Stock Car Fans Forum for Results, Banter and PIZZABET
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 

 Mr Gilbanks take on the F1 AGM......

View previous topic View next topic Go down 

Number of posts : 2114
Registration date : 2007-12-07

PostSubject: Mr Gilbanks take on the F1 AGM......   Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:05 am

Taken fron Stoxnet.....

My thoughts on just some of the items up for discussion on car spec.
I will probably add more before the AGM.

I think the rally tyre rule in the rule book is fine.
To consider a controlled rally tyre for the near side rear would mean a considerable on cost,
for all the drivers.
Personally we have never bought a new rally tyre for any corner, we always used 1 or 2 stage worn tyres, at a fraction of the cost that a controlled rally tyre would be.
To go to a controlled rally tyre would again increase costs.
What we donít want to do is let one or two drivers, who I am told are buying new tyres and
buffing them down for tarmac, increase the cost of racing for everyone else, the BSCDA/BMB should address that small problem with the offending drivers.
In a lot of cases the NSR tyre that is used is totally free, after been used on shale.

I think the rule book is right on callipers and we should stick with what weĎve got and not allow aluminium.
Some drivers have quoted that transit callipers are getting more difficult to source; we have never had that problem, and normally can get a transit calliper delivered within a couple of hours.

I donít think we should have a controlled brake pad. †I have recently spoken with several drivers and agree with what they said; at the end of the day you have got to be able to stop the car on tarmac, and to have a controlled brake pad, whether expensive or low cost †I think would be wrong, I think the choice should be left with the drivers.
To have a controlled pad, if it is not good quality could work out more expensive.
It might not be as cost effective and also force drivers who would normally run a low cost pad to buy them, which would push their costs up

It seems to me that the fuel tank saga has gone on for years without anyone from the BSCDA/BMB really grasping the nettle.
Last year the drivers voted to ban aluminium tanks which I thought was the right thing to do, only to be overruled by the BMB which I think was wrong.
I donít think aluminium or stainless steel is the right material, neither do I think the answer is a fuel cell, one standard fuel cell will not fit every car. †Plus itís another major expense for the drivers.
Speaking from experience I have no problem at all with a mild steel fuel tank as per rule book thickness, providing it is made in what I believe to be the correct way. †A fuel tank needs to be folded on the corners where it butts up to a cross member and folded on the point nearest to the roll cage where the damage is more likely to occur. †We make our tanks in 2 halfís with 3 folded corners and set in 3mm to give you a good weld around the outside and then double weld the welded corners on the inside and then set the top in 3mm to weld all the way around.

Weíve got 3 cars with mild steel tanks;
1 has been in the car since 1994Ö20 years
1 has been in the car since 1999Ö15 years
1 has been in since 2003Ö 11 years, all without any damage or repairs.

I donít think thereís anything wrong with mild steel tanks made correctly, whether or not the committee / BMB thinks that repairing a tank is acceptable or not, a mild steel tank is easier to work with.

My opinion on dampertech shockers has not changed, putting aside that we never voted to change the specification of shock absorbers to mono tube.
I think that dampertech shockers have never been suitable for F1 stock cars, itís just not strong enough to stand up to our contact sport
All I have heard this season from drivers who wanted to talk about shock absorbers is how much more expensive it is now they have been forced into using dampertech.
Everybody who spoke to me has been quick to tell me how many shockers they have had to buy this year, they quoted the cost of them 3 or 4 times more than last year.
Also that dampertech have failed to repair the shockers in the time scale agreed and I am told when you ring them about it you get empty promises, and when they do finally get around to repairing your shockers, most of them are uneconomical repairs.
I have been told when I driver asked for them back dampertech told the driver he had scrapped them.
I believe dampertech have failed in their contractual agreement to supply a shock absorber that is fit for purpose, †I think they have failed in selling second hand shockers, and failed in the repair service.
I have also been told that drivers who have only glanced the fence have found 2 shockers on the car falling apart at the end of the race.
I think it would be wrong to continue the plan to make all whites and yellows change to dampertech at the end of the season, taking into consideration all the facts we now know about dampertech. †I also think BSCDA/BMB should have a review on all the problems and the increased cost since changing to dampertech.
How to faze them out if it was to be decided by the BSCDA/BMB would have to be a decision by the BMB.
I think to continue using this shock absorber though out all the grades could get drivers not racing due to the increased costs.
When a contract is made all parties have to keep to the agreed terms and conditions and I think Dampertech have failed.

My opinion on crumple zones is that we have always had 6 zones, one on each corner and both nerf rails.
When a car hits the safety fence, it more often than not comes off the track with the bumper ends knocked back or the nerf rail damaged.
I think the new crumple zone rule and the design of it is a waste of time, but if thatís what the BMB wants for whatever reason, so be it.
I think the article that Kevin W put on stoxnet in August is far nearer to the problem, we are now crashing into more concrete walls and solid plates than we have done in the past, which I think is causing driver injury.

Well, Brian isn't one to mince his words is he?
And I must agree with most of what he says on this occasion. The cars have got stronger/the fences have got stronger but the driver is still the same. You only have to look back to what Mr Howarth (Ex Ben fund president) said last year.....
"Thu May 02, 2013 8:51 am Thankfully, claims have been very low over the last couple of years. That's not to say there havn't been any injuries, some drivers have a workforce so wont miss out, it's mainly the self employed sole traders and the employed that suffer through injuries sustained whilst racing.Bear in mind, while the cars are appearing with more armour, driver aids are improving year by year what with hans/defender restraints, head guards on both sides of the seat and better and better seats. Some seats are pushing the £1000 mark now.If i'm being honest, the majority of claims that do come in are topped by Coventry. No disrespect to the team down there, it just is, followed a way behind by Kings lynn. The majority of tarmac tracks follow them and the bottom of the pile are Belle vue (the speed around there is not the same) and Sheffield (which admittedly doesn't have many meetings these days).Craig"

As for crumple zones I'm does sound like it will increase the weekly workload in the garage (maybe a type of buffer system would be better?....a bit like those rope things they tie to barges scratch †)
Then when you start implementing more designated control things like rally tyres/brake calipers and brake pads this is starting to take even more stock parts out of the stockcar. And lets face it this is only needed to keep the top dozen drivers in check. This will result in the budget racer and the whole of the sport being hurt I fear as the control parts will certainly be more expensive than what your typical budget racer is making do with.
As for the shocks I know Brian comes across as biased but what he says rings true. I know one red top that trashed over 20 of the new shocks before the end of the second grading period this season! And the supply of cheaper second hand/reworked units has not come to fruition.
Lastly the fuel tank/cell debate. I am with Brian on this as well....a well designed tank/welded by a coded welder and mounted correctly is perfectly safe and cost effective.
Back to top Go down


Number of posts : 1985
Age : 42
Localisation : brink of a meltdown...
Registration date : 2008-04-10

PostSubject: Re: Mr Gilbanks take on the F1 AGM......   Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:37 pm

er? no comment, think I've said enough on other forum affraid

Anything that can reduce costs and increase drivers numbers on track should be welcomed and strived for!
Back to top Go down
Mr Gilbanks take on the F1 AGM......
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Jump to: