F1 World Championship 2009 Thread



Recommended Posts

Let the idiot continue with his watered down vision of F1, if he thinks names like Lola, USF1, Superfund, and iSport are going to be any replacement for Renault, Ferrari, Toyota, and BMW then he is just stupid.

Until this idiot retires, F1 will continue going downhill

My god, those last few seconds were good! Webber takes pole, then Button nicks it a few seconds later, then Vettel from out of nowhere snatches it!

Really looking forward to tomorrow! :)

Car weight

Pos Driver Team Weight (kg)

1. Sebastian Vettel RBR Renault 649.5

2. Jenson Button Brawn Mercedes 655.5

3. Rubens Barrichello Brawn Mercedes 652.5

4. Mark Webber RBR Renault 656.0

5. Jarno Trulli Toyota 652.0

6. Kimi Raikkonen Ferrari 658.0

7. Felipe Massa Ferrari 654.0

8. Fernando Alonso Renault 644.5

9. Nico Rosberg Williams Toyota 660.0

10. Robert Kubica BMW Sauber 664.0

11. Nick Heidfeld BMW Sauber 681.5*

12. Kazuki Nakajima Williams Toyota 680.4*

13. Timo Glock Toyota 689.0*

14. Heikki Kovalainen McLaren Mercedes 665.0*

15. Adrian Sutil Force India Mercedes 668.5*

16. Lewis Hamilton McLaren Mercedes 696.5*

17. Nelson Piquet Renault 689.6*

18. Sebastien Buemi STR Ferrari 686.5*

19. Giancarlo Fisichella Force India Mercedes 688.5*

20. Sebastien Bourdais STR Ferrari 701.0*

Off the line, the anti-stall kicked in on Barrichello's car, then later he clipped his front wing on the back of ... maybe Nelson Piquet? That moved his pit stop up by 2/3 laps, and then later he was complaining that he couldn't get the car into 7th gear for overtaking and the straights.

oh what a boring race, button can cruise to his title now its a shame cause the few laps vettel could put pressure on him he lost the line in one corner already. but now nothing can stop him, vettel is too far away and barrichello has to do what he had to do as schueys team-mate already. playing 2nd fiddle.

felipe massa saves ferrari from another pointless race, at least.

So I guess under next year's 'gold medal' driver's championship system, Button is three wins away from the title...

Was just thinking that. I really hope they wont implement it. To be honest I think it would be safe to say it was already won. Not that it isn't this. Boring already. As soon as Button overtook Vettel, I thought great, another boring race.

Off the line, the anti-stall kicked in on Barrichello's car, then later he clipped his front wing on the back of ... maybe Nelson Piquet? That moved his pit stop up by 2/3 laps, and then later he was complaining that he couldn't get the car into 7th gear for overtaking and the straights.

I am wondering if the poor getaway and the gearbox are related, he had to replace one after the bad getaway at Australia because he overtorqued it, could possibly be a repeat of that problem

Medals aren't being used next year afaik

No mention of it in the latest FIA rules draft so let's hope it has been shelved for good

Also, Red Bull and Ferrari better get their acts together fast otherwise this championship could be even more dominated than 2002 and 2004, and no discredit to Brawn, but I believe the in-season testing ban is a large part of the relatively static performances of the teams

Mosley to meet with teams today

Formula 1 teams are due to meet with FIA president Max Mosley in London today to try and reach a last-minute deal over entries for next year, AUTOSPORT has learned, with the governing body having made clear the compromises it is willing to offer.

With the entry list for the 2010 championship due to be announced by the FIA tomorrow morning, efforts are increasing to reach a resolution that will head off the threat of current manufacturer teams walking away from F1.

Although there have been suggestions in the past few days that the two sides are edging near a resolution, there still appears to be differences between the two parties about the way forward for next year.

However, AUTOSPORT has learned that Mosley is willing to soften the FIA's approach to next year - which includes scrapping a two-tier category ? even though he insists a budget cap must be in place in 2010.

In a letter Mosley sent to Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo following his last meeting with teams in Monaco, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, Mosley said that there was some ground for manoeuvre in what the FIA would be willing to accept for next year.

"We can agree that all teams race under the same 2010 rules," said Mosley, referring to the original proposal for a two-tier F1 that had been a major bone of contention for a lot of teams.

"These would be as published, but with the technical and sporting advantages originally offered to cost-cap teams deleted."

Rather than having performance benefits, the FIA said it was willing to give new teams the opportunity to work on technology transfer deals with established outfits ? as has been hinted about by Frank Williams in recent days.

Mosley added: "Instead of these advantages, we will facilitate know-how transfer between certain current teams and new entrants at least for 2010 and possibly for 2011."

One thing Mosley is not willing to back down on though is the introduction of a budget cap ? even if the figure is made very high for next year.

He said he was willing to propose: "A cap in 2010. This could be as high as 100 million Euros, but we must have a cap and we must have certainty... For 2011, again we must have certainty with a cap at ?40 million (or if preferred 45 million Euros)."

However, Mosley said that a compromise could be introduced whereby one highly paid member of staff would be allowed to be outside the budget cap ? which would help those outfits who have star names, like Adrian Newey or Ross Brawn, on board.

Furthermore, the FIA said it was willing to sign a Concorde Agreement 'broadly' along the lines of the version sent to it prior to the Monaco Grand Prix, plus a renaming of the cost cap ? which has been a big issue for the teamSource: ource: Autosport

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!