FIA, gaza basılmadığında salınan egzoz gazından faydalanma konusunda başta %10 olarak belirlenmesi beklenen sınırın Renault için %50’ye çıkarılması tartışmalara neden oldu.
Red Bull’dan Christian Horner ile McLaren’den Martin Whitmarsh arasındaki konuşmalar ve sorulara verilen cevap şu şekilde oldu.
Soru. Difüzör etkisine dönecek olursak… bugünden neler öğrendiniz
Martin Whitmarsh: Christian’ın, beklediğimiz kadar fazla kayıp yaşamadığını seansın ortasında öğrendik. Açıkçası kural, biraz değişti ve şu anda görünen o ki bir saatte değişti. Bu yüzden hâlâ cevabı öğreniyoruz”
Soru: Bu, Stefano (Domenicali) ile yaptığınız tartışma mı?
MW: Evet. Bu, Red Bull’u eleştirme değil. Durumdan kendileri için en iyisini elde etmeye çalışıyorlar. İlk antrenmanın ortasında bize söylenen kuralde değişiklik olması hepimizi şaşırttı. Eminim ki bu durum, bu hafta sonu birçok takıma geri adım attıracak. Bu yüzden şu adan başa çıkmaya çalışıyoruz”
Soru. Ne değiştiğini bize anlatır mısınız?
MW: Beklenen, gaza basmadığınızda motorun gazının kapanacağıydı ama bir görüşme oldu ve anladığım kadarıyla Renault’un gazı, frenlemede %50 açık olacak. Bunun da birçoğumuzun muhtemelen beklemediği bir şeydi. Bugün seanslar sırasında bir nebze bazı şeyler ortaya çıkmıştı ve ne yapmamız gerektiğini anlamaya çalışıyoruz”
Kendi lobi çalışmalarınız gibi mi?
MW: Kendi lobi çalışmalarımız gibi, sadece anlamaya çalışıyorum. Yine Red Bull için doğruyu söylemek gerekirse görüşleri anladığımız gibi. Ama Christian, bunun bir dayanıklılık sorunu olduğu ve dayanıklılık amacıyla havanın motorlarına akmasına ihtiyaçları olduğuna benden daha iyi bir cevap verecektir. Ben böyle bir örneğe aşina değilim, sanırım Charlie de (Whiting).”
Soru: Christian, bu konuda bize cevap verebilir misin?
Christian Horner: Martin’in yorumlamasının ilginç olduğunu düşünüyorum. Anladığım o ki Mercedes, aşırı yüklemede ateşleme yapıyor. Valencia’dan bu yana gerçekleşen bir dizi teknik direktif oldu ve son teknik direktif, çok açıktı: Önceki konfigürasyonda kullanılan motorlar için FIA, dengeleme temelini hesaba katacaktı. Mercedes, aşırı yükleme izinlerinin olduğunu öne sürdüler ki bunun, belli bir hâkimiyeti karakterine göre verildiğine inanıyorum. Ve Renault, bu konuda farklı bir şey yapmıyor.”
“Renault, bir motor tedarikçisi olarak bu durumun içinde, sadece Red Bull diğer iki takım için de. Örnekleri 2009 ve 2010’da kurulmuştu. O veriler, FIA’ya açıktır ve gazı açmanın ilk amacı, daha iyi bir tabirle, soğuk besleme, iki amaca hizmet ediyor. Birincisi, vites düşürmede ikincisi ise dayanıklılık meselesinde. Buraya gelirken bir beklenti vardı ve Red Bull üzerine odaklanılmıştı diye düşünüyorum. Red Bull acaba aracında sihirli bir değnek bir taşıyor? Taşımıyoruz ama aynı zamanda FIA’dan, bu durumda yaptıkları gibi tam olarak uygun bir tutum sergilemesini ve kuralları adil bir şekilde düzenlemesini bekliyoruz. Bütün gerçekleri bilen sadece onlar. Verileri bilen tek onlar. Bunlara baktılar. Mercedes’in durumunu dinlediler ve Mercedes’e belli parametrelerde izin verdiler. Renault’un durumuna baktılar ve Renault’a, geçmişi temel alarak belli parametrelerde izin verdiler. Bu karmaşık konuyla, egzozun sezon sonunda tamamen farklı bir yere alınmasıyla daha iyi başa çıkılacağını düşünüyorum. FIA’nın doğru bir tepki ortaya koyduğuna ve motorların aynı olmaması ile denkleme tutumumu benimsediğini düşünüyorum. Farklı şekilde kullanılıyorlar. Farklı kontrol kodları var. Bu bilgilerde gizliliğe sahip tek kişi onlar”
Soru. (Andy Benson – BBC Sport) Martin ve Christian, orijinalde, gaza basılmadığında egzozu besleme herkes için %10’du. Şimdi Renault, %50 kullanım konusunda izin aldı. Sanırım Mercedes buna izinli dğeil. Ama aşırı beslemede biraz yakıt besleme izinleri var. Yani, nasıl bir eşit şartlarda yarışma izlediğimize emin olabiliriz ve bu hafta sonu meselenin sonu diyebilir miyiz?
CH: Açıkça söylediğiniz gibi her şeyden önce, tamamen kapatılması konusunda teknik bir direktif vardı. Bu, üreticiler tarafından açıkça dile getirilmedi. Bu daha çok üretici meselesiydi. Daha sonra belli takımlar, ertain teams were then allowed to have fired overrun, to fuel their overrun, of which there are also, obviously, secondary benefits through the exhaust plumes and thrusts that that creates but that was permitted. Obviously Renault presented their position to the FIA, and let’s not forget that this is an extraordinarily complex matter, to demonstrate that precedent is there that, for purposes of throttle blip and reliability, that cold air blowing open throttle was a necessary part of the operation of their engine, otherwise it would cause serious issues. It would be unfair to allow fire overrun and not allow the same parameters for another engine manufacturer. I think it’s a very, very difficult job for the FIA to pick their way through this and I think all credit to them, they’ve looked to try and be as fair, balanced and equitable as they decreed that they would be through the technical directive, to come up with the solutions that they have. We’re not totally happy with the solution that we have, that’s for sure. I’m sure Martin isn’t with his and I’m sure there are a lot of conspiracies in the paddock that these are the reasons why Red Bull is performing or McLaren is performing, or some cars aren’t performing. That’s just circumstantial at the end of the day. The fundamentals are that the engine manufacturers have been treated in a fair and equitable manner.
MW: I’m sure people set out to do that. I think there have been about six technical directives on the subject so far and it’s moved around and when the goalposts are moving partway through a practice session, then I think it makes it quite difficult. I think that with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better to make changes at year end, which I think Christian would agree. I think that to do this and to do it in a fairly cloudy and ambiguous and changing way inevitably, in a competitive environment, every team feels that it’s been hard done by. At the moment, I think potentially a lot of teams will end up making the argument to cold blow. Renault have been in that domain for some time, other teams haven’t and don’t have that experience but we’re talking about a very substantial performance benefit here…
CH: Why is it any more of a performance benefit than fired overrun? At the end of the day, Renault is allowed to fired overrun for reliability purposes. If you can operate your engine in the same way as the Renault, then you are welcome to do it. The secondary effect… I think it is wrong to suggest that there is a benefit beyond that.
MW: No, but clearly if you’ve got, under braking, your throttles are open 50 per cent then it’s a reasonable benefit. There’s a lot of gas going through and I imagine that all engines will end up doing that, which I think isn’t what was envisaged when it was said we’re going to stop engine blowing.
CH: Where is the difference between firing on overrun and creating… so Mercedes engines aren’t firing on overrun?
MW: They’ve been constrained. As you know…
CH: As have Renault.
MW: …so I think, providing the constraints are the same for everyone, but I think that it is clearly, the fact that we are having this discussion, it’s messy and I think the intention people believed was that we were going to stop exhaust blowing when the driver didn’t have his foot on the throttle. I think that was the simple concept but that concept has been deflected and therefore it hasn’t been clear and the fact that these things were only coming out during the course of today is fairly extraordinary. But nonetheless, I’m sure we will remain calm and pick our way through, but I think it’s probably better to make changes to the regulations between seasons, not in-season and also make changes to regulations that are clear and unambiguous. I think, at the moment, a lot of people are clearly getting emotional about the situation and I can understand why: it’s frustrating for the engineers not to know what it is that we’re allowed to do, because these changes… by cold blowing you’re getting 30, 40 points of extra rear downforce in braking and that’s quite an attractive thing, so if you can do it, then you’re going to try to do it, aren’t you?
CH: But you also get that from… Let’s not make any mistake here, that firing on overrun, the thrust that that generates through the exhaust creates a bigger effect, so let’s just be absolutely clear on that.
MW: And that’s why it’s been largely contained, and a lot of those strategies, as you know, are not permissible now. At least, it wasn’t when I came in here. Maybe it’s emerged as I’ve been sat here that maybe we can do it. Maybe you know more about it than I do, Christian.
CH: I don’t know. I read the technical directive that said four-cylinder fired overrun was permissible for certain competitors and that, I think, includes your engine. As far as we understood, before Renault were allowed their parameters, obviously there was a significant advantage going to any Mercedes-powered team. As you can see, it’s a massively complex subject. I think the one thing that Martin and I will agree on is that it should have been addressed at the end of the year, but unfortunately, here we are.
TF: I’ve been focusing on these two in front of me. Could I just say something on that, as someone who is very new to the sport, in that I think it’s a little bit of a shambles that we’re having these kind of discussions, I think you don’t have that in many other sports. The rules should be very clear, everyone should understand them and they should be pretty black and white. It costs the sport a lot of money. I think that one of the dangers of the sport is changing the interpretations, it’s really got to be black and white and I think it can be. If you look at GP2, it’s very clear. I run a GP2 team, we don’t have these kind of situations. Of course Formula One is technologically advanced and you need all that sort of thing but I think the regulators of the sport need to make things clear so we don’t have this 10 per cent blowing, 50 per cent blowing, hot, cold, in between etc, and teams and engineers have clarity. Even over the last few months we’ve heard of all the controversy in football but the rules in football are clear, it’s black and white, it’s easy for the spectators to understand and I think that’s a really big challenge for the sport because a man in the stand – I don’t understand anything that these two have just said, God knows about all the spectators over there, so that’s just something I wanted to add, as someone relatively new to the sport. I think it needs to be simpler, and I don’t think it makes a huge amount of difference to the people who are watching it
Q. (Byron Young – The Daily Mirror) Putting aside the technological gobbledy-gook that most of us didn’t understand just now, am I right in thinking that what you’re saying basically Martin, is that you believe that Renault-powered cars have a technical advantage – Red Bull have a technical advantage – and Christian is saying No, they don’t?
MW: I don’t know whether they’ve got a technical advantage or not. All I’m saying is that we’ve evolved into quite a complex set of guidelines as to what’s permissible. We’ve done everything against what Tony’s suggested i.e. what was not exactly black and white but what was reasonably clear and what was being exploited has become a whole heck of a lot greyer and subject to negotiation which probably wasn’t appropriate and I think that again, everyone here agrees, having clear rules that aren’t unambiguous and are changed after good consent and between seasons is the right thing to do.
CH: I agree with Martin. I think that at the end of the day, we don’t want to be disadvantaged. We think it’s unfair to have been excessively penalised through a technical directive that was released just after Valencia, that has been addressed in an equitable manner and I think that inevitably McLaren or Mercedes will think that they’re losing out to Renault and Red Bull. Red Bull feels exactly the same, that the way that they operate their engine offers an advantage. It’s something that we’re just not going to agree on but I think that that’s where the role of the regulator is, to balance this and on what is a very complex subject, they’ve done their best to do it. I think that as Charlie will probably admit, it would have been best to deal with this at the end of the year, because it is tantamount to a rule change and when you enter the championship at the beginning of the year and you design your car around it – and let’s not forget that there’s other teams that have significantly designed their cars around this set of regulations – for them to suddenly change halfway through the year is cost, it’s time, it’s effort, it’s money and it’s confusing. It’s confusing to you, it’s confusing to the fans and it’s confusing to Formula One. So that’s where we are. I think hopefully we can now draw a line under it and move on. It’s probably not the last you’re going to hear about blown exhausts or whatever else is blown these days but hopefully we can now move on
Bir yanıt yazın