When a spectacle becomes a parody of his own

[F1Krof]

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 agree to some degree. However, the problem is not the computers as you state. It's not he simulation & prediction as much as Pirelli's fvvvck up. But again, if you look deeper, it's not even Pirelli's fault. It's FOM's fault, they wanted to create more pitstops artificially, and they asked Pirelli to make tailor specific high degradation tyres, and they did. Rest is is history.

Shortening the GP duration wouldn't have any impact. Initially it might, but again, those computers that you say, they'll still find the optimal strategy to go about racing under these new circumstances.

What I (not that I came up with it first) is to bring another tyre suplier, like Michelin for example. And it will be done.

[notsofast]

Different idea: what if all drivers were required to start the Singapore race on the hardest tyre?

[marmer]

Different idea: what if all drivers were required to start the Singapore race on the hardest tyre?

Well they would have all one stopped. All within about ten laps of each other onto the hyper or ultra
Pace would still have been controlled by Hamilton to whatever tyre he wanted so if your going to ultra you would run faster to use up the soft for a shorter soft stint longer ultra stint. Hope the pack doesn't keep up. Or long slow stint on soft switch to hyper. Only responding if someone attempted the undercut

It wouldn't change much

[Just_a_fan]

The real cause of the "problem" (if it actually is a problem, which I doubt, to be honest) is that the FIA/FOM keep asking "fans" what they want. The answer is always some idea of perfection that has never really existed in F1. "We want more overtaking" or "we want better racing" etc. Of course, "more overtaking" and "better racing" are actually mutually exclusive. Lots of overtaking is not better racing, it's just lots of overtaking. Most of said fans have no idea what "better racing" actually is, of course, but they think it has something to do with overtaking. It doesn't. It has to do with the to and fro over the season between title contenders. It's to do with a driver having the possibility, even if only remote, that he can overtake if ha can set it up over several corners or even laps. It's about race craft - that's as much managing the race, the car, the opposition as it is about diving up the inside or defending against such a move.

If you keep dumbing down then you eventually end up with lowest common denominator rubbish. Sadly, the FIA and FOM seem to intent on doing just that.

[dans79]

The real cause of the "problem" (if it actually is a problem, which I doubt, to be honest) is that the FIA/FOM keep asking "fans" what they want.

I agree 100%, and whats worse they ask and listen to average fans. They might as well ask 8 year olds, they'd get about the same response!

[DiogoBrand]

In my opinion, what causes races to be boring isn't that the amount of downforce makes it difficult to follow and overtake, it's precision.
Back in the day, a McLaren could be 2 tenths slower per lap than a Williams, but they weren't sure how fast they should go for the tyres to last, so they either went to fast and burned up their rubber, or too slow and left performance on the table. They could also be faster, but less reliable, there were infinite possibilities that would make a slower car win and a faster car lose, there were cars that would qualify better but then be overtaken for the lead, and so on.

Today everything is so precise that unless something really unlikely goes wrong, the teams know before the start of the race who is probably gonna win, even though Hamilton can be a mere 0,05 seconds faster than Vettel, for example, that difference is usually so consistent from start to finish that there's not gonna be too many battles or strategy wars.
Even on the tracks that allow for lots of overtaking, be it with DRS or not, we usually get several battles on the midfield, but only one or two for the lead.

The easiest way to end this would be to give teams less access to information in form of telemetry and things like that, but that would just be a joke on a sport like F1, another way would be to have spec cars, but that's unspeakable, so the amount of entertainment that the sport provides right now is unlikely to improve in the future, no mater what is changed.

I believe that the best chance we have, perhaps the only one, is a cost cap.

[Just_a_fan]

I believe that the best chance we have, perhaps the only one, is a cost cap.

Or we just accept F1 for what it is and stop trying to change it in to something it isn't/never was.

Whatever change you make, the Law of Unintended Consequences will lead to a result you didn't expect / want.

[NathanOlder]

I just randomly looked at the italian Grand prix in 1990, the fastest lap was 3.7 seconds slower than pole. 2018 italian grand prix fastest lap was 3.3 slower than pole.
Couple more examples,

2011 difference from pole to fastest lap 3.9 seconds.

2016 difference from pole to fastest lap 4.2 seconds.

So nothings changed recentlyand we even had similar gaps 30yrs ago.

If you randomly go to one of the easiest track to overtake in the calendar thanks to one of the longest straights, then obviously yes, they can´t cruise around as different strategies are possible and even others with same strategy may pass

Anycase I never said this is happening constantly, and even mentioned, repeatedly, it´s Singapore what made this possible. But it´s something wich had never happened in F1 and a clear symptom of a problem wich is increasing with time

If you may find some race where fastest lap is almost 7 seconds slower to pole lap, then you´ll prove me wrong tough

There ya go

Why didn't you just say, I hate the singapore track. Would have saved pages and pages of this rubbish.

I too dislike this track. Happy days

[DiogoBrand]

I believe that the best chance we have, perhaps the only one, is a cost cap.

Or we just accept F1 for what it is and stop trying to change it in to something it isn't/never was.

Whatever change you make, the Law of Unintended Consequences will lead to a result you didn't expect / want.

The risk of unintended consequences is always there, but it shouldn't become an excuse for not trying to improve something.

[Just_a_fan]

The risk of unintended consequences is always there, but it shouldn't become an excuse for not trying to improve something.

The first question one should ask when making any changes to a system is: what consequences might arise?

You can't say "this change is an improvement" until you have made sure that there are no negative consequences.

[DiogoBrand]

The risk of unintended consequences is always there, but it shouldn't become an excuse for not trying to improve something.

The first question one should ask when making any changes to a system is: what consequences might arise?

You can't say "this change is an improvement" until you have made sure that there are no negative consequences.

I am aware of that, I know that introducing a cost cap can actually create more problems than it solves, and every possible outcome of it, or any other change, should be predicted before introducing them.
I'm also aware that as hard as you try, it is impossible to predict every outcome from the changes that can be made, a simple way to see this is to remember how many changes to F1 regulations have completely backfired, perhaps even most of them.

Despite all of this, I believe that changes can, and should be introduced to improve the sport's hability to entertain. I don't expect anything to turn every race into the biggest spectacle in the world as some think it should be, it has never been that way and probably never will, but in my opinion, it can be improved.

[Just_a_fan]

it can be improved.

Define "improved" please.

[DiogoBrand]

it can be improved.

Define "improved" please.

Wasn't my post self explanatory? In other words, I was saying that the entertainment factor of Formula One could possibly be improved by the introduction of a cost cap. If everything went as planned, it would decrease the performance gap from top to bottom and we might not have the top teams in a completely separate championship to the midfield. If we ever get battles for race wins and championships like we do in the midfield, it's difficult to argue that F1 wouldn't become a lot more exciting than it currently is.

Since we're on the cost cap subject, what do you think could be the unintended consequences from it? It's an interesting subject to think about as well.

[henry]

From what I have read in this thread the most uncomfortable aspect of modern F1 is its predictability. Too often, once the opening few laps are over, the teams settle down to bring their cars home in the time they have predicted they will run given their understanding of how to manage their resources.

A key contributor to this situation is the combination of engineering and money.

Engineering takes knowledge (data), applies understanding and implements the results in hardware and processes. The more money the more data can be generated, the more understanding developed and the more implementations produced ( and subjected to data gathering and understanding)

This situation is acknowledged in the regulations that constrain aerodynamic development.

The situation might be “improved” if the same approach were taken to constrain other engineering resources. So restrictions on data and understanding generation. Constrain simulation, particularly driver in the loop. Constrain test bed hours. Constrain tyre testing. with one or maybe zero practice sessions on Friday, maybe many fewer tyres, 13 sets for the season?

By improved I mean the racing will be less predictable, both for the teams and the viewers.

A consequence, predictable and so not unintended, would likely be that an advantage in the early season would likely perpetuate through the year.

I’ve followed F1 since the sixties. I was content when Jim Clark and Lotus won by a country mile, when cars came in two by two in qualifying over all the regulation periods, I get my pleasure from following the designs. But designs are different from current engineering, with its endless refinement of a few design ideas away from the gaze of the casual observer. (Honda have been a breath of fresh air in that respect).

Ramble over. Time for a cup of tea.

[Big Tea]

Right guys, I know I am going to get all sorts of stick for this, but the question has to be asked.

##Is there a time when development should be stopped? Or at least curtailed. ##

The very spirit of F1 is forever pushing progress, but as specs progress they spend more and more to get less and less out of them, but the rich teams spend on 10 tiny improvements which puts them infront.

There is probably no point in setting a model year, such as this year, so what options?
The car you bring to the first race, you use all season, or update every 5 race etc? This would just mean the development 'bulge' would move to preseason but still be there.
I am against a spec series, just the reverse, I like diversity. But as previously pointed out, development converges at a point closest to the need.

I have no idea of the answer, but the question still stands.