planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:58 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
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.


Ok, I will admit I do not watch Indy and I have heard this opinion often. Can you please elaborate on this? What can F1 do better that Indy is already doing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
I think F1 should pay more attention to Super Formula than IndyCar, if they want to look at a blueprint for fast cars that can overtake. A Super Formula car is barely slower than an F1 car, but they put a priority on producing as much downforce as possible from the underbody and prioritized close racing.

IndyCar is a good series, but it is not F1.

_________________
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: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
mikeyg123 wrote:
Was the race made better or worse by Hamilton not having an easy pass in the first half of the race?


By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
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?


By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.


I think it is. I wouldn't want 20 races like Monaco but having one is definitely exciting. What you are describing is a time trial not a race. In a race can be effected by your opposition and have to work your way around that. That's what actually makes it exciting. Overtaking generally should be possible but it should also be possible to defend from.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
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?


By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
Fiki 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?


By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.


You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
tim3003 wrote:
Fiki 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?


By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.


You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.


You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.


I think 'always have the possibility' is too simplistic: What if it's a Williams who due to not pitting for tyres ends up ahead of a front runner who has pitted? For cars of similar pace I agree they should be able to fight, but at the moment it's not about driving well defensively, it's about the car behind losing half its downforce every time it corners. All the Williams driver has to do to keep ahead is avoid mistakes.

I don't like DRS either and hope that from 2021 it's not necessary, but for now I think we'd be even worse off without it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Exediron wrote:
I think F1 should pay more attention to Super Formula than IndyCar, if they want to look at a blueprint for fast cars that can overtake. A Super Formula car is barely slower than an F1 car, but they put a priority on producing as much downforce as possible from the underbody and prioritized close racing.

IndyCar is a good series, but it is not F1.

Doesn't Super Formula have a push to pass overtaking system that has only so many seconds usage in a race, that being the case why do they need that system if the cars can overtake naturally?

_________________
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: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
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?


By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.


I think it is. I wouldn't want 20 races like Monaco but having one is definitely exciting. What you are describing is a time trial not a race. In a race can be effected by your opposition and have to work your way around that. That's what actually makes it exciting. Overtaking generally should be possible but it should also be possible to defend from.

This all seems to centre around Verstappen not being able to defend himself despite being 2.5 seconds slower on spent tyres, it seems you want overtaking to be so hard to be neigh on impossible?

I don't understand the argument and I can't help but feel it stems from disappointment in the result of the race?

_________________
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: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3225
Location: UK
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Fiki 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?


By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.


You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

Whilst I agree with what you are saying, I wouldn't consider last Sunday to be a good example. That was down to tyres, which are in general much more responsible for the easy overtakes we see than DRS is. How many easy DRS passes to we see at the start of the race when everyone's tyres are in similar shape?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Fiki 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?


By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.


You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?

I'm not sure that's a F1 that I want to watch?

_________________
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: Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
I think F1 should pay more attention to Super Formula than IndyCar, if they want to look at a blueprint for fast cars that can overtake. A Super Formula car is barely slower than an F1 car, but they put a priority on producing as much downforce as possible from the underbody and prioritized close racing.

IndyCar is a good series, but it is not F1.

Doesn't Super Formula have a push to pass overtaking system that has only so many seconds usage in a race, that being the case why do they need that system if the cars can overtake naturally?

They do have a push to pass, but unlike IndyCar it's something you can't use very often in the race. It's something like 10 uses that have to be separated by 100 seconds in between - I don't remember exactly. Most of the passing is organic.

Quite honestly, you will never get good overtaking and world-leading speed from an open-wheeled, open-cockpit car without an overtaking aid. If what we really want to see is F1-level speed with sportscar passing ability, we need to move to something like the RBR or McLaren concepts with closed wheels and a bubble cockpit. Open wheels and open cockpits are what necessitate all the fancy aerodynamics that get ruined by turbulent air.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
I think F1 should pay more attention to Super Formula than IndyCar, if they want to look at a blueprint for fast cars that can overtake. A Super Formula car is barely slower than an F1 car, but they put a priority on producing as much downforce as possible from the underbody and prioritized close racing.

IndyCar is a good series, but it is not F1.

Doesn't Super Formula have a push to pass overtaking system that has only so many seconds usage in a race, that being the case why do they need that system if the cars can overtake naturally?

They do have a push to pass, but unlike IndyCar it's something you can't use very often in the race. It's something like 10 uses that have to be separated by 100 seconds in between - I don't remember exactly. Most of the passing is organic.

Quite honestly, you will never get good overtaking and world-leading speed from an open-wheeled, open-cockpit car without an overtaking aid. If what we really want to see is F1-level speed with sportscar passing ability, we need to move to something like the RBR or McLaren concepts with closed wheels and a bubble cockpit. Open wheels and open cockpits are what necessitate all the fancy aerodynamics that get ruined by turbulent air.

Fair enough so those 2 series don't really have an answer either and push to pass can also be used as push to defend so that's not exactly ideal aid for overtaking.

Sounds like DRS might be here to stay then even after 2021, I personally don't have a problem with DRS.

_________________
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: Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
Exediron wrote:
Quite honestly, you will never get good overtaking and world-leading speed from an open-wheeled, open-cockpit car without an overtaking aid. If what we really want to see is F1-level speed with sportscar passing ability, we need to move to something like the RBR or McLaren concepts with closed wheels and a bubble cockpit. Open wheels and open cockpits are what necessitate all the fancy aerodynamics that get ruined by turbulent air.


Well F1 managed pretty well up until the 1990's when wind tunnels and CFD came along... In the first ground effect era in the early 1980s some cars ran without front wings because the underbody ground effect was so powerful they didnt need them. That is what we want to return to.. Surely an open wheeled/open cockpit car spec doesn't 'necessitate' wing-based downforce unless the rules allow it to..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
By your logic Monaco is made better each year as passing is virtually impossible. We all know the apparent closeness of the racing is an illusion. Hungary has often been the same. A race is not 'good' because cars run nose-to-tail when a faster car is artificially stuck behind a slower one. A proper F1 race is where the fastest car/driver wins by skill, not where he's unable to pass because of aero design flaws. You might as well include success ballast, reverse grids and all those tricks if what you want is just excitement. But that's not the ethos of F1.
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.


You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.

_________________
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: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.


You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.


Excellent post Fiki.

I always likened F1 to football or rugby in a sense that a goal/try/overtake is an achievement; unlike - say - basketball where you just count who puts in more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I don't understand how a faster car could artificially be stuck behind a slower one. Do you mean penalties, or poor qualifying? Please explain.
I'm a proponent of reinstating the Sunday morning warm-up, and drivers making changes even on the grid. And reducing the role of the teams to the bare minimum during the race.


You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.

Well I can't fault the effort you put into the post but the bottom line is how can you complain about a car that is 2.5 seconds quicker having an easy pass, and like I asked before in what other racing series would that not be an easy pass?

I'm very cynical all these recent posts criticising DRS is because of disappointment in the Hungarian result.

_________________
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: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:02 pm 
Offline

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

You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.

Well I can't fault the effort you put into the post but the bottom line is how can you complain about a car that is 2.5 seconds quicker having an easy pass, and like I asked before in what other racing series would that not be an easy pass?

I'm very cynical all these recent posts criticising DRS is because of disappointment in the Hungarian result.


Please for the love of Christ not this absolute horse peaky again. Astonishingly not everyone's opinion on everything is secretly to do with Lewis Hamilton.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.


Excellent post Fiki.

I always likened F1 to football or rugby in a sense that a goal/try/overtake is an achievement; unlike - say - basketball where you just count who puts in more.

When Barcelona play a much inferior team you can almost guarantee to see the goals go flying in, when a car is 2.5 seconds quicker I would expect to see the pass, if not then I see that as a problem, how popular would football be if it was that hard to score then 0-0 draws were rife?

_________________
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: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32145
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.

Well I can't fault the effort you put into the post but the bottom line is how can you complain about a car that is 2.5 seconds quicker having an easy pass, and like I asked before in what other racing series would that not be an easy pass?

I'm very cynical all these recent posts criticising DRS is because of disappointment in the Hungarian result.


Please for the love of Christ not this absolute horse peaky again. Astonishingly not everyone's opinion on everything is secretly to do with Lewis Hamilton.

It's easy to come across as not a supporter of a driver but clearly the past few years you have been very supportive of Verstappen, and I get easily labelled so you read my post as people specifically being disappointed that Hamilton won rather than people like yourself I would say being disappointed that Verstappen didn't win.

When I see some logic fails then I have to see something underlying, people being clearly not happy that a car that was 2.5 seconds quicker having an easy pass on a car with shot tyres, blame it all on DRS.

_________________
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: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.

Well I can't fault the effort you put into the post but the bottom line is how can you complain about a car that is 2.5 seconds quicker having an easy pass, and like I asked before in what other racing series would that not be an easy pass?

I'm very cynical all these recent posts criticising DRS is because of disappointment in the Hungarian result.


Please for the love of Christ not this absolute horse peaky again. Astonishingly not everyone's opinion on everything is secretly to do with Lewis Hamilton.

It's easy to come across as not a supporter of a driver but clearly the past few years you have been very supportive of Verstappen, and I get easily labelled so you read my post as people specifically being disappointed that Hamilton won rather than people like yourself I would say being disappointed that Verstappen didn't win.

When I see some logic fails then I have to see something underlying, people being clearly not happy that a car that was 2.5 seconds quicker having an easy pass on a car with shot tyres, blame it all on DRS.


No, I don't support any driver. I rate Verstappen highly. I have no emotional investment in him winning. I want a good race. Hamilton being able to chase down Verstappen made for a good race so I was cheering him on.

I really don't give a flying fig who wins and have been 100% consistent in my criticism of easy overtaking for years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
You could blame the driver/team for poor qualifying, like with Leclerc at Monaco; but that's to assert that qualifying order always reflects true speed and so the race should finish in the same order. It's possible that quali pace does not match race pace. Say Merc and Ferrari are 1-4 on the grid because they can turn their engines up, and Red Bull are 5-6 because they can't, but have better race pace. Are you happy for them all to finish in that order because passing is so hard? Don't we want the driver/car with the best race pace to win?
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.

Well I can't fault the effort you put into the post but the bottom line is how can you complain about a car that is 2.5 seconds quicker having an easy pass, and like I asked before in what other racing series would that not be an easy pass?

I'm very cynical all these recent posts criticising DRS is because of disappointment in the Hungarian result.
Last comment first; my standpoint isn't because of any disappointment in the Hungarian result, although Hamilton's successful pass was a very good illustration of what is wrong with DRS in the first place.
So I'm not complaining about a pass made by a car that was 2.5 seconds quicker, but by the fact that some still don't understand that taking a pain killer does nothing to cure what is hurting you.

Being 2.5 seconds a lap quicker is more than what is necessary to pass a car, even in Hungary. What really should be bothering F1 fans is the quest for cheap track records that started last year. Who on earth cares about track and lap records when the rules were specifically altered to achieve them in the first place? I certainly don't.

_________________
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: Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Not necessarily. Let's not forget that a driver who finds himself ahead of a faster car should always have the possibility of driving defensively so well that the faster car/driver combination finds it impossible to take the win from him. This is why I dislike DRS so much, and last Sunday was the perfect illustration of the problem.

So F1 should be basically impossible to pass?
No, what gave you that idea? F1 is simply a set of technical rules the car should conform to. Nothing more. The desirability of certain characteristics is something we project onto it.
If you want to discuss basics, then the first thing to realise is that F1 was fundamentally altered the moment wings producing "downforce" started to be included in the formula. The technical rules governing how extensive those aerodynamic surfaces are allowed to be is what produces the races we now see, and the differences between teams reflects their ability to design aerodynamics that allow the different cars to go around corners faster than their competitors.

Other racing series, all using the same car, remove the need to design your own car. This means that Formula 2 is in fact a misnomer. It may well be that F2 shows driver quality better than F1. But that misses the point that in F1, it is really about the car.

Since it is about the cars, the fastest ones normally can be found ahead of slower ones. The reason I detest the DRS is not because I am against a faster car passing a slower one, it is because passing a slower, superbly driven car should be difficult. And at the moment, with somtimes as many as 3 DRS-zones at a race track, that makes a mockery of motor racing as a sport, and puts all the emphasis on spectacle over skills. Forcing the use of at least two tyre compounds is nothing but an artificiality. If we want to see pitstops, we should watch endurance racing more. And they have more than enough trouble to balance out all the different factors to create a level playing field. That's not what F1 is about, and it simply doesn't need it. Basically, what we need is technical rules that emphasize car design, not wing and deflector design.

F1 should not be impossible to pass, but a pass should be an accomplishment, not the result of opening your DRS and going past a driver who is not allowed to do the same. The slower car was ahead for a reason, and that should be acknowledged.


Excellent post Fiki.

I always likened F1 to football or rugby in a sense that a goal/try/overtake is an achievement; unlike - say - basketball where you just count who puts in more.

When Barcelona play a much inferior team you can almost guarantee to see the goals go flying in, when a car is 2.5 seconds quicker I would expect to see the pass, if not then I see that as a problem, how popular would football be if it was that hard to score then 0-0 draws were rife?

Well yes, some GP's you get lots of overtakes, some others you get processions. What do you mean by this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
Siao7 wrote:
Well yes, some GP's you get lots of overtakes, some others you get processions. What do you mean by this?


I don't think we should be focussing solely on the number of passes per race. I recently watched the 1991 Phoenix GP, which despite Senna leading all the way was exciting in places. This was because the leaders (Senna apart) were able to run and dice relatively close together and passes were often feasible even if in the end they weren't achieved. It's probably true that with DRS there aren't that many few passes now than in the past, but there is far less excitement because the cars are so spread out. DRS doesn't address this problem, and with it we often see a faster car come from well back entering a long straight, close up absurdly fast as the corner approaches and breeze past.

So the question is: will using ground effect again allow the cars to run closer, especially through corners? What do those who (unlike me) can watch other open-wheel racing series think?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7619
tim3003 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Well yes, some GP's you get lots of overtakes, some others you get processions. What do you mean by this?


I don't think we should be focussing solely on the number of passes per race. I recently watched the 1991 Phoenix GP, which despite Senna leading all the way was exciting in places. This was because the leaders (Senna apart) were able to run and dice relatively close together and passes were often feasible even if in the end they weren't achieved. It's probably true that with DRS there aren't that many few passes now than in the past, but there is far less excitement because the cars are so spread out. DRS doesn't address this problem, and with it we often see a faster car come from well back entering a long straight, close up absurdly fast as the corner approaches and breeze past.

So the question is: will using ground effect again allow the cars to run closer, especially through corners? What do those who (unlike me) can watch other open-wheel racing series think?


I agree, it is a misconception to think that the number of overtakes is the key. I was so excited for Monza 2005 for example, even if my favourite driver didn't make the overtake stick in the end. But to see these two pilots dice it for half the race, lap after lap, it was amazing to watch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 219
I would be curious to see what it does to wet races. From whatever I have seen of old races, the ground effect cars created a mist/fog instead of a spray, making visibility far worse than it is today. Of course, with the relatively lax safety standards and the big cajones of the drivers compared to today, they still raced through that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1394
pokerman wrote:
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?


How about no two cars in identical livery, no blue flags, and the push-to-pass?

If two team cars are not in identical livery, then they have different sponsors and two distinct sources of revenue. You cannot ask a driver in one car to surrender a position just to please the team because a certain sponsor would be more than angry. And no sponsor will put down millions if they can not be guaranteed equal treatment. Imagine the demise of team orders and a return to a driver earning a win purely on their own merit? In Indycar the only team rule is not to take the other car out. Other than that, they race each other hard.

If the blue flag rule was removed, then there would be a lot more action, lower teams would not be so disadvantaged, and it would be wonderful to watch drivers attempting to get past reluctant back-markers.

The Indy push-to-pass is that at the beginning of a race each driver is allowed a specific number of times he/she may activate the button for extra power. That way, no more need for DRS, and each driver must plan strategy and budget their use of power.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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?


How about no two cars in identical livery, no blue flags, and the push-to-pass?

If two team cars are not in identical livery, then they have different sponsors and two distinct sources of revenue. You cannot ask a driver in one car to surrender a position just to please the team because a certain sponsor would be more than angry. And no sponsor will put down millions if they can not be guaranteed equal treatment. Imagine the demise of team orders and a return to a driver earning a win purely on their own merit? In Indycar the only team rule is not to take the other car out. Other than that, they race each other hard.

If the blue flag rule was removed, then there would be a lot more action, lower teams would not be so disadvantaged, and it would be wonderful to watch drivers attempting to get past reluctant back-markers.

The Indy push-to-pass is that at the beginning of a race each driver is allowed a specific number of times he/she may activate the button for extra power. That way, no more need for DRS, and each driver must plan strategy and budget their use of power.

These ideas work for IndyCar, but I honestly think they'd be terrible in F1.

First off, IndyCar is a driver's only championship - the team only wins with the driver. It makes sense to have unique liveries for each car. In F1, everything is about the team.

The blue flag idea is brought up often, and I completely disagree with it. Until we have cars that can race each other more closely, blue flags are every bit as necessary as overtaking aids. Otherwise, the leader is going to get stuck behind the first midfield car they encounter -- if it's not a satellite team, in which case it will wave them by. Having to fight lapped traffic has never made racing better, and quite honestly I don't think it makes racing better in IndyCar right now. Lapped cars have lost their right to fight the leaders.

Push-to-pass is no less artificial than DRS, and again only makes sense because it's a spec series. The PUs in F1 are different, and each team already plays with their batteries to achieve the same effect. Of the three, it's the one I think would do the least damage to F1, but I don't have any desire to see it adopted.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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?


How about no two cars in identical livery.


I'd go for that, or some way to differentiate the cars in a team from eachother. It's very annoying when watching a race when you have to try to see the driver's helmet to tell which Merc or Ferrari is ahead because you can't tell from the car itself. The numbers are now invisible from the front. I suspect commentators sometimes get it wrong at race starts for the same reason. And even the helmets look samey these days with their over-complicated designs. Whatever happened to Hamilton's yellow job? I remember when Ferrari used to put yellow flashes on one car, which in theory helped - if you could remember which car..

Maybe the 2021 rule changes could address this fault with 'the show' too..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
tim3003 wrote:
I'd go for that, or some way to differentiate the cars in a team from eachother. It's very annoying when watching a race when you have to try to see the driver's helmet to tell which Merc or Ferrari is ahead because you can't tell from the car itself. The numbers are now invisible from the front. I suspect commentators sometimes get it wrong at race starts for the same reason. And even the helmets look samey these days with their over-complicated designs. Whatever happened to Hamilton's yellow job? I remember when Ferrari used to put yellow flashes on one car, which in theory helped - if you could remember which car..

Maybe the 2021 rule changes could address this fault with 'the show' too..

One car from each team has a bright yellow bar at the top of its roll hoop. Once you remember which one is which (it's usually the #2 driver), it's easy to tell them apart.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3987
tim3003 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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?


How about no two cars in identical livery.


I'd go for that, or some way to differentiate the cars in a team from eachother. It's very annoying when watching a race when you have to try to see the driver's helmet to tell which Merc or Ferrari is ahead because you can't tell from the car itself. The numbers are now invisible from the front. I suspect commentators sometimes get it wrong at race starts for the same reason. And even the helmets look samey these days with their over-complicated designs. Whatever happened to Hamilton's yellow job? I remember when Ferrari used to put yellow flashes on one car, which in theory helped - if you could remember which car..

Maybe the 2021 rule changes could address this fault with 'the show' too..


Image

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1976
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
Asphalt_World wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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?


How about no two cars in identical livery.


I'd go for that, or some way to differentiate the cars in a team from eachother. It's very annoying when watching a race when you have to try to see the driver's helmet to tell which Merc or Ferrari is ahead because you can't tell from the car itself. The numbers are now invisible from the front. I suspect commentators sometimes get it wrong at race starts for the same reason. And even the helmets look samey these days with their over-complicated designs. Whatever happened to Hamilton's yellow job? I remember when Ferrari used to put yellow flashes on one car, which in theory helped - if you could remember which car..

Maybe the 2021 rule changes could address this fault with 'the show' too..


Image

I realise I may be in the minority here but I miss the schizophrenic livery this caused. From one side, it could be confused with a Prost. From the other, it's like the Williams and the Stewart had a love child.

I do agree though, that there should be an obvious differentiator between a team's cars from every angle. Maybe mandate Williams FW33-style numbers and placement.

_________________
Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1394
Exediron wrote:
First off, IndyCar is a driver's only championship - the team only wins with the driver. It makes sense to have unique liveries for each car. In F1, everything is about the team.

The blue flag idea is brought up often, and I completely disagree with it. Until we have cars that can race each other more closely, blue flags are every bit as necessary as overtaking aids. Otherwise, the leader is going to get stuck behind the first midfield car they encounter -- if it's not a satellite team, in which case it will wave them by. Having to fight lapped traffic has never made racing better, and quite honestly I don't think it makes racing better in IndyCar right now. Lapped cars have lost their right to fight the leaders.

Push-to-pass is no less artificial than DRS, and again only makes sense because it's a spec series. The PUs in F1 are different, and each team already plays with their batteries to achieve the same effect. Of the three, it's the one I think would do the least damage to F1, but I don't have any desire to see it adopted.


Why, oh why does it have to be about the team? They are a big part of the problem, using their political influence and veto power to stall efforts in improving the sport. There is absolutely zero justification to allow any team the exposure and power they presently exercise.

As far as push to pass, the FIA is able to monitor the power flow in the power unit. In fact, those very limits are what define performance. Personally, I do not see any technical challenges in implimenting push-to-pass and scrapping the DRS system. Just like a driver has to budget his tires and fuel in a race, they would also have a limit of push-to-pass opportunities and use that feature accordingly. Instead of the current .. "oh yes, he is within one second and ... there he goes past". That is not racing.

If the blue flag rule was chucked out, then the car designers would be forced by necessity to design cars that no longer run like thoroughbreds in clean air and crippled nags in any disturbed air, but rather cars that can run close together and have the ability to manufacture passes. Because right now current Formula One cars, especially the Mercedes, are one-trick ponies.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7143
Location: Michigan, USA
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Why, oh why does it have to be about the team?

It has always been about the team. It is a team sport. Why does it have to be about the driver for you?

_________________
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: Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1970
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Exediron wrote:
First off, IndyCar is a driver's only championship - the team only wins with the driver. It makes sense to have unique liveries for each car. In F1, everything is about the team.

The blue flag idea is brought up often, and I completely disagree with it. Until we have cars that can race each other more closely, blue flags are every bit as necessary as overtaking aids. Otherwise, the leader is going to get stuck behind the first midfield car they encounter -- if it's not a satellite team, in which case it will wave them by. Having to fight lapped traffic has never made racing better, and quite honestly I don't think it makes racing better in IndyCar right now. Lapped cars have lost their right to fight the leaders.

Push-to-pass is no less artificial than DRS, and again only makes sense because it's a spec series. The PUs in F1 are different, and each team already plays with their batteries to achieve the same effect. Of the three, it's the one I think would do the least damage to F1, but I don't have any desire to see it adopted.


Why, oh why does it have to be about the team? They are a big part of the problem, using their political influence and veto power to stall efforts in improving the sport. There is absolutely zero justification to allow any team the exposure and power they presently exercise.

As far as push to pass, the FIA is able to monitor the power flow in the power unit. In fact, those very limits are what define performance. Personally, I do not see any technical challenges in implimenting push-to-pass and scrapping the DRS system. Just like a driver has to budget his tires and fuel in a race, they would also have a limit of push-to-pass opportunities and use that feature accordingly. Instead of the current .. "oh yes, he is within one second and ... there he goes past". That is not racing.

If the blue flag rule was chucked out, then the car designers would be forced by necessity to design cars that no longer run like thoroughbreds in clean air and crippled nags in any disturbed air, but rather cars that can run close together and have the ability to manufacture passes. Because right now current Formula One cars, especially the Mercedes, are one-trick ponies.


The problem I have with the no blue flag concept is, & i'm assuming here that you're advocating the total removal of any requirement for back markers to move over when being lapped, is that in the F1 of today of junior & client teams, we'd almost be guaranteed to get situations where the junior / client team would be used as a backstop for the senior team possibly, depending on the circuit, lap after lap after lap.

Hypothetical situation. Hamilton pits with 20 to go in Hungary & starts to hunt down Verstappen. He's catching him at an enormous speed as Verstappens tyres hit the cliff. All of a sudden Kvyat, who's 2 laps down in 15th, pits with 12 laps to go for fresh softs. He comes out a few seconds ahead of Hamilton. Hamilton's flying as he catches to lap Kvyat. All of a sudden Kvyat, 2 laps down & with no chance of scoring a point, manages to go quick enough on the straights to hold Hamilton behind him & lets the rest of the track do the blocking work for him. He fights Hamilton each time entering turn 1. Legally moving & blocking the guy who's 2 laps ahead of him for lap upon lap. Eventually Hamilton gets past but by then it's too late to catch Verstappen who holds on to win the race by a few seconds.

Do you reckon there'd not be an internet riot if that happens?

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Hungary- 19) - 130 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 336 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15603
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Exediron wrote:
First off, IndyCar is a driver's only championship - the team only wins with the driver. It makes sense to have unique liveries for each car. In F1, everything is about the team.

The blue flag idea is brought up often, and I completely disagree with it. Until we have cars that can race each other more closely, blue flags are every bit as necessary as overtaking aids. Otherwise, the leader is going to get stuck behind the first midfield car they encounter -- if it's not a satellite team, in which case it will wave them by. Having to fight lapped traffic has never made racing better, and quite honestly I don't think it makes racing better in IndyCar right now. Lapped cars have lost their right to fight the leaders.

Push-to-pass is no less artificial than DRS, and again only makes sense because it's a spec series. The PUs in F1 are different, and each team already plays with their batteries to achieve the same effect. Of the three, it's the one I think would do the least damage to F1, but I don't have any desire to see it adopted.


Why, oh why does it have to be about the team? They are a big part of the problem, using their political influence and veto power to stall efforts in improving the sport. There is absolutely zero justification to allow any team the exposure and power they presently exercise.

As far as push to pass, the FIA is able to monitor the power flow in the power unit. In fact, those very limits are what define performance. Personally, I do not see any technical challenges in implimenting push-to-pass and scrapping the DRS system. Just like a driver has to budget his tires and fuel in a race, they would also have a limit of push-to-pass opportunities and use that feature accordingly. Instead of the current .. "oh yes, he is within one second and ... there he goes past". That is not racing.

If the blue flag rule was chucked out, then the car designers would be forced by necessity to design cars that no longer run like thoroughbreds in clean air and crippled nags in any disturbed air, but rather cars that can run close together and have the ability to manufacture passes. Because right now current Formula One cars, especially the Mercedes, are one-trick ponies.


Much to my annoyance you can't have no blue flags and affiliated teams or junior drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
Exediron wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
I'd go for that, or some way to differentiate the cars in a team from eachother. It's very annoying when watching a race when you have to try to see the driver's helmet to tell which Merc or Ferrari is ahead because you can't tell from the car itself. The numbers are now invisible from the front. I suspect commentators sometimes get it wrong at race starts for the same reason. And even the helmets look samey these days with their over-complicated designs. Whatever happened to Hamilton's yellow job? I remember when Ferrari used to put yellow flashes on one car, which in theory helped - if you could remember which car..

Maybe the 2021 rule changes could address this fault with 'the show' too..

One car from each team has a bright yellow bar at the top of its roll hoop. Once you remember which one is which (it's usually the #2 driver), it's easy to tell them apart.


Yes I see. Excellent! Now all we need is the driver's name on the halo so we can tell from the in-car footage too..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 274
Location: Suffolk, UK
Blinky McSquinty wrote:

As far as push to pass, the FIA is able to monitor the power flow in the power unit. In fact, those very limits are what define performance. Personally, I do not see any technical challenges in implimenting push-to-pass and scrapping the DRS system. Just like a driver has to budget his tires and fuel in a race, they would also have a limit of push-to-pass opportunities and use that feature accordingly. Instead of the current .. "oh yes, he is within one second and ... there he goes past". That is not racing.


If you just want the passing option to be limited, than you could limit the number of DRS activations per car. Personally I think push-to-pass is no less artificial than DRS if it's limited. Instead; supposing a driver has the ability to turn his engine up for a short period and chooses to do so when he's trying to pass, that's fine by me. No limit in how often he does it - just the increased possibility of his blowing the engine!


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: UnlikeUday 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