planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:24 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 1059
Location: Kansas
tim3003 wrote:
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!


Yes, this is what the aerodynamicists and pundits tell us. It's hard to evaluate the claims as members of the general public.

I don't know that the aero changes as presented will solve all of F1's problems but I think it is a step in the right direction.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1394
So far we have been given small doses of fun racing. The 2019 regulations attempted to change the flow of air from around the front tires to over them. And in the last few races we have enjoyed sustained wheel-to-wheel racing by some cars and drivers. So there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Indycar has been running a lot more underbody downforce than Formula One, and the result is that there is a heck of a lot more close battling. So based on Indycar's positive results, when Formula One finally make positive changes, we the fans will enjoy close and sustained battling. For the same reasons the FIA should scrap tires that have such a narrow operating window and go off a cliff at the end of their lifespan. We can get better tires, we can get better racing.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1241
Location: UK
Good point Blinky MS, I watched some Indycar recently and it involved not just two cars battling closely but 3, was an excellent spectacle. On that basis if I were a team manager I would want my next generation driver to be highly competent at wheel to wheel racing. probably rules out 3 of the current top 6 drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
Option or Prime wrote:
Good point Blinky MS, I watched some Indycar recently and it involved not just two cars battling closely but 3, was an excellent spectacle. On that basis if I were a team manager I would want my next generation driver to be highly competent at wheel to wheel racing. probably rules out 3 of the current top 6 drivers.

If you don't mind saying, which ones? Vettel is the only top driver who I'd say is weak in wheel-to-wheel racing.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2310
Bottas has very solid race-craft it's just that he's often too slow relative to other top drivers that the craft then means next to nothing. By top 6 I'm assuming what is meant is the 6 drivers at Merc, RBR and Ferrari. Or it probably makes more sense for me to separate overall race-craft to just wheel-to-wheel racing, in which case Bottas is certainly solid but often too relatively slow to exercise it.

Of that group, Vettel is perhaps average, but Gasly is poor. Also, I can only say Vettel is average based on the frequency of mistakes in recent seasons. Ultimately he has way more cojones than Bottas and makes more tough moves stick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1394
Current Formula One drivers do not experience complete races where they are always involved in a close battle. It is not incompetence, it is just that they are rusty. Give any Formula One driver a few close races and they will all rise to the occasion and put on a heck of a show. We just need to give them a chance.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Posts: 1241
Location: UK
They were the three I was thinking of SV, VB and PG. It just changes the whole chemistry of F1, gone are the lonely drives in clean air from the leader with only the start, undercut and overcut as overtaking opportunities.
Now when you look at Ocon, Russell, Norris and Albon, you are looking for different skills and qualities, not just speed but feistiness. You get more of Albon and Kvyatt side by side till one corner's length decides it.
Heck even Kimi might find a resurgence of opportunity. I really hope it pans out as described above!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3225
Location: UK
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Current Formula One drivers do not experience complete races where they are always involved in a close battle. It is not incompetence, it is just that they are rusty. Give any Formula One driver a few close races and they will all rise to the occasion and put on a heck of a show. We just need to give them a chance.

I think it's more that the F1 drivers take more risks when trying an overtake because they know that it may be their only chance for the entirety of the race. Defending drivers will act similarly knowing that they'll have little opportunity to re-pass once overtaken.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1394
j man wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Current Formula One drivers do not experience complete races where they are always involved in a close battle. It is not incompetence, it is just that they are rusty. Give any Formula One driver a few close races and they will all rise to the occasion and put on a heck of a show. We just need to give them a chance.

I think it's more that the F1 drivers take more risks when trying an overtake because they know that it may be their only chance for the entirety of the race. Defending drivers will act similarly knowing that they'll have little opportunity to re-pass once overtaken.


Which sucks because we the fans do not see acts of heroism, great skill or decision making, just futile acts of desperation because everyone understands that after lap 2, things will settle down into a boring procession.

Once upon a time Grand Prix racing was rife with stories of powerful characters, great accomplishments and heroic driving.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Once upon a time Grand Prix racing was rife with stories of powerful characters, great accomplishments and heroic driving.

Once upon a time Grand Prix racing was rife with huge gaps that only closed because cars were so unreliable. Then, nostalgia took over.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
Exediron wrote:
Once upon a time Grand Prix racing was rife with huge gaps that only closed because cars were so unreliable. Then, nostalgia took over.


Huge gaps? How much time separated the top 2 from the Ferraris at Hungary, and them from Sainz/Gasly? We may have reliability now but the gap between the top teams and the rest is worryingly wide. However close the racing becomes the gaps need to close too if we're to have competitive championships.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Option or Prime wrote:
Good point Blinky MS, I watched some Indycar recently and it involved not just two cars battling closely but 3, was an excellent spectacle. On that basis if I were a team manager I would want my next generation driver to be highly competent at wheel to wheel racing. probably rules out 3 of the current top 6 drivers.

It's still not like for like though because Indycars don't generate that much downforce when compared to a F1 car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Exediron wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Once upon a time Grand Prix racing was rife with stories of powerful characters, great accomplishments and heroic driving.

Once upon a time Grand Prix racing was rife with huge gaps that only closed because cars were so unreliable. Then, nostalgia took over.

Yep there's nothing like rose tinted spectacles. :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
tim3003 wrote:
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!
It's a matter of opinion whether it is needed now. 10 years ago F1 did away with all the little aerodynamic surfaces all over the car, leaving only a front and rear wing. The object of the exercise was to seriously reduce the turbulent air arriving at a following car. When was that attempt ditched for the DRS and why? And what if the mandatory aerodynamic configuration introduced in 2021 also doesn't produce the desired result straightaway? Back to the cursed DRS?

As long as the only design consideration is to produce the fastest winged car in clear air, those fans wanting only spectacle will be served by such horrible contraptions as the DRS. And the design considerations come from the teams, not the FIA.

However good Hamilton's drive in Hungary last Sunday, there was nothing even a top driver could do defending against DRS, on worn tyres. Let's hope the aim is reached this time, I've had it with DRS overtakes.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1394
pokerman wrote:
It's still not like for like though because Indycars don't generate that much downforce when compared to a F1 car.


That is an area dictated by cost controls (which Formula One is famous for ignoring). Indycar is a spec series, and there is little any team can do to modify the car. Meanwhile in Formula One a team could easily spend two million a week just designing new front wings that become obsolete the moment they are put on a car.

Formula One teams spend vast sums on wind tunnels and aero research. When the regulations allow, any team will do whatever it takes to massage every molecule that passes over the car. In clear air a Formula One car is a magnificent testimony to aerodynamics. Place it behind another Formula One car and it becomes a Shakespearean tragedy. This is why cars can not follow closely, and
this is why the quality of the on-track product is definitely inferior. And sadly, we saw things revert to the old ways in Hungary. In previous races we enjoyed some snippets of close and intense battling between cars. Then in Hungary, it became follow the leader with any passes the result of diverse pit strategies, not actual racing and battling.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
tim3003 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Once upon a time Grand Prix racing was rife with huge gaps that only closed because cars were so unreliable. Then, nostalgia took over.


Huge gaps? How much time separated the top 2 from the Ferraris at Hungary, and them from Sainz/Gasly? We may have reliability now but the gap between the top teams and the rest is worryingly wide. However close the racing becomes the gaps need to close too if we're to have competitive championships.


Yes, huge gaps. Remember the 107% rule in quali?

I had a look just for fun, Canada 1981 the last driver had over 8 sec difference with the pole in quali. This year Kubica was about 4, with all the caveats about him and Williams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!
It's a matter of opinion whether it is needed now. 10 years ago F1 did away with all the little aerodynamic surfaces all over the car, leaving only a front and rear wing. The object of the exercise was to seriously reduce the turbulent air arriving at a following car. When was that attempt ditched for the DRS and why? And what if the mandatory aerodynamic configuration introduced in 2021 also doesn't produce the desired result straightaway? Back to the cursed DRS?

As long as the only design consideration is to produce the fastest winged car in clear air, those fans wanting only spectacle will be served by such horrible contraptions as the DRS. And the design considerations come from the teams, not the FIA.

However good Hamilton's drive in Hungary last Sunday, there was nothing even a top driver could do defending against DRS, on worn tyres. Let's hope the aim is reached this time, I've had it with DRS overtakes.

Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!
It's a matter of opinion whether it is needed now. 10 years ago F1 did away with all the little aerodynamic surfaces all over the car, leaving only a front and rear wing. The object of the exercise was to seriously reduce the turbulent air arriving at a following car. When was that attempt ditched for the DRS and why? And what if the mandatory aerodynamic configuration introduced in 2021 also doesn't produce the desired result straightaway? Back to the cursed DRS?

As long as the only design consideration is to produce the fastest winged car in clear air, those fans wanting only spectacle will be served by such horrible contraptions as the DRS. And the design considerations come from the teams, not the FIA.

However good Hamilton's drive in Hungary last Sunday, there was nothing even a top driver could do defending against DRS, on worn tyres. Let's hope the aim is reached this time, I've had it with DRS overtakes.

Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?


He was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than the pace Verstappen was willing to go whilst being caught. I think a driver performing perfectly should, ideally, almost always have a chance of keeping a faster car behind.An overtake isn't particularly exciting in itself and the race on Sunday was a perfect example of how overtaking not being a given actually made the race far more exciting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's still not like for like though because Indycars don't generate that much downforce when compared to a F1 car.


That is an area dictated by cost controls (which Formula One is famous for ignoring). Indycar is a spec series, and there is little any team can do to modify the car. Meanwhile in Formula One a team could easily spend two million a week just designing new front wings that become obsolete the moment they are put on a car.

Formula One teams spend vast sums on wind tunnels and aero research. When the regulations allow, any team will do whatever it takes to massage every molecule that passes over the car. In clear air a Formula One car is a magnificent testimony to aerodynamics. Place it behind another Formula One car and it becomes a Shakespearean tragedy. This is why cars can not follow closely, and
this is why the quality of the on-track product is definitely inferior. And sadly, we saw things revert to the old ways in Hungary. In previous races we enjoyed some snippets of close and intense battling between cars. Then in Hungary, it became follow the leader with any passes the result of diverse pit strategies, not actual racing and battling.

Well that's part of the problem if F1 becomes a spec series then it's no longer F1, you can't compare F1 with a spec series and how popular are the two series anyway?

Indycar is so great but in respect to F1 no one watches it, F1 can be improved but let's not be comparing it with something that is nowhere near as popular.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!
It's a matter of opinion whether it is needed now. 10 years ago F1 did away with all the little aerodynamic surfaces all over the car, leaving only a front and rear wing. The object of the exercise was to seriously reduce the turbulent air arriving at a following car. When was that attempt ditched for the DRS and why? And what if the mandatory aerodynamic configuration introduced in 2021 also doesn't produce the desired result straightaway? Back to the cursed DRS?

As long as the only design consideration is to produce the fastest winged car in clear air, those fans wanting only spectacle will be served by such horrible contraptions as the DRS. And the design considerations come from the teams, not the FIA.

However good Hamilton's drive in Hungary last Sunday, there was nothing even a top driver could do defending against DRS, on worn tyres. Let's hope the aim is reached this time, I've had it with DRS overtakes.

Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?


He was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than the pace Verstappen was willing to go whilst being caught. I think a driver performing perfectly should, ideally, almost always have a chance of keeping a faster car behind.An overtake isn't particularly exciting in itself and the race on Sunday was a perfect example of how overtaking not being a given actually made the race far more exciting.

Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!
It's a matter of opinion whether it is needed now. 10 years ago F1 did away with all the little aerodynamic surfaces all over the car, leaving only a front and rear wing. The object of the exercise was to seriously reduce the turbulent air arriving at a following car. When was that attempt ditched for the DRS and why? And what if the mandatory aerodynamic configuration introduced in 2021 also doesn't produce the desired result straightaway? Back to the cursed DRS?

As long as the only design consideration is to produce the fastest winged car in clear air, those fans wanting only spectacle will be served by such horrible contraptions as the DRS. And the design considerations come from the teams, not the FIA.

However good Hamilton's drive in Hungary last Sunday, there was nothing even a top driver could do defending against DRS, on worn tyres. Let's hope the aim is reached this time, I've had it with DRS overtakes.

Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?


He was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than the pace Verstappen was willing to go whilst being caught. I think a driver performing perfectly should, ideally, almost always have a chance of keeping a faster car behind.An overtake isn't particularly exciting in itself and the race on Sunday was a perfect example of how overtaking not being a given actually made the race far more exciting.

Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.


Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
It's a matter of opinion whether it is needed now. 10 years ago F1 did away with all the little aerodynamic surfaces all over the car, leaving only a front and rear wing. The object of the exercise was to seriously reduce the turbulent air arriving at a following car. When was that attempt ditched for the DRS and why? And what if the mandatory aerodynamic configuration introduced in 2021 also doesn't produce the desired result straightaway? Back to the cursed DRS?

As long as the only design consideration is to produce the fastest winged car in clear air, those fans wanting only spectacle will be served by such horrible contraptions as the DRS. And the design considerations come from the teams, not the FIA.

However good Hamilton's drive in Hungary last Sunday, there was nothing even a top driver could do defending against DRS, on worn tyres. Let's hope the aim is reached this time, I've had it with DRS overtakes.

Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?


He was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than the pace Verstappen was willing to go whilst being caught. I think a driver performing perfectly should, ideally, almost always have a chance of keeping a faster car behind.An overtake isn't particularly exciting in itself and the race on Sunday was a perfect example of how overtaking not being a given actually made the race far more exciting.

Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.


Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?

Hamilton couldn't pass at that point because he didn't have a 2.5 second speed advantage, I'm arguing about the point being made that passing shouldn't be easy even when you have a 2.5 second speed advantage, god forbid then how you pass somebody with a 1 second speed advantage, every race would be more like Monaco.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?


He was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than the pace Verstappen was willing to go whilst being caught. I think a driver performing perfectly should, ideally, almost always have a chance of keeping a faster car behind.An overtake isn't particularly exciting in itself and the race on Sunday was a perfect example of how overtaking not being a given actually made the race far more exciting.

Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.


Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Was the championship Alonso didn't win because he couldn't pass Petrov's 3rd rate Renault at Singapore made better or worse by that ?

Surely most people do not want fast cars artificially stuck behind slower ones. Anyway we shouldn't just judge by Hungary because it's always been hard to overtake there.

I think it's great to see the FIA finally directing its efforts in the right way. This targetted % reduction is the key because it's testable before the cars race. In the past they've just fiddled with the aero rules and hoped it will help a bit.
If the changes work maybe in future even Monaco could actually be a race!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!
It's a matter of opinion whether it is needed now. 10 years ago F1 did away with all the little aerodynamic surfaces all over the car, leaving only a front and rear wing. The object of the exercise was to seriously reduce the turbulent air arriving at a following car. When was that attempt ditched for the DRS and why? And what if the mandatory aerodynamic configuration introduced in 2021 also doesn't produce the desired result straightaway? Back to the cursed DRS?

As long as the only design consideration is to produce the fastest winged car in clear air, those fans wanting only spectacle will be served by such horrible contraptions as the DRS. And the design considerations come from the teams, not the FIA.

However good Hamilton's drive in Hungary last Sunday, there was nothing even a top driver could do defending against DRS, on worn tyres. Let's hope the aim is reached this time, I've had it with DRS overtakes.

Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?
It's good to point out the speed difference, just don't forget that we have become used to thinking a DRS overtake is 'normal'. It isn't, 'normally' movable aerodynamics remain forbidden.
Although I see what you mean, a 2.5 seconds speed advantage should be quite enough to overtake without the cursed DRS. But the overtake happened while using it. And that's why I still prefer a driver on worn tyres to be able to defend against an attacker on much newer ones. See Hungary 1990.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
tim3003 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?


He was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than the pace Verstappen was willing to go whilst being caught. I think a driver performing perfectly should, ideally, almost always have a chance of keeping a faster car behind.An overtake isn't particularly exciting in itself and the race on Sunday was a perfect example of how overtaking not being a given actually made the race far more exciting.

Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.


Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Was the championship Alonso didn't win because he couldn't pass Petrov's 3rd rate Renault at Singapore made better or worse by that ?

Surely most people do not want fast cars artificially stuck behind slower ones. Anyway we shouldn't just judge by Hungary because it's always been hard to overtake there.

I think it's great to see the FIA finally directing its efforts in the right way. This targetted % reduction is the key because it's testable before the cars race. In the past they've just fiddled with the aero rules and hoped it will help a bit.
If the changes work maybe in future even Monaco could actually be a race!


Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

He was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than the pace Verstappen was willing to go whilst being caught. I think a driver performing perfectly should, ideally, almost always have a chance of keeping a faster car behind.An overtake isn't particularly exciting in itself and the race on Sunday was a perfect example of how overtaking not being a given actually made the race far more exciting.

Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.


Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Was the championship Alonso didn't win because he couldn't pass Petrov's 3rd rate Renault at Singapore made better or worse by that ?

Surely most people do not want fast cars artificially stuck behind slower ones. Anyway we shouldn't just judge by Hungary because it's always been hard to overtake there.

I think it's great to see the FIA finally directing its efforts in the right way. This targetted % reduction is the key because it's testable before the cars race. In the past they've just fiddled with the aero rules and hoped it will help a bit.
If the changes work maybe in future even Monaco could actually be a race!


Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.

Agreed, if Alonso sported himself the fastest driver of the year, he should have proved it on the track. Pass the slower car in front of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
mikeyg123 wrote:
Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.


Well yes. The issue is that they cant overtake because they cant get close.. I never said anything about making overtaking easier beyond solving that problem. So, hopefully no more DRS or push-to-pass...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
The template for the new 2021 F1 car now includes full under-sidepod ground effect, bringing back memories of the early 1980's cars. Estimates are that this and further front- and rear-end aero tidying up will reduce the amount of downforce lost by a car closely following another from 45% to 10% or less. Is this realistic? If it is achieved we will surely be on the verge of a total rennaissance in F1. DRS will no longer be needed. It's a mouth-watering prospect!
It's a matter of opinion whether it is needed now. 10 years ago F1 did away with all the little aerodynamic surfaces all over the car, leaving only a front and rear wing. The object of the exercise was to seriously reduce the turbulent air arriving at a following car. When was that attempt ditched for the DRS and why? And what if the mandatory aerodynamic configuration introduced in 2021 also doesn't produce the desired result straightaway? Back to the cursed DRS?

As long as the only design consideration is to produce the fastest winged car in clear air, those fans wanting only spectacle will be served by such horrible contraptions as the DRS. And the design considerations come from the teams, not the FIA.

However good Hamilton's drive in Hungary last Sunday, there was nothing even a top driver could do defending against DRS, on worn tyres. Let's hope the aim is reached this time, I've had it with DRS overtakes.

Given that Hamilton was 2.5 seconds quicker than Verstappen that warrants him being able to overtake Verstappen, should a top driver be able to defend against such a speed deficit?
It's good to point out the speed difference, just don't forget that we have become used to thinking a DRS overtake is 'normal'. It isn't, 'normally' movable aerodynamics remain forbidden.
Although I see what you mean, a 2.5 seconds speed advantage should be quite enough to overtake without the cursed DRS. But the overtake happened while using it. And that's why I still prefer a driver on worn tyres to be able to defend against an attacker on much newer ones. See Hungary 1990.

I can't compare with something where I don't know the complete details.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
He was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than the pace Verstappen was willing to go whilst being caught. I think a driver performing perfectly should, ideally, almost always have a chance of keeping a faster car behind.An overtake isn't particularly exciting in itself and the race on Sunday was a perfect example of how overtaking not being a given actually made the race far more exciting.

Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.


Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Was the championship Alonso didn't win because he couldn't pass Petrov's 3rd rate Renault at Singapore made better or worse by that ?

Surely most people do not want fast cars artificially stuck behind slower ones. Anyway we shouldn't just judge by Hungary because it's always been hard to overtake there.

I think it's great to see the FIA finally directing its efforts in the right way. This targetted % reduction is the key because it's testable before the cars race. In the past they've just fiddled with the aero rules and hoped it will help a bit.
If the changes work maybe in future even Monaco could actually be a race!


Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.

How are cars being unable to pass much better for F1, this is the prime reason why DRS got introduced in the first place and also a source of disconcertion at the the start of the season were we had sterile races because cars were unable to pass one another.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.


Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Was the championship Alonso didn't win because he couldn't pass Petrov's 3rd rate Renault at Singapore made better or worse by that ?

Surely most people do not want fast cars artificially stuck behind slower ones. Anyway we shouldn't just judge by Hungary because it's always been hard to overtake there.

I think it's great to see the FIA finally directing its efforts in the right way. This targetted % reduction is the key because it's testable before the cars race. In the past they've just fiddled with the aero rules and hoped it will help a bit.
If the changes work maybe in future even Monaco could actually be a race!


Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.

Agreed, if Alonso sported himself the fastest driver of the year, he should have proved it on the track. Pass the slower car in front of you.

Hamilton couldn't pass Kubica either in the sister Renault, you simply could not pass, even today with DRS drivers are complaining about the inability to follow cars closely.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Verstappen's tyres were dead he could go no faster, if a driver can't pass another driver whilst being 2.5 seconds quicker then basically you're not going to see any overtaking and any actual racing as such is dead.

That's basically what we see at Monaco none racing.


Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Was the championship Alonso didn't win because he couldn't pass Petrov's 3rd rate Renault at Singapore made better or worse by that ?

Surely most people do not want fast cars artificially stuck behind slower ones. Anyway we shouldn't just judge by Hungary because it's always been hard to overtake there.

I think it's great to see the FIA finally directing its efforts in the right way. This targetted % reduction is the key because it's testable before the cars race. In the past they've just fiddled with the aero rules and hoped it will help a bit.
If the changes work maybe in future even Monaco could actually be a race!


Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.

How are cars being unable to pass much better for F1, this is the prime reason why DRS got introduced in the first place and also a source of disconcertion at the the start of the season were we had sterile races because cars were unable to pass one another.


An overtake needs to be a possibility but not a certainty for things to be exciting. You never answered my question.

Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?

The answer is it was obviously made better. If passing is easy we have a time trial. If it is difficult we have a race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3303
There was never going to be an overtake on equal tyres, as fans we knew the possibility wasn't even there. Even though fans have had it good the last 4 races but also tracks like Germany, Silverstone and Austria are generally good tracks and that helps. Over a season though most races on same tyres and same strategies and track position is king, even one of my favourite tracks in Canada has got pretty bad for overtaking.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Was the championship Alonso didn't win because he couldn't pass Petrov's 3rd rate Renault at Singapore made better or worse by that ?

Surely most people do not want fast cars artificially stuck behind slower ones. Anyway we shouldn't just judge by Hungary because it's always been hard to overtake there.

I think it's great to see the FIA finally directing its efforts in the right way. This targetted % reduction is the key because it's testable before the cars race. In the past they've just fiddled with the aero rules and hoped it will help a bit.
If the changes work maybe in future even Monaco could actually be a race!


Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.

How are cars being unable to pass much better for F1, this is the prime reason why DRS got introduced in the first place and also a source of disconcertion at the the start of the season were we had sterile races because cars were unable to pass one another.


An overtake needs to be a possibility but not a certainty for things to be exciting. You never answered my question.

Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?

The answer is it was obviously made better. If passing is easy we have a time trial. If it is difficult we have a race.

I answered your question he couldn't pass because he didn't have a big enough performance delta, later in the race he had a 2.5 second performance delta, such a delta should be an easy pass.

When a 2.5 second performance delta is a difficult pass then a 1 second performance delta becomes an impossible pass and that is not racing, being unable to pass is not racing, it's what you have at Monaco.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1394
pokerman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's still not like for like though because Indycars don't generate that much downforce when compared to a F1 car.


That is an area dictated by cost controls (which Formula One is famous for ignoring). Indycar is a spec series, and there is little any team can do to modify the car. Meanwhile in Formula One a team could easily spend two million a week just designing new front wings that become obsolete the moment they are put on a car.

Formula One teams spend vast sums on wind tunnels and aero research. When the regulations allow, any team will do whatever it takes to massage every molecule that passes over the car. In clear air a Formula One car is a magnificent testimony to aerodynamics. Place it behind another Formula One car and it becomes a Shakespearean tragedy. This is why cars can not follow closely, and
this is why the quality of the on-track product is definitely inferior. And sadly, we saw things revert to the old ways in Hungary. In previous races we enjoyed some snippets of close and intense battling between cars. Then in Hungary, it became follow the leader with any passes the result of diverse pit strategies, not actual racing and battling.

Well that's part of the problem if F1 becomes a spec series then it's no longer F1, you can't compare F1 with a spec series and how popular are the two series anyway?

Indycar is so great but in respect to F1 no one watches it, F1 can be improved but let's not be comparing it with something that is nowhere near as popular.


I do not recall mentioning popularity. My focus was on the actual wheel to wheel close battling that is determined by the aerodynamics.

Yes, Indycar is nowhere as popular as Indycar. But most of those reasons are not determined by the actual on-track product, namely the racing.

And Formula One is not holy or above examination or criticism. Comparisons should be made. Personally, I am in a large group of rabid RACING fans, and the general consensus is that Formula One sucks and is barely worth the effort of watching.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:

Was the championship Alonso didn't win because he couldn't pass Petrov's 3rd rate Renault at Singapore made better or worse by that ?

Surely most people do not want fast cars artificially stuck behind slower ones. Anyway we shouldn't just judge by Hungary because it's always been hard to overtake there.

I think it's great to see the FIA finally directing its efforts in the right way. This targetted % reduction is the key because it's testable before the cars race. In the past they've just fiddled with the aero rules and hoped it will help a bit.
If the changes work maybe in future even Monaco could actually be a race!


Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.

How are cars being unable to pass much better for F1, this is the prime reason why DRS got introduced in the first place and also a source of disconcertion at the the start of the season were we had sterile races because cars were unable to pass one another.


An overtake needs to be a possibility but not a certainty for things to be exciting. You never answered my question.

Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?

The answer is it was obviously made better. If passing is easy we have a time trial. If it is difficult we have a race.

I answered your question he couldn't pass because he didn't have a big enough performance delta, later in the race he had a 2.5 second performance delta, such a delta should be an easy pass.

When a 2.5 second performance delta is a difficult pass then a 1 second performance delta becomes an impossible pass and that is not racing, being unable to pass is not racing, it's what you have at Monaco.


Did I ask why he couldn't pass? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's still not like for like though because Indycars don't generate that much downforce when compared to a F1 car.


That is an area dictated by cost controls (which Formula One is famous for ignoring). Indycar is a spec series, and there is little any team can do to modify the car. Meanwhile in Formula One a team could easily spend two million a week just designing new front wings that become obsolete the moment they are put on a car.

Formula One teams spend vast sums on wind tunnels and aero research. When the regulations allow, any team will do whatever it takes to massage every molecule that passes over the car. In clear air a Formula One car is a magnificent testimony to aerodynamics. Place it behind another Formula One car and it becomes a Shakespearean tragedy. This is why cars can not follow closely, and
this is why the quality of the on-track product is definitely inferior. And sadly, we saw things revert to the old ways in Hungary. In previous races we enjoyed some snippets of close and intense battling between cars. Then in Hungary, it became follow the leader with any passes the result of diverse pit strategies, not actual racing and battling.

Well that's part of the problem if F1 becomes a spec series then it's no longer F1, you can't compare F1 with a spec series and how popular are the two series anyway?

Indycar is so great but in respect to F1 no one watches it, F1 can be improved but let's not be comparing it with something that is nowhere near as popular.


I do not recall mentioning popularity. My focus was on the actual wheel to wheel close battling that is determined by the aerodynamics.

Yes, Indycar is nowhere as popular as Indycar. But most of those reasons are not determined by the actual on-track product, namely the racing.

And Formula One is not holy or above examination or criticism. Comparisons should be made. Personally, I am in a large group of rabid RACING fans, and the general consensus is that Formula One sucks and is barely worth the effort of watching.

F1 is not above criticism but then you compare it with Indycars like Indycars is better but the numbers don't back up what you are saying.

F1 fans don't want F1 to be Indycars, the cars are basic and slow, 12 seconds slower in fact, you are always going to get closer racing with a slow spec racing series, that's not say F1 would not be better if it was closer, but let's not be using Indycars as a template for F1.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2129
pokerman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's still not like for like though because Indycars don't generate that much downforce when compared to a F1 car.


That is an area dictated by cost controls (which Formula One is famous for ignoring). Indycar is a spec series, and there is little any team can do to modify the car. Meanwhile in Formula One a team could easily spend two million a week just designing new front wings that become obsolete the moment they are put on a car.

Formula One teams spend vast sums on wind tunnels and aero research. When the regulations allow, any team will do whatever it takes to massage every molecule that passes over the car. In clear air a Formula One car is a magnificent testimony to aerodynamics. Place it behind another Formula One car and it becomes a Shakespearean tragedy. This is why cars can not follow closely, and
this is why the quality of the on-track product is definitely inferior. And sadly, we saw things revert to the old ways in Hungary. In previous races we enjoyed some snippets of close and intense battling between cars. Then in Hungary, it became follow the leader with any passes the result of diverse pit strategies, not actual racing and battling.

Well that's part of the problem if F1 becomes a spec series then it's no longer F1, you can't compare F1 with a spec series and how popular are the two series anyway?

Indycar is so great but in respect to F1 no one watches it, F1 can be improved but let's not be comparing it with something that is nowhere near as popular.


I do not recall mentioning popularity. My focus was on the actual wheel to wheel close battling that is determined by the aerodynamics.

Yes, Indycar is nowhere as popular as Indycar. But most of those reasons are not determined by the actual on-track product, namely the racing.

And Formula One is not holy or above examination or criticism. Comparisons should be made. Personally, I am in a large group of rabid RACING fans, and the general consensus is that Formula One sucks and is barely worth the effort of watching.

F1 is not above criticism but then you compare it with Indycars like Indycars is better but the numbers don't back up what you are saying.

F1 fans don't want F1 to be Indycars, the cars are basic and slow, 12 seconds slower in fact, you are always going to get closer racing with a slow spec racing series, that's not say F1 would not be better if it was closer, but let's not be using Indycars as a template for F1.



Popularity does not equal quality.

Indycars does many things that F1 could learn a lesson from. I'd hope that the people in charge are not too snobbish to realise that.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Much better! it would have a much duller finale if Alonso could have breased passed the two drivers he needed to pass and been able to sit in championship position unopposed for the last 40 laps yes.

Basically the cars need to be able to follow. Beyond that there is no reason to make overtaking easier. There is nothing exciting about a driver in a faster car being able to overtake so easily it turns the race into a time trial.

How are cars being unable to pass much better for F1, this is the prime reason why DRS got introduced in the first place and also a source of disconcertion at the the start of the season were we had sterile races because cars were unable to pass one another.


An overtake needs to be a possibility but not a certainty for things to be exciting. You never answered my question.

Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?

The answer is it was obviously made better. If passing is easy we have a time trial. If it is difficult we have a race.

I answered your question he couldn't pass because he didn't have a big enough performance delta, later in the race he had a 2.5 second performance delta, such a delta should be an easy pass.

When a 2.5 second performance delta is a difficult pass then a 1 second performance delta becomes an impossible pass and that is not racing, being unable to pass is not racing, it's what you have at Monaco.


Did I ask why he couldn't pass? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?

That's not the point of what I've been saying, this started by saying Hamilton's pass was too easy despite him having a 2.5 second passing delta, now you're trying to make comparison with something that is different.

As an example of what I'm trying to say I will reverse this back, if despite having a 2.5 second passing delta it would have been very difficult for Hamilton to pass Verstappen, the part of the race that you want me to discuss is that Hamilton's pace then would probably not have got him into range to even think about passing Verstappen, would that have been exciting, it would have been the first part of the race reenacted when Hamilton simply followed Verstappen around.

The dynamics of what allowed Hamilton to get alongside Verstappen in the second part of the race are the same dynamics that allowed the easy pass in the third part of the race, you can't change the dynamics just to suit an argument.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Herb wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
That is an area dictated by cost controls (which Formula One is famous for ignoring). Indycar is a spec series, and there is little any team can do to modify the car. Meanwhile in Formula One a team could easily spend two million a week just designing new front wings that become obsolete the moment they are put on a car.

Formula One teams spend vast sums on wind tunnels and aero research. When the regulations allow, any team will do whatever it takes to massage every molecule that passes over the car. In clear air a Formula One car is a magnificent testimony to aerodynamics. Place it behind another Formula One car and it becomes a Shakespearean tragedy. This is why cars can not follow closely, and
this is why the quality of the on-track product is definitely inferior. And sadly, we saw things revert to the old ways in Hungary. In previous races we enjoyed some snippets of close and intense battling between cars. Then in Hungary, it became follow the leader with any passes the result of diverse pit strategies, not actual racing and battling.

Well that's part of the problem if F1 becomes a spec series then it's no longer F1, you can't compare F1 with a spec series and how popular are the two series anyway?

Indycar is so great but in respect to F1 no one watches it, F1 can be improved but let's not be comparing it with something that is nowhere near as popular.


I do not recall mentioning popularity. My focus was on the actual wheel to wheel close battling that is determined by the aerodynamics.

Yes, Indycar is nowhere as popular as Indycar. But most of those reasons are not determined by the actual on-track product, namely the racing.

And Formula One is not holy or above examination or criticism. Comparisons should be made. Personally, I am in a large group of rabid RACING fans, and the general consensus is that Formula One sucks and is barely worth the effort of watching.

F1 is not above criticism but then you compare it with Indycars like Indycars is better but the numbers don't back up what you are saying.

F1 fans don't want F1 to be Indycars, the cars are basic and slow, 12 seconds slower in fact, you are always going to get closer racing with a slow spec racing series, that's not say F1 would not be better if it was closer, but let's not be using Indycars as a template for F1.



Popularity does not equal quality.

Indycars does many things that F1 could learn a lesson from. I'd hope that the people in charge are not too snobbish to realise that.

Well there is the 2021 rules set to do just that, I can't think of these many things that F1 could learn from Indycars?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, G926, Glasnost and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group