Sakae

Senior Members
  • Content count

    4,692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Sakae

  • Rank
    F1 Ace

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,492 profile views
  1. Strategy

    I haven't forgotten Ferrari. No one on the outside knows whether US race was aberration for unexplained reasons why they had such poor race (like cold tires for example), and whether they do have actually a top shelve engine, or Technical Directive issued by FiA prior US race puts them back into a hole. We have to wait for results in next two races to get more accurate understanding where Ferrari stands compared to Mercedes. From what I gather, RBR and Mercedes are suspicious, that something shady was going on with fuel flow on the red car. Either way, if there are certain limiting parameters set forth, it applies to all of them. Right now I do not like what I am hearing from Brawn. Think about it this way; if Renault is 70 Hp apart (as an example only) from Merceds, and they will not be permitted to work on improvements, what would be the point for them staying in F1 and lose race after race due to engine inequality? Being close to rivals can be offset by excellence in other areas, but if disparity is massive, then there is no point staying.
  2. Strategy

    Liberty (Brawn) began talking again about freezing engine development. I wonder if it would be better to establish performance limits instead, purpose of which would be to slow down or freeze Mercedes's power plant, and let Honda and Renault continuing to develop theirs. I am assuming here that Mercedes continues as benchmark in that department. Today it is hard to say where Ferrari is in their development. Last race implies certain situation, but it is all guesswork at this stage. (Nov 11) We need power plants across the spectrum operate with similar performance, otherwise there is no point to watch one team and one driver to continue dominate series due to equipment advantage. I do not believe Hamilton's situation is even close to be compared to Vettel or Schumacher. Complex hybrid power plant puts a foot on scale just too much in favor of Mercedes. (Then there are some doubts whether all engine suppliers began to work on hybrids in the same year, etc.)
  3. Strategy

    Should Renault pull out, driver's market gets really competitive. RBR issued a notice already to one of their former drivers; you wanted out, then stay out.
  4. Strategy

    Mercedes has from day one very effective design, which put them into a class on their own. They are a benchmark. Not surprisingly I do disagree with notion, that the others are racing without problems. Each team has their own set of discreet issues in areas of performance, and reliability. Some are lacking more than others, but not a single team is meeting Mercedes on track in equal terms. Even today, five years later. IMHO all teams are still lacking something, Next one or two races could tell us more where Ferrari engine stands in its performance level compared to Mercedes. (Problems teams experiencing, as I define it in here, should be understood as efforts under restrictive regulations aimed closing performance gap to Mercedes.)
  5. Strategy

    Why Mercedes and Ferrari? Perhaps we should re-visit year 2010... Not to write an essay of 4000 words, however it would be useful to return to the beginning for us to understand how we got here. Once FiA/CVC agreed to changes teams wanted, why blame the teams operating within allowed framework? Cost. Are we saying no one had any idea what it all will cost and projected impact on lesser well off teams? That's hard to believe. I am certain that whole range of estimates were done before last Concorde was signed and sealed, and Todt, just as Ecclestone (with CVC) knew very well what teams will have to pay to live in this new F1. I changed my mind about hybrid power plant in F1, and despite my continuing awe over hybrid engineering, yet I came to conclusion, that FiA failed to provide regulatory environment, which would permit other teams to compete. Money alone is not enough. One needs research conditions to reach performance zone in which a leader, Mercedes, operates. Tokens, moratorium on new technology and tonnes of other road blocks have not supported recovery for other teams. I do not however blame teams for state of the F1. I do however question work of individuals like Whiting (FiA representative), CVC's financial management with Ecclestone at the front. One needs to realize, had those people put foot down in last round of Concorde negotiations, we would not be here today. F1 either might have folded, or turn completely into different direction. I think this finger-pointing onto two teams as villains is merely emotionally misdirected and not entirely fair. Neither Ferrari or Mercedes run the series. F1 always was, and probably should have stay with normally aspirated engines, but once the management decided to take plunge, they should had a plan for timely way out, if things went side-ways. Point to do that was Summer 2014 when it was all too clear F1 is in big trouble.
  6. Strategy

    Change at Renault management, and obvious question of the day is whether Delbos will pull plug on UK based F1 operations. Bookkeepers running engineering companies makes me violently ill, but that's unfotunately world we live in these days.
  7. Strategy

    I am not sure about fruit salad, however point was, whether two (or more) tire suppliers add to the racing show. I am one supplier proponent, because turning interesting competitiveness variety could induce into racing, the same can turn into uncompetitive disaster rather quickly due to flawed tire design. Risk is just too big, and therefore IMHO not worth trying to repeat past mistakes. When Michelin fought Bridgestone, there was more misery in all kind of disputes department, than racing, as old timers may remember, whereas when Good Year was a sole supplier, biggest suspense for me was waiting whether stretching useful life cycle of a tire will succeed, or turn into one big blow up in dying race laps. (And Murray W. so brilliantly commented on.) What happened to Ferrari just recently, as an example, is hard to let pass without anger, if you are a fan of racing general. Skating ring? Cold tires..? Give me a break. Obviously there is more to tires than number of suppliers, and it all got unnecessarily (IMHO) too complicated, thanks to Whitmarsh, his side-kick Hembery and alike, getting into business of "fixing" something which was perfectly good situation, just needing minor tuning. Gimmicks to compensate for problems in other areas is of course not resolving root causes.
  8. Strategy

    Hard to argue this one, but personally I would not accuse Honda for being "Master of none."
  9. Strategy

    In your argument you are skating on thin ice, Ruslan. All sounds fine and dandy, if design meets planned targets, however all hel! breaks loose, if outcome is significantly off. Vehicle body parts and normally aspirated engines under normal competitive conditions can be improved, and situation is manageable. Problem is, we don't have "normal competetive" conditions, and from what we hear from Liberty representatives, it is going to get even worse. Current power plant research is expensive, and requires time and extensive track testing to verify lab data and assumptions with real results, Neither is however available. Teams who got it wrong can go for years to make it work. In the case of Renault, brilliant maker of engines which powered Williams's cars to victory in the past, seems today at the end of the road. Technology is too complex for them, and there is no time, there are no rules which would permit them to recover. I am not sure what is true situation with Honda, but I hope they are better off. Problem with tires is not comparable to other vehicle subsystems. If tire is underperforming in comparison to its rival, first of all, since there is only limited testing, we learn about true situation only in season. Rules do not however permit introduction of a new tire during a racing season. Tires need approval before racing starts. It takes several months to make a new and "corrected or improved" tire anyway, yet where do you verify how it performs if you cannot test it? How many more lost races you sacrifice? You need a suitable car with a driver, road, time and money... Engineering is more complex than fans sometimes understand, but don't blame fans. As someone said the other day (I am not sure if it was Wolff or Dr. Marko), hardly any of F1 so called glorified "journalists" know what they are talking about. I can only add, blabbing senselessly affects fan-voices and mood on sidelines, yet character of some articles give me impression that stated assertion is not too far from the truth.
  10. 2021 Rule Changes

    GP247 That's what I thought. Liberty might be building new F1, but will anyone like it? Stay tune as a cliche goes. http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/701000/Jacques_Villeneuve_lashes_out_at_budget_cap_Its_pure_socialism/ Sounds like Jacques is on the same page with me (echoing the same for years).
  11. Strategy

    Lessons Learnt from the past clarified for us, that it doesn't takes too much, and half of the field gets impotent in terms of chances to win races, and that's only, because either a tire supplier got it wrong for some track characteristics, or one tire supplier gifted full season advantage their clients, whereas rest of the filed is just there for head count on the grid stalls before lights go off. Thanks, but no thanks. One shambolic era was enough for me. Best fights of Prost v. Hill v. Schumacher v. Häkkinen were on the same rubber.
  12. Strategy

    On subject of tires, I like only one supplier, thus rubber is the same for them all. I just wish they would make them less prominent in outcome of the race. I want to discuss driver's skills, as opposed to quality or properties (hot cold, etc.) of tires. In last race, as an example, I am not privy to information what happened to Ferrari's power plant, however what was obvious, their tires were dead cold. That's what I terming as too much of influence on race result.
  13. Strategy

    Honda -- as I think about it -- underestimated the task in hand, and committed some initial design mistakes. Problem was then, more so than now, that restrictive environment prevented them to launch full scope of required countermeasures. In addition, they had some internal issues, such as mis-calibrated dyno, which was discovered very late in game, because rules deprive them of track time, and they therefore used races to compensate for it (as many other teams). It was all what they could do, and optics were really bad. Regulations have definitely changed. (Token system and some other changes.) BTW, with regulations in offing, it is going top get much worse in new agreement. More races, less testing, and paying fans will watch testing on track, instead a race, and that is at full cost of the ticket.
  14. Strategy

    ...of course, among many other useful appliances, as most of us know, so why state the obvious? It is very versatile company.
  15. Strategy

    Tell me you are kidding. In you account you may have forgotten spiritual (or parasitic?) attachment by Ashton Martin to the team. Honda pumped in and left so much on the table when they left (Brawn, Alonso), to talk about "sold out" is strange divorce from reality and pattern of facts. Honda is not an inept company making GP2 engines. Inept are regulations holding them back from day one, that's my opinion. Honda made a mistake returning back under current set of circumstances when system seems to be rigged (may I used that word?) in favor of one team. It should not escape your attention, that no other reputable automobile company has desire to commit suicide, and you may wonder why it is so? Sounds like proposed budget cap at the moment doesn't covers cost of engines.