situaciones (en una se produjo un adelantamiento que podía ser considerado legal, atajando luego, en otros e atajó primero, y luego se adelantó).

Y sí, tardaron varias vueltas en contestar y ponerle la sanción, tanto que se la impusieron después de terminar la carrera...

No es ni siquiera parecido. En primer lugar es cierto que le impusieron la sanción después de la carrera, pero no el aviso del estudio de la posible sanción, ni le dijeron que se estudiaría al finalizar la carrera para imponerle la sanción varias vueltas después cuando más le perjudicase. Si le impusiesen la sanción, como dijeron, al finalizar la carrera, sería quitarle 25 segundos con lo que podría haber quedado mucho más arriba, porque se podría haber marchado. En cambio estuvieron entreteniendo a Ferrari con mentiras y luego lo sancionaron donde más le podía perjudicar, al contratio que a ham en todas las ocasiones, que la mayoría de las veces no lo sancionan a pesar de la normativa bastante clara, y cuando lo sancionan lo hacen de forma que salga lo menos perjudicado posible. El año pasado le dieron varias advertencias. Dejando aparte el que no deberían ser advertencias, sino sanciones, es que la suma de advertencias también es causa de sanción. ¿viste que se la impusieran?. Yo no

[eloyf1]

No es ni siquiera parecido. En primer lugar es cierto que le impusieron la sanción después de la carrera, pero no el aviso del estudio de la posible sanción, ni le dijeron que se estudiaría al finalizar la carrera para imponerle la sanción varias vueltas después cuando más le perjudicase. Si le impusiesen la sanción, como dijeron, al finalizar la carrera, sería quitarle 25 segundos con lo que podría haber quedado mucho más arriba, porque se podría haber marchado. En cambio estuvieron entreteniendo a Ferrari con mentiras y luego lo sancionaron donde más le podía perjudicar, al contratio que a ham en todas las ocasiones, que la mayoría de las veces no lo sancionan a pesar de la normativa bastante clara, y cuando lo sancionan lo hacen de forma que salga lo menos perjudicado posible. El año pasado le dieron varias advertencias. Dejando aparte el que no deberían ser advertencias, sino sanciones, es que la suma de advertencias también es causa de sanción. ¿viste que se la impusieran?. Yo no

¡Para mi también es entretener con mentiras decir que todo está correcto, y luego encontrarte con el regalo tras la carrera!

Por cierto, te agradecería que me dijeras en qué párrafo del Código Deportivo Internacional se dice que "la suma de advertencias también es causa de sanción". Más que nada porque, estemos o no de acuerdo, el propio CDI considera que una "reprimenda" es una sanción en sí misma.

[maripi]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/12/in...-suits-me/


Tonight F1 fans are a little confused and a little concerned as they contemplate a 2011 season with four black and gold Lotus Renault cars on the track, two owned by the Enstone based Lotus Renault GP and two – in slightly different livery – owned by Norfolk based Team Lotus.

The Team Lotus entries have nothing to do with the Norfolk based Lotus Cars operation, which is a 25% shareholder in the Enstone based team.


The Team Lotus colour scheme
The two different Black and Gold liveries – both tributes to the iconic JPS Lotus colours of the 1970s – are at large on the internet at the moment.

Lotus Renault GP’s livery (below) was issued this morning by the team along with its press statement announcing the deal, while a reader has sent what appears to be a scheme for next year’s T128 Lotus with car numbers 20 and 21 (above).



Lotus Renault GP livery

Group Lotus boss Danny Bahar, who now controls 25% of the Enstone based team (livery above), went on BBC Radio Norfolk today to talk about his plans for the company. He brushed off the confusion, saying that it suits him to have four Lotus cars on the grid as it doubles his brand exposure, he’s getting free advertising from Tony Fernandes’ team – but I’m not sure we should believe him on that. This is an unworkable situation from a business point of view, which will cause difficulty for the sponsors of both teams and they will be pressing for a resolution.

“I have nothing against it,” said Bahar. “It’s not a problem for me, four are better than two. The controversy has been mainly pushed out by Media, it’s been dealt with by our shareholders together with 1 Malaysia Team.” (the Norfolk based team)

Although they haven’t commented on the name issue, there has been some Twitter activity from key Team Lotus personnel today on the colour scheme. Technical director Mike Gascoyne Tweeted that in an online poll of Lotus fans 77% wanted them to keep the green and yellow livery, just 15% fancy the black and gold, while 4% of Lotus fans want the Gold Leaf colours of Red and gold.

“Seems pretty conclusive” was Gascoyne’s verdict on the poll.

The two sides will face each other around a table tomorrow at the F1 commission meeting, which is attended by the team principals of all F1 teams, plus circuit owners, sponsors, tyre company, FIA and Bernie Ecclestone. No doubt there will be much talk about this issue. There will also be formal moves towards the 2013 engine formula with small capacity, turbo charged eco engines.

Bahar said that in terms of drivers to partner Robert Kubica, “Our preferred choice is Vitaly Petrov, but I hope that the team will be able to announce by the end of the year the final line up.”

If you are in Central London tomorrow December 9th, come down to the JA on F1 book signing at Motor Books, Cecil Court, London WC2, from 5-30pm until 7pm. As well as a chance to chat about this Lotus story, the Piquets and other stories from the F1 season, I’m delighted to say that Senna Movie writer and producer Manish Pandey will be there so you can ask him any questions you may have about the Senna movie. Copies of the JA on F1 2010 season review book will be available.

[maripi]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/12/fi...rs-banned/




Posted on | December 10, 2010 | by | 66 Comments

The FIA World Motor Sport Council met in Monaco today and two significant things came out of it. First the WMSC approved the small capacity turbo engine which has been under discussion for some months and second it dropped the controversial rule banning team orders from F1 with effect from 2011 onwards. This follows the unsatisfactory outcome of the hearing into the Ferrari team orders incident in Germany this season.

The FIA statement on the engines said, “The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry. Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

“The engines will deliver a 35% reduction in fuel consumption and will feature extensive energy management and energy recovery systems, while maintaining current levels of performance. In 2013, five engines will be permitted per driver, but each year after that the limit will be four.”

So from 2014 onwards engines will have to last a minimum of five Grands Prix, as opposed to the two/three race engines now.

As for team orders, the WMSC said, “The article forbidding team orders (39.1) is deleted. Teams will be reminded that any actions liable to bring the sport into disrepute are dealt with under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code and any other relevant provisions.”

There were also some other changes to the regulations including gearbox life, which is extended to five races, rather than four.

A full analysis of the significance of these changes will follow later.

[maripi]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/12/no...mechanics/


One of the features of this season was the Red Bull mechanics looking utterly exhausted as a result of working deep into the night before qualifying to fit new parts to the cars which arrived at all hours at the circuit.

The ‘go faster’ parts certainly made a difference and I’m sure that those mechanics have been catching up on sleep pretty much since they finished in Abu Dhabi, dreaming of what to spend their bonuses on.



Life will no longer be a blur for mechanics (Darren Heath)

But it’s not all like that. The mechanics at every team were stretched during a gruelling 19 race calendar and those working for the new teams had a really tough time in the early flyaway races, not least because there were fewer of them and they were trying to bed down unreliable new cars.

Well all of that is now a thing of the past as the FIA has issued its technical and sporting regulations following on from last Friday’s World Council meeting and forcing teams to leave the circuit for a minimum of six hours on Thursday and Friday nights is one of the eye catching changes.

Mechanics will be locked out of the track from midnight to 6am in territories where practice starts at 10am and from 1am to 7am where practice begins at 11am.

“However, each team will be permitted four individual exceptions to the above during a championship season,” according to the FIA edict.

With a 20 race calendar this is eminently sensible. There is real risk of burn out for F1’s hardest working and arguable most professional people – the mechanics.

Saturday nights aren’t affected because the cars are in parc ferme so most mechanics leave early evening after they’ve had something to eat.

There are also clarifications on driving etiquette picking up from some of the incidents last year and other detail changes to report. I’ll post an analysis of World Council decisions and the new regulations tomorrow.

[maripi]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/12/an...-f1-rules/


Analysis of World Council decisions, 2013 engines and new F1 rules
Posted on | December 14, 2010 | by | No Comments

Last Friday’s FIA World Motor Sport Council was the culmination of a lot of work behind the scenes and threw up some interesting outcomes on several fronts.

The sport is changing in significant ways and these decisions are a milestone on that journey. F1 always has to balance several requirements; to be entertaining, to be relevant and to be technologically innovative and there are big moves in all three directions going on at the moment.


On the entertainment side you have the moveable rear wing, which will mean that a slightly faster car should be able to pass a slower car without losing the chance in the aerodynamic wake. We will also see Pirelli evolving the tyres in a way which makes them central to the show, making more races more like Montreal this year where it was up to drivers and the team strategists to get the best outcome using tyres which were quite on the edge for the conditions.

2013 Engines
The news on the 2013 engine formula is the most significant for the long term future of the sport. This is all about the sport staying relevant. Many road car manufacturers are evolving their strategy towards electric cars and to direct injection turbo engines, of the kind the FIA has voted through – 1.6 litres. The FIA’s statement doesn’t actually mention the word “turbocharged”, but it would be pretty difficult to get 750 horsepower out of a 1.6 litre engine revving to 12,000rpm any other way! The F1 engineers understand it to be turbos, but there are some other ideas around including turbo compounding.

The energy regeneration systems will be much more potent, which is a good thing. The rate at which they can harvest energy and recycle it will double. Instead of the 60 kilowatts KERS will give next year, the 2013 engines will have 120 kW.

The target is a 35% fuel saving, which is around 60 kilos of fuel per car per race. That said the fuel consumption will still be only 7 mpg – a modest improvement on the just under 5 mpg currently and a long way from road relevant.

There have been discussions aimed at optimising the chassis rules to work with the new engine rules, to create far greater efficiency. So for example, reducing drag would be a highly desirable, giving the same speeds with less consumption and greater efficiency. Radical reductions in drag would allow you to reduce engine power and still maintain F1 speeds. Active cooling is another idea engineers are keen on. The senior engineers are meeting today in London to discuss this.

Ideally with a clean sheet of paper concept teams will need 18 months to work on it, so the chassis rules could do with being finalised by next summer.

With the subject of road relevance comes the opportunity for the manufacturers to engage with the sport as suppliers not just of engines but of drivetrains as well. The new rules on gearboxes which have to last five races and sophisticated energy recovery systems create a commercial opportunity for manufacturers like Renault, Mercedes, Cosworth and even Honda, who I’m told have been following the engine discussions closely, are quite likely to return in 2013 as an engine/drivetrain supplier.

Team Orders
The thorny subject of team orders has been addressed, according to the FIA World Council’s statement; “The article forbidding team orders (39.1) is deleted. Teams will be reminded that any actions liable to bring the sport into disrepute are dealt with under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code and any other relevant provisions.”

In some ways this is worse than what we had before because it is so vague. The previous rule was unworkable, but at least it set out the principle that teams should not interfere -or be seen to interfere -with the order in which the cars finish. This is certainly valid for races in the first 70% of the season, but unrealistic in the closing stages.

After Ferrari invoked team orders at the 11th round of 19, there was an uproar from fans and media alike. The new rule seems to suggest that although team orders are allowed, a strongly negative reaction to a team order will cause the team to be charged with bringing the sport into disrepute. This could also occur for example if a driver pulls over in the final corner to let a team mate through. I think what this revision means is that the fans and media cannot point to a specific exclusion of team orders any more and that what is and isn’t acceptable will be sorted out behind closed doors at team principal level.

I’m also pretty sure we will see this rule tested next season, not by Red Bull who have stuck to their guns and say they will never favour one driver over the other. But Felipe Massa’s heart must have sunk when he read this statement. Although theoretically Ferrari hits a reset button at the start of 2011, it was pretty clear which driver was going for the championship. Will they play it the same way next year? It will be fascinating to see.

Driving standards
There were some controversial moments in 2010 where drivers blocked each other, raced in the pit lane and so on. There are some detail changes in the sporting regulations now to address some of those issues. Drivers must not overtake in the pit lane and when out on the circuit they must stay with all four wheels on the track at all times, and “Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.”

This clarifies the situation and follows the incident between Vitaly Petrov and Lewis Hamilton in Malaysia. The race stewards, of which one will remain an ex F1 driver, have a range of penalties to hand out including any size of time penalty and at the extreme end, exclusion from the race or a suspension from the next race.

[maripi]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/12/ch...t-ferrari/

The Italian press were at Maranello the other night for a dinner to look back over the season and look forward to the next. President Montezmolo hosted the event, along with team principal Stefano Domenicali, who still enjoys the full support of the Ferrari board.


There were suggestions in the Italian papers today, however, that some changes of personnel may be made before the start of next season, with senior engineer Chris Dyer, the Australian who is believed to have been at the centre of the decision to pit Alonso at the wrong time in Abu Dhabi, in the cross hairs.

“We’ve never had a revolution,”said Montezemolo. “And this time we will limit ourselves to minor adjustments and improvements in the interests of stability. Domenicali will communicate everything at Madonna di Campiglio in January.”

He revealed that the new car will come out in the final week of January before moving on to talk about the drivers. Earlier this week he said that Felipe Massa’s brother must have been in the car at some races this year and here again he didn’t spare Massa’s blushes,

“Alonso has brought confidence, optimism and presence at the factory. Massa did not have a good season. He was up against a very strong team mate, I’m sure that in 2011 he’ll improve.”

Writing in the Gazzetta dello Sport, veteran journalist Pino Allievi, whose family has always had very close links with Ferrari, suggests that it is not inconceivable that the team will replace Massa next year with Robert Kubica, “Whose phone number is known in Maranello.”
Montezemolo also called once again for third cars to be allowed, in preference to small teams “Who couldn’t even do GP2″. He would like “an American team, like Ganassi or Penske to race in F1 with a Ferrari, giving it to an American driver. Or maybe we could even give it to a serious team like Sauber.”

[maripi]

Renault F1 boss explains thinking behind change of role in F1
Posted on | December 16, 2010 | by | 8 Comments

There is a very interesting interview in French magazine Auto Hebdo this week, with Jean Francois Caubet, general manager of the Renault Sport F1 unit, which is now solely an engine supplier in F1, after the marque sold its stake in the F1 team to Genii Capital and Lotus.

Caubet justifies Renault’s decision to change role on the grounds of return on investment; F1 will now be a profit centre for the company with sales of engines to Red Bull and Lotus and then in 2013 a fourth team as well.



Lotus Renault GP livery

For the next two seasons, Renault will also benefit from significant branding on the Lotus Renault GP cars, as well as a partnership with Red Bull which this year brought Renault its 9th world championship as an engine maker.

Right now Renault finds itself embroiled in the battle over the right to race as Lotus in F1 and he is quite fleet footed in dealing with the main points,

“We have a contract for engine supply without knowing yet what the name of the team will be, ” he says. “We don’t want to get involved in this quarrel, it’s up to Renault and Proton to sort this out. The deal with Tony Fernandes is a little complicated by this name business, but his team has shown itself to be the most active of the three new teams in 2010. If we want to start looking for a fourth team for 2013, we need a solid base of three teams.

” We are very comfortable with Lotus Cars, which is not a direct competitor. They produce 2000 cars a year, our relationship with Proton is also excellent. The market is global now and Malaysia must open its borders (to foreign vehicle imports) and Proton must come out of isolation to conquer new markets. So it needs a strong car maker ally. They want to work with us, so industrial and strategic links are in place way above what is going on in F1. ”



Caubet: Believes other manufacturers will join F1 in 2013

He also praised the announcement by the FIA of the new 2013 engine based on a small capacity turbo engine with KERS, “The 2013 engine opens up the game, ” he said. ” The FIA dossier is clear; if we have technological innovations it’s up to us to introduce them. The competition is totally open. We will limit costs with precise rules; materials, number of engines per season, rev limit etc. But we are free in terms of technology. It’s a clean sheet of paper for everyone and may the best one win! 1600cc, twin turbo, direct injection, big KERS, 600 horsepower in the engine and another 150 in the KERS boos and controlled fuel consumption. ”

Caubet believes that after several years of engine specifications in the interests of cost saving, the new engine rules will give the chance -at least initially – for the engine to be the differentiator in performance, “There are three groups of manufacturers,” he said. ” The French, including Renault; the Germans including Mercedes. It’s too soon for BMW to return and then there is VW which is hesitating. Why because from 2013 the engine could be the difference between winning and losing/ The risk is there. The third group? It is the Japanese – they have all been there at the meetings and I’ve been surprised by their interest in the new engine. Of course talking is free, but I sense that they’ve evolved their thinking.. the Europeans are there, it’s new technology…we can’t afford not to be there too.” Honda are thinking very seriously about it.

Caubet also feels from conversations with his opposite numbers at other car companies that they are all reviewing involvement and sponsorship spend in other sports, when motor sport is so obviously connected to the car industry.

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?mkt=es-es&Ref=WLButton&a=http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/12/renault-f1-boss-explains-thinking-behind-change-of-role-in-f1/