When a spectacle becomes a parody of his own

[Andres125sx]

Singapore 2018 GP, poleman and winner laptimes:

Pole lap: 1:36.0
First laps in the race 1:47-1:48
Fast lap in race 1:42.9

We all know about fuel load, racing is not qualifying, blah blah blah... 11-12 seconds slower than in qualifying is, IMHO, embarrasing for F1. The fast lap for Lewis with empty tank was still 6.9 seconds slower than his own Q lap.

6.9 seconds. There was a time when this was unconceivable in f1. Today people don´t even notice...

Anyone who has ever raced at anything know how SLOW you must go to increase your laptimes 7 seconds, even if the tyres are 3 seconds slower (wich they are not), it´s still a 4 second difference. Still a difference wich means drivers are not racing, they´re just cruising around.


I´m the only one who can´t cope with this?


Toni Cuquerella (spanish tv) once said a thing wich did explain it all. Today computers are so advanced they can simulate almost everything, so teams know exactly what´s the fastest strategy, no room for feelings or talented drivers anymore, computers are telling the pace drivers must go, and cruising (tyre managment) and coasting (fuel managment) are faster on a GP length than going full attack mode

We can´t ban computers, but we can shorten a GP length so long term strategies makes no more sense and they´re forced to race again. Any other idea will be welcome


Sorry for the rant

[TwanV]

I agree it's ridiculous.. this coasting business.. but really is it a computer issue or a turbo/fuel/reliability issue? We had the same thing in the mid-80's I think.

[Phil]

You can rant all you want, i thought Singapore was an excellent race from a strategic point of view. The lap times were that slow because they needed to be, in order to not open gaps where people could undercut each other. It was also to make a 1-stop race stick and last point, to cover a potential safetycar.

People should appreciate the fact that we get races with diversity. Some tracks, you need to put the hammer down. Some, you need to control to cover your basis. Singapore was the latter.

Having said that, Mercedes/Hamilton aced it. He controlled the pace until lap 11 when he floored it and pulled out a 3+ second gap before Seb pitted. That layed the foundation. Then it was back to controlling the pace.

[johnny vee]

Singapore 2018 GP, poleman and winner laptimes:

Pole lap: 1:36.0
First laps in the race 1:47-1:48
Fast lap in race 1:42.9

We all know about fuel load, racing is not qualifying, blah blah blah... 11-12 seconds slower than in qualifying is, IMHO, embarrasing for F1. The fast lap for Lewis with empty tank was still 6.9 seconds slower than his own Q lap.

6.9 seconds. There was a time when this was unconceivable in f1. Today people don´t even notice...

Anyone who has ever raced at anything know how SLOW you must go to increase your laptimes 7 seconds, even if the tyres are 3 seconds slower (wich they are not), it´s still a 4 second difference. Still a difference wich means drivers are not racing, they´re just cruising around.


I´m the only one who can´t cope with this?


Toni Cuquerella (spanish tv) once said a thing wich did explain it all. Today computers are so advanced they can simulate almost everything, so teams know exactly what´s the fastest strategy, no room for feelings or talented drivers anymore, computers are telling the pace drivers must go, and cruising (tyre managment) and coasting (fuel managment) are faster on a GP length than going full attack mode

We can´t ban computers, but we can shorten a GP length so long term strategies makes no more sense and they´re forced to race again. Any other idea will be welcome


Sorry for the rant

+1

[zac510]

People should appreciate the fact that we get races with diversity.

This definitely. People get so hung up on laptimes. (and salaries, waist sizes, etc and it doesn't really matter).

I quite enjoyed the change in personality of the race when they stepped on it before the pitstops. I see the whole calendar of F1 as a series of different challenges - some tracks fast, some slow, some narrow, some wide, some bumpy, some 2 stop, some 1 stop, etc. As a result of these different challenges, sometimes you get a race like this. It's not wrong, it's just different.

If this is the first time you've ranted about this this year it's probably not a long-term issue. This race's character could have totally changed if Bottas had pressured Vettel mid-race, just like the 2016 race changed personality in the second half when they pitted Hamilton and in which case you wouldn't be having this rant.

[gibells]

I must say I miss refueling. I miss them ragging it until the nth degree, lap after lap. The chances are it won't happen. I haven't heard of anyone even considering it for the new regs, but the fact of the matter is it would vastly increase the variables across the field.

[Phil]

I also think it's worth mentioning that this race was mainly influenced by the cascading effect of what others were doing. Perhaps everyone was waiting/gambling on a 2nd safety car that didn't come, that would have brought a bit of unpredictability into the race. Or as someone in the Singapore race thread mentioned; Considering how much the race pace was controlled, also as a result of just about everyone 1-stopping, imagine what could have happened if, i.e. Vettel had gone full risk and put on a set of HS half way through the race. He would have dropped back by 30 seconds, but perhaps driven at a 3 seconds faster delta vs the 1-stopping folks around him. Considering he got past Perez on new US vs old HS, one can assume he would have made minced meat out of pretty much everyone on old soft-tires vs his brand new chewing-gum hyper-softs. Of course, it would have taken him at least 10 laps to claw back what he would have lost...

But alas, it came differently. In the end, Vettel/Ferrari were only willing to take a small minor gamble that didn't work out, while pretty much everyone up and down the grid were simply happy to conserve their 1-stop race, while the everyone below the top 6 got caught out by starting on the wrong tire vs. Those from 11th and beyond who had free choice of tires (Alonso & Co.).

It's just the way it is sometimes.

[zac510]

I must say I miss refueling. I miss them ragging it until the nth degree, lap after lap. The chances are it won't happen. I haven't heard of anyone even considering it for the new regs, but the fact of the matter is it would vastly increase the variables across the field.

No it wouldn't. You'd be reducing the environmental variables throughout the race.
The difference between car weight throughout the stints would be smaller (ie ~40kg instead of 110kg) and the effect on how changing fuel weight wears the tyres decreased. Now that car design has converged even further it reduces strategy options too. The race would become just 3 short races punctuated by pitstops. Pitstop strategy may vary to facilitate under/over cuts but only by a few laps, because the small fuel tank would restrict strategy variations, or eliminate entirely the 1 stop option.
The engineering compromise of dealing with fuel weight changing from 110>0kg has aided the spectacle of some cars having good late-race performance and vice versa.
I don't deny that with refuelling and 40kg tanks you'd get faster races and more 'pushing' but I strongly disgaree that it would increase variables and increase variations of race strategy. I think you would just get more of a train (but of cars 'pushing').

I suppose you could mandate a 110kg fuel tank size/race fuel limit and then allow fuel pitstops

[santos]

Singapore 2018 GP, poleman and winner laptimes:

Pole lap: 1:36.0
First laps in the race 1:47-1:48
Fast lap in race 1:42.9

We all know about fuel load, racing is not qualifying, blah blah blah... 11-12 seconds slower than in qualifying is, IMHO, embarrasing for F1. The fast lap for Lewis with empty tank was still 6.9 seconds slower than his own Q lap.

6.9 seconds. There was a time when this was unconceivable in f1. Today people don´t even notice...

Anyone who has ever raced at anything know how SLOW you must go to increase your laptimes 7 seconds, even if the tyres are 3 seconds slower (wich they are not), it´s still a 4 second difference. Still a difference wich means drivers are not racing, they´re just cruising around.


I´m the only one who can´t cope with this?


Toni Cuquerella (spanish tv) once said a thing wich did explain it all. Today computers are so advanced they can simulate almost everything, so teams know exactly what´s the fastest strategy, no room for feelings or talented drivers anymore, computers are telling the pace drivers must go, and cruising (tyre managment) and coasting (fuel managment) are faster on a GP length than going full attack mode

We can´t ban computers, but we can shorten a GP length so long term strategies makes no more sense and they´re forced to race again. Any other idea will be welcome


Sorry for the rant

I was investigating when this difference in times between the quali and the fast lap in race, started. I was looking to the years of 2004, 2008, 2009 and 2010. This difference started in 2010 when refueling was banned. Today it's not much different from 8 years ago.

[gibells]

I must say I miss refueling. I miss them ragging it until the nth degree, lap after lap. The chances are it won't happen. I haven't heard of anyone even considering it for the new regs, but the fact of the matter is it would vastly increase the variables across the field.

No it wouldn't. You'd be reducing the environmental variables throughout the race.
The difference between car weight throughout the stints would be smaller (ie ~40kg instead of 110kg) and the effect on how changing fuel weight wears the tyres decreased. Now that car design has converged even further it reduces strategy options too. The race would become just 3 short races punctuated by pitstops. Pitstop strategy may vary to facilitate under/over cuts but only by a few laps, because the small fuel tank would restrict strategy variations, or eliminate entirely the 1 stop option.
The engineering compromise of dealing with fuel weight changing from 110>0kg has aided the spectacle of some cars having good late-race performance and vice versa.
I don't deny that with refuelling and 40kg tanks you'd get faster races and more 'pushing' but I strongly disgaree that it would increase variables and increase variations of race strategy. I think you would just get more of a train (but of cars 'pushing').

I suppose you could mandate a 110kg fuel tank size/race fuel limit and then allow fuel pitstops

Yeah my point is that you'd be allowing each car 3 times what you class as the "late race performance". Allowing cunning to push fuel flow rates/ lean flow rates. Especially with the additional boosts in performance you'll likely see in the turbocharged era.

In the past, variations in qualifying fuel loads always got dark horses through to longer stints.

But mainly, you never saw any processional racing. And this is what I hate. So I'll politely disagree with your theory based on the fact that the processions started as soon as refueling was stopped.

[notsofast]

i thought Singapore was an excellent race from a strategic point of view.

Agreed. That said, in the specific case of Singapore 2018, would the race have been better if FIA had made an ad-hoc rule change that required each car to stop at least twice?

[zac510]

I must say I miss refueling. I miss them ragging it until the nth degree, lap after lap. The chances are it won't happen. I haven't heard of anyone even considering it for the new regs, but the fact of the matter is it would vastly increase the variables across the field.

No it wouldn't. You'd be reducing the environmental variables throughout the race.
The difference between car weight throughout the stints would be smaller (ie ~40kg instead of 110kg) and the effect on how changing fuel weight wears the tyres decreased. Now that car design has converged even further it reduces strategy options too. The race would become just 3 short races punctuated by pitstops. Pitstop strategy may vary to facilitate under/over cuts but only by a few laps, because the small fuel tank would restrict strategy variations, or eliminate entirely the 1 stop option.
The engineering compromise of dealing with fuel weight changing from 110>0kg has aided the spectacle of some cars having good late-race performance and vice versa.
I don't deny that with refuelling and 40kg tanks you'd get faster races and more 'pushing' but I strongly disgaree that it would increase variables and increase variations of race strategy. I think you would just get more of a train (but of cars 'pushing').

I suppose you could mandate a 110kg fuel tank size/race fuel limit and then allow fuel pitstops

Yeah my point is that you'd be allowing each car 3 times what you class as the "late race performance". Allowing cunning to push fuel flow rates/ lean flow rates. Especially with the additional boosts in performance you'll likely see in the turbocharged era.

In the past, variations in qualifying fuel loads always got dark horses through to longer stints.

But mainly, you never saw any processional racing. And this is what I hate. So I'll politely disagree with your theory based on the fact that the processions started as soon as refueling was stopped.

There was definitely processional racing during the refuelling era. Tyres, team wealth, aero rules, track design all influence whether a race is processional or not so it's not possible to make it a simply binary refuelling/non-refuelling thing.

Just to clarify; I'm not pro or anti-refuelling, my philosophy is just to create an environment in which the engineering requirements for car's performance is different for qualifying, early race, mid-race or end race. The larger the variation between those 4 situations the better, IMO!

[sosic2121]

IMO there are couple of reasons that led to some really crappy races like Singapore was:
-track that should not be an F1 track(just like Monaco, Australia, maybe Hungary)
-"fastest cars in history of F1" crap! Turbo engines and huge downforce, exactly what i thought F1 should be... when I was 12 years old.
-Pirelli tires. Megasoft lasts 20 thousand laps if you don't push, but if you do they fall apart after half lap. Thermal degradation has to go.

Hamilton drove 3-4s off pace and easily won the race. Vettel barely passed Perez despite being 6s a lap quicker. When Ric put some distance between himself and Kimi he drove 3s a lap quicker then Kimi, yet he couldn't get into drs range. Vettel drove almost 50 laps on set of US, yet no one was able to put pressure on him. People complain about Bottas not putting pressure on Seb, yet Kimi and Ric where not able to put pressure on Bottas.

[Andres125sx]

The lap times were that slow because they needed to be, in order to not open gaps where people could undercut each other.

Sorry but this makes no sense at all. Gaps are opened by the car in front, if he can, the one who always try to prevent an undercut from his chaser... openning a gap

[Andres125sx]

I didn´t mention, and it´s crucial, cruising and coasting are far from new in F1, but on tracks like Singapore where it´s almost impossible to overtake, it becomes absurd

We´ve seen cars 3 seconds per lap faster that were not able to overtake. 3 seconds faster! That´s simply too much to make racing entertaining. That´s the reason no team bothered to try a 2 stopper, if you get into traffic you´re done, and that´s a certainty not a posibility so all of them did prefer to cruise around so their tires last what was necessary.

I´m wondering what fun strategic race some of you did mention. It was the same for all, 1 stopper to not get into traffic. Don´t get me wrong, I enjoy strategy in F1, but Singapore was same for everyone, and perfectly predictable


If overtaking is not possible, strategy is the same for everyone, and drivers are not pushing, what´s the point?