Putin can smile?!!TAG wrote:
Can't hardly wait.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
While the initial Russian Grand Prix result left Mercedes 6 points short of securing their second consecutive Constructors' Championship, a penalty for Kimi Räikkönen has now sealed Mercedes' title.
Putin can smile?!!TAG wrote:
Can't hardly wait.
No, blame the lack of competitiveness at the front. And yeah, the blame is with the other big teams/engine manufacturers for not doing as well as Mercedes, not Mercedes for doing so wellVasconia wrote:Spa has been always my favourite race track but I find quite worrying that last years races habe been quite boring for this track´s standards. Should I blame the cars or its simply a coincidence?f1316 wrote:But let's be honest: the track doesn't usually 'make' the race. What was the consensus on spa and Suzuka as circuits? Great, right? But were the races particularly entertaining? No.
.
The lack of rains plays also a role.
i dont agree... i blame the idiotic engine restrictions .f1316 wrote:No, blame the lack of competitiveness at the front. And yeah, the blame is with the other big teams/engine manufacturers for not doing as well as Mercedes, not Mercedes for doing so wellVasconia wrote:Spa has been always my favourite race track but I find quite worrying that last years races habe been quite boring for this track´s standards. Should I blame the cars or its simply a coincidence?f1316 wrote:But let's be honest: the track doesn't usually 'make' the race. What was the consensus on spa and Suzuka as circuits? Great, right? But were the races particularly entertaining? No.
.
The lack of rains plays also a role.
So you must not have watched many races this season, because Renault or Honda engines are blowing left and right.giantfan10 wrote: i would much rather watch teams pushing the envelope and blowing up engines than have the one manufacturer that got it right coast with a built in advantage...
Merc had the most powerful engine even before the token system. And there's no telling of the gap would shrink or expand with no restrictions. After all, the manufacturer that managed to get turbo V6s right first would be equally likely to be the first to see more gains early as well. They were considerably ahead of the other engines last year, and would've been building on that powerplant more, while everyone else was scrapping their original designs and creating new ones. It's really hard to say how development would've gone. All we know is teams agreed on the current system without the aid of hindsight. This was an acceptable solution at the time. PEACE.giantfan10 wrote: i dont agree... i blame the idiotic engine restrictions .
i would much rather watch teams pushing the envelope and blowing up engines than have the one manufacturer that got it right coast with a built in advantage... so much so that at the halfway point of the season they are testing solutions for next year.
i could care less how much formula 1 teams spend or would spend in a wide open arms race....its their money..let them spend it and give us fans real innovation andtrue competition
Rightly said. Look at Honda. For one full year, they had their hands laid on the class leading PU in 2014, with McLaren then using the Merc PU. When they had no restriction of tokens in 2014 to develop their PU, there was no in season development of PU allowed for Merc, Ferrari and Renault. Still, Honda totally screwed it and even with the help of tokens this year, they haven't got it right. There is nothing to strongly suggest that, even if there were no restrictions on PU development, the manufacturer who got it right first time and has immense budget and capabilities to develop, would have been outdone by others who got it wrong first time.pimpwerx wrote:Merc had the most powerful engine even before the token system. And there's no telling of the gap would shrink or expand with no restrictions. After all, the manufacturer that managed to get turbo V6s right first would be equally likely to be the first to see more gains early as well. They were considerably ahead of the other engines last year, and would've been building on that powerplant more, while everyone else was scrapping their original designs and creating new ones. It's really hard to say how development would've gone. All we know is teams agreed on the current system without the aid of hindsight. This was an acceptable solution at the time. PEACE.giantfan10 wrote: i dont agree... i blame the idiotic engine restrictions .
i would much rather watch teams pushing the envelope and blowing up engines than have the one manufacturer that got it right coast with a built in advantage... so much so that at the halfway point of the season they are testing solutions for next year.
i could care less how much formula 1 teams spend or would spend in a wide open arms race....its their money..let them spend it and give us fans real innovation andtrue competition
I doubt they had much access to the engine, but I'm certain they did learn a few things from it.GPR-A wrote:Rightly said. Look at Honda. For one full year, they had their hands laid on the class leading PU in 2014, with McLaren then using the Merc PU. When they had no restriction of tokens in 2014 to develop their PU, there was no in season development of PU allowed for Merc, Ferrari and Renault. Still, Honda totally screwed it and even with the help of tokens this year, they haven't got it right. There is nothing to strongly suggest that, even if there were no restrictions on PU development, the manufacturer who got it right first time and has immense budget and capabilities to develop, would have been outdone by others who got it wrong first time.pimpwerx wrote:Merc had the most powerful engine even before the token system. And there's no telling of the gap would shrink or expand with no restrictions. After all, the manufacturer that managed to get turbo V6s right first would be equally likely to be the first to see more gains early as well. They were considerably ahead of the other engines last year, and would've been building on that powerplant more, while everyone else was scrapping their original designs and creating new ones. It's really hard to say how development would've gone. All we know is teams agreed on the current system without the aid of hindsight. This was an acceptable solution at the time. PEACE.giantfan10 wrote: i dont agree... i blame the idiotic engine restrictions .
i would much rather watch teams pushing the envelope and blowing up engines than have the one manufacturer that got it right coast with a built in advantage... so much so that at the halfway point of the season they are testing solutions for next year.
i could care less how much formula 1 teams spend or would spend in a wide open arms race....its their money..let them spend it and give us fans real innovation andtrue competition
On the con side. Just like the way it is today, Manufacturers are pushing the cost of development to customers and if there was a free for all development, the manufacturers would have spent billions and would have continued to push it to customers. As it is, teams like Force India and Sauber have been surviving with some favors from their manufacturers and if in case of free development, these teams would have clearly quit the competition due to heavy costs which couldn't have afforded. Let's not even talk about Manors and Haas'.
I was refering to those two specificic examples. And what happens with SPA began before the Mercedes domination.f1316 wrote:No, blame the lack of competitiveness at the front. And yeah, the blame is with the other big teams/engine manufacturers for not doing as well as Mercedes, not Mercedes for doing so wellVasconia wrote:Spa has been always my favourite race track but I find quite worrying that last years races habe been quite boring for this track´s standards. Should I blame the cars or its simply a coincidence?f1316 wrote:But let's be honest: the track doesn't usually 'make' the race. What was the consensus on spa and Suzuka as circuits? Great, right? But were the races particularly entertaining? No.
.
The lack of rains plays also a role.
What happened with Ferrari was a huge failure. As you have correctly mentioned this was the perfect chance for them to show how to build a car with a great engine and good balance between chasis and PU. Fortunately taking into account how much they have improved they could be a contender in 2016.f1316 wrote:Yeah, good points in all of the above, to be fair. My take is that less restrictions allow more back and forth in performance, less predictability, and as Ron Dennis said, the cost saved is negated/outweighed by the constant reliability tests on the dynos.
But it does still boggle my mind that Ferrari, for one, failed to invest enough in 2014 - it was like it was all a bit of a shock to them. This was their chance, as a complete *car* developer - all inclusive under the one roof - to get ahead of Red Bull, who they weren't able to beat on chassis dev during the preceding years. It was also patently obvious for years prior that Mercedes were super confident - Ross Brawn mentioned it all the time - so why this didn't make Ferrari twig that they needed to fully capitalise is beyond me.
But yeah, you're all right that the regs preventing people from catching up does not help.
You mean this way....Vasconia wrote:Holy s.... Puttin for the pole!
