New party mode regulation

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
jz11
jz11
37
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:32 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

dans79 wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:45 am
Wass85 wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:21 am
Surely you agree it's pathetic that you have to be told when or when not to use them.
Nah, I don't subscribe to the they need to be gladiators mindset.

If the rules weren't written by people who think the 80's was the best decade ever, they'd have a modern computer system on board monitoring everything. The cockpit would look more like one in a fighter jet, and they'd have no need to get anything other than tactical information from the pits.

Instead what we have is a convoluted system of home base personnel passing information to the pitwall, and the pitwall passing a subset of that to the driver. Sometimes I think the number one requirement for being a member of the FIA, is to be anti-technology, and a few other negative mindsets.
so it would be quite logical to eliminate the drivers championship - since the role they actually play is very little, most of the job is done by the team - looking for the places where gains can be made, where to conserve, how much and when to charge ERS and where to deploy it, then the driver just executes it, drives to delta times and so on

there is no mystery why Vettel was beaten by Ricci so hard the year he was leaving RB, Ricci leaving RB and getting crushed by Max - same thing, now Vettel leaving Ferrari and being obliterated by Charles - do you see a pattern here?

pits/team has waaaaaay too much control about how the driver actually performs on the track

locking in engine modes, make the driver think where, how and when he should manage his fuel, disable preprogrammed ERS mapping and dumbing it down would be the best thing to make this actually competitive in regards to drivers, rather than them having little more than a role of a bus/taxi driver, ok, more buttons and switches - cargo plane captain then - still, they follow a script, they make basically zero strategic decisions - that takes A LOT away from the performance

User avatar
Sieper
149
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:19 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

Yes I see a pattern. the beaten driver goes away. The winning driver stays. that pattern is quite well known in racing as in live.
Just a personal interest, a Family recreating a WW2 May 1940 Dutch warbird from scratch: https://www.facebook.com/FlyingFokkerD21/

Wass85
Wass85
-19
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:11 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

At least with KERS you had the potential to give the drivers the opportunity to try and out fox each but even then they were told over the radio where the other guy is deploying his charge.

Drivers should be left to improvise for themselves, KERS was a great idea IMO.

User avatar
nzjrs
119
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Austria

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

Wass85 wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:18 am
At least with KERS you had the potential to give the drivers the opportunity to try and out fox each but even then they were told over the radio where the other guy is deploying his charge.

Drivers should be left to improvise for themselves, KERS was a great idea IMO.
I sit somewhere between you and dan79. I liked manual KERS deploy and the strategy it could throw up. I like now that they will limit the modes - which I generoulsy see as having the side-benefit of the pit wall stopping requesting mode switches every few laps.

I want F1 to be a high tech jet fighter however I want the drivers the ability and responsibility to blow up the engine.

I would like a slight return to 'driving the car unaided'. That means if there were multiple modes in the car, the driver can choose them and bear the consequences on reliability - no pitwall intervention with 'you can't run strat 17'. I acknowledge that means the teams might put in failsafes, but it still lets the driver likely be greedy on the deploy button and affect their lap / race pace or reliability.

jz11
jz11
37
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:32 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

Sieper wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:46 am
Yes I see a pattern. the beaten driver goes away. The winning driver stays. that pattern is quite well known in racing as in live.
I'm at an awe from how much effort it takes to come to a conclusion as elegant as that...

Wass85
Wass85
-19
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:11 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

nzjrs wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:38 am
Wass85 wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:18 am
At least with KERS you had the potential to give the drivers the opportunity to try and out fox each but even then they were told over the radio where the other guy is deploying his charge.

Drivers should be left to improvise for themselves, KERS was a great idea IMO.
I sit somewhere between you and dan79. I liked manual KERS deploy and the strategy it could throw up. I like now that they will limit the modes - which I generoulsy see as having the side-benefit of the pit wall stopping requesting mode switches every few laps.

I want F1 to be a high tech jet fighter however I want the drivers the ability and responsibility to blow up the engine.

I would like a slight return to 'driving the car unaided'. That means if there were multiple modes in the car, the driver can choose them and bear the consequences on reliability - no pitwall intervention with 'you can't run strat 17'. I acknowledge that means the teams might put in failsafes, but it still lets the driver likely be greedy on the deploy button and affect their lap / race pace or reliability.
I'm not sure if they could do this with the complexity of these power units but I'd sooner it be settled by gear ratios and downforce levels, if drivers have some sort of deployment ready at hand they have to decide when and where to use it.

User avatar
Sieper
149
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:19 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

jz11 wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:18 am
Sieper wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:46 am
Yes I see a pattern. the beaten driver goes away. The winning driver stays. that pattern is quite well known in racing as in live.
I'm at an awe from how much effort it takes to come to a conclusion as elegant as that...
It was a strenuous effort :D . As much as I usually like to go into "alternative reality theories" I always find these, "the outgoing driver got screwed on purpose by the team" a bit far fetched. Leclerc was quite fast in qualy last year also and on the other hand Vettel has also won his duels this year, or got the better strategy (f.e. in Hungary). Often these strategies are not meant to screw one driver in favor of the other, but a driver can also be in a position in the race that you take a gamble. F.e. last year in germany Lance Stroll was beat and as a consequence they put him on the dry tire very early. It gave him a great result. Above what he deserved on merit, but just as he was in that position that a gamble would not loose him much. If it would have been too wet afterall and he would have have to come in again you could argue he got screwed to test the dry tire for his teammate. Those kind of arguments you read almost every race topic. But you have to look at both sides of the medal when looking at strategies. Sure there are lead drivers, also when teams don't want to admit it, that is not too strange.

Hopefully I can get an A for effort now, although likely you will not agree.
Just a personal interest, a Family recreating a WW2 May 1940 Dutch warbird from scratch: https://www.facebook.com/FlyingFokkerD21/

jz11
jz11
37
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:32 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

not getting screwed over, just not getting as much help as the other guy - BIG difference in this era of overcomplicated space ships they pilot

for instance - Albon is not nearly as bad as results would make you believe, he simply is a running testbed to maximize Maxes performance, often he is put on a "meaningless" strategy very different to Maxes to see how the different tyre performs for instance, and the team is backing him all the way post race because of that, also they don't need his points in consttuctors race anyway

what I'm trying to say is - driver for a while, has not been in control of the race he is participating in, he drives to a simulated result, if he performs well, the team keeps him, if he is constantly behind simulation or makes too many mistakes, he gets replaced

that is why I said - drivers title means little any more, maybe in between teammates in Mercedes, because they are that much above the rest, they can afford to run equal opportunity strat, but RB or Ferrari - that is just not the case, the rest of the field - again different story, they'll try to maximise constructors point first

some may like this, due to respect to the team, the amount of evolution in technology that led to this, me - not so much, because - like I said, driver role has been engineered out as much as possible to get bettet, more consistent, result and not be dependent on them

edit: not trying to make anyone take the red pill, but denying it may exist is basically lie in itself

kalinka
kalinka
9
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

Just bring on "push to pass". It works well in Indycar and Formula-E ...oh yeah..and forget FanBoost or s**t like that :)

User avatar
Sieper
149
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:19 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

jz11 wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:51 am
not getting screwed over, just not getting as much help as the other guy - BIG difference in this era of overcomplicated space ships they pilot

for instance - Albon is not nearly as bad as results would make you believe, he simply is a running testbed to maximize Maxes performance, often he is put on a "meaningless" strategy very different to Maxes to see how the different tyre performs for instance, and the team is backing him all the way post race because of that, also they don't need his points in consttuctors race anyway

what I'm trying to say is - driver for a while, has not been in control of the race he is participating in, he drives to a simulated result, if he performs well, the team keeps him, if he is constantly behind simulation or makes too many mistakes, he gets replaced

that is why I said - drivers title means little any more, maybe in between teammates in Mercedes, because they are that much above the rest, they can afford to run equal opportunity strat, but RB or Ferrari - that is just not the case, the rest of the field - again different story, they'll try to maximise constructors point first

some may like this, due to respect to the team, the amount of evolution in technology that led to this, me - not so much, because - like I said, driver role has been engineered out as much as possible to get bettet, more consistent, result and not be dependent on them

edit: not trying to make anyone take the red pill, but denying it may exist is basically lie in itself
That depends on if you are willing to honoustly look at the strategies given. Or not. F.e. Albon, white tires in spain I think it was? People said, test for Max. Could be true. Or could just have been what RBR thought best (allthough a gamble) for Albon himself. Same in spa, Albon on yellow. Max was always only going to do yellow white. No need to be a tested. That is just reaching by people who want to believe Albon gets given less help. Yellow was not weird at all. On same compound he would not have overtaken Ricci. On softer he stood a chance. And there could have been a later safety car which would then have been great for him. RBR was trying to help Albon and he needed that.

I believe in Albon but I don’t agree he is testbed. Not I Any different way then Max was that for Ricci. It was always Max running the aero test etc.
Just a personal interest, a Family recreating a WW2 May 1940 Dutch warbird from scratch: https://www.facebook.com/FlyingFokkerD21/

jz11
jz11
37
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:32 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

I'm more than happy to agree to disagreement :) let's not derail the thread too much with this discussion

but I'll say again - I think this is a good change that may lead to drivers having to do more with their right foot in regards to fuel and pace management, at least - the intention behind the change seems legitimate

that being said - so far Merc have been at least couple steps before anyone else (with the exception of Silverstone, where they were simply overconfident), and I don't think it will change a lot in regards to overall competitiveness this year or the next, in regards to race wins anyway

User avatar
etusch
191
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Turkey

Re: New party mode regulation

Post


dans79
dans79
377
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

nzjrs wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:38 am
I want F1 to be a high tech jet fighter however I want the drivers the ability and responsibility to blow up the engine.
The only reason this doesn't happen anymore, is because the FIA has this false delusion of green auto racing, so the engines need to last 7 grand prix and you are penalized if they don't. It's also one of the reasons why costs are sky high!
172 100 99 7

User avatar
Sieper
149
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:19 pm

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

Wasn't there also an agreement all engines should be within max 3% difference of eachother?
Just a personal interest, a Family recreating a WW2 May 1940 Dutch warbird from scratch: https://www.facebook.com/FlyingFokkerD21/

User avatar
henry
327
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: New party mode regulation

Post

Here we are on F1Technical with lots of people arguing that they don’t like technology.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus