You can buy the new issue of Racecar Engineering from Zinio here. Hopefully we’ll only have to wait until next year to see F1 get back to 26-car grids. It’s a pity to see an F1 car, built at considerable expense, sat idle when it could be competing. Recently former Toyota boss Tadashi Yamashina explained how the onset of the credit crunch hastened the team’s departure from Formula 1. Attempts by Zoran Stefanovich to use the cars to obtain an entry failed. While BMW also, though with some difficulty, passed ownership of their team back to Peter Sauber, Toyota cut and run and there was no going back. It seems much the same happened at Toyota. The manner in which Toyota exited the sport within days of the 2009 season ending is a reminder of how close the former Honda team came to disappearing 12 months earlier.Īs Ross Brawn explained afterwards, the company’s management hadn’t given any thought to passing the team on to another owner and had to be persuaded to accept Brawn’s management buy-out. It’s doubtful that, even if another team acquired the intellectual property rights to use the car in 2011, it could be suitably modified to be competitive following further changes to F1’s technical regulations. Who knows how competitive the TF110 would have been. Two examples of the TF110 were built despite the team’s decision at the end of last year not to contest the 2010 championship.Īccording to the magazine the design features “one of the most extreme diffusers seen yet” and a ride height adjustment system. Toyota’s 11th hour exit from Formula 1 at the end of 2009 means this car will never compete in F1. and looks outwardly similar to the BMW Sauber C29 with a high, long nose. The TF110 has been revealed and inspected by Racecar Engineering. How long has reduction of aero to allow closer racing been talked about? Too long.The car Toyota would have raced in F1 this year has been driven by Kazuki Nakajima in Cologne. Currently, any large rule change that is purported to be aimed at improving the show is hit and hope at the best. Give them the proper tools, including, I would argue, proper testbeds to provide real evidence of improvements to overtaking etc.ĭesigners will continue to innovate and reclaim performance, but at least those shaping the rules would have a chance to keep abreast of such innovation. Radical change can only be achieved by technicians working apart from the teams. Designers use the opportunity to innovate and quickly reclaim lost performance.īut if there is any real consensus about the need to shape the rules in a way that allows better racing, then to rely purely on technical working groups involving vested interests (the same designers) is akin to turkeys being allowed to vote for Christmas. If rule changes were only ever imposed to limit performance, then certainly. “And is that not – at least in part – the point?”
0 kommentar(er)
