2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

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.
stephenwh
stephenwh
0
Joined: 15 Jan 2014, 02:45

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

Cam wrote:
stephenwh wrote:Looking at everything I would say F1 got it just about perfect...the lap times are going to come down as the teams understand this new formula better, and as the engines get updates. I really don't see what the problem is at all...the FIA is supposed to slow the cars down a bit with each major change...
So the FIA is supposed to slow the cars down?? Here I was thinking they were responsible for "the licensing and arbitration of Formula One".

Well, they need to tell that MrE before someone applies for a 'false and mis-leading' advertising case. Because I bought F1 and when I got it home it wasn't as described on the package.

In that case, a revised F1 brand should be:
Formula 1® racing is a test of machine with a ballast of man, made by the FIA and it reserves the right to slow, uglify, and quieten the cars (the 'formula') - while keeping car and driver well within their limits in an ever increasing search for 'economy' - but not cash economy - the FIA and FOM encourage as much cash spending as whoever is willing to pass it over. The 'one goal - speed', is replaced by the one goal 'it's the car, stupid', whereby only the results of the car is deemed to be relevant to a drivers performance.
Yep, that'll do it. If that is published on the F1 site, then I have no argument to give.
I don't understand why you are getting so bent out of shape. It's a very simple concept - the teams try to get as much speed out of the cars as possible, the FIA in the name of safety makes sure formula changes slow down the cars to offset the rapid development, they do a good job of getting everyone to agree to the changes and making the process of slowing down the cars not too drastic.

Your last paragraph is just a head scratcher. The teams made ugly cars this year, not the FIA, and besides not all of them are ugly, I personally think the Mercedes is a beautiful car. There isn't one goal, there is two. Speed and Safety.

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

stephenwh wrote:I don't understand why you are getting so bent out of shape. It's a very simple concept - the teams try to get as much speed out of the cars as possible, the FIA in the name of safety makes sure formula changes slow down the cars to offset the rapid development, they do a good job of getting everyone to agree to the changes and making the process of slowing down the cars not too drastic.
We're discussing if 2014 is too slow or not. While you seem content with having slower cars appear - some do not. My point is to illustrate the clear disconnect between what F1 advertises and what it delivers. When you sell "speed" and then put cars on the track that lap slower than the previous year - that's an issue.
stephenwh wrote:The teams made ugly cars this year, not the FIA...
The teams can only build to the constraints of the rules. So the FIA hold some responsibility for how the cars appear, perform etc.
stephenwh wrote:There isn't one goal, there is two. Speed and Safety.
Well, no. The exact wording is "Formula 1® racing is the ultimate test of man and machine - pushing car and driver to their absolute limits in pursuit of one simple goal. Speed." No mention of safety there. In fact, the word "safety" is not mentioned anywhere in that full brand statement on the F1 page. So I'm taking the literal interpretation of what F1 is selling the public. While we can debate the 'theoretical' - black and white is harder to argue against.

Customers have a right to get what they pay for. While the discussion continues on whether the cars are in fact faster or not, I think it's important to hold up the benchmark that 'speed' is what F1 sells, so it's up to us to decide, as fans, whether F1 is delivering on it's promises. My opinion is - at the moment, no, F1 is not.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

stephenwh
stephenwh
0
Joined: 15 Jan 2014, 02:45

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

Yeah and I just don't get it. The cars are actually harder to drive this year, and are a few seconds slower than last year, they were faster at Monaco than GP2, so what is the problem? I bet most of the laptime lost is clawed back by mid-season of next year...it really isn't that big of a deal *shrug*. They slow the cars down when they introduce a new set of rules packages for safety reasons...it really doesn't matter to me if that reality is marketed or not, because of 1994 it simply makes sense. So no, the cars are not too slow. :)

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

that's ok, we disagree. Maybe I'm just too insistent that the cars and drivers should be pushed each year - making incremental steps in performance while innovating new ways to achieve that. I'll be okay. I'll sit by myself over here, all alone......
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

The teams made ugly cars this year, not the FIA
For quite some time the rules have dictated the cars we see.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

Cam wrote:
pushing car and driver to their absolute limits in pursuit of one simple goal. Speed
Not sure "lift and coast" counts here? Flat out every lap does though.
Do you know in 1988 with those amazing F1s they also needed to save fuel?

Cam wrote:
Innovation, glamour, excitement, speed and excellence - the F1 brand is a powerful symbol and has long denoted and identified a fine and distinctive partnership between sporting and technological excellence, embracing its historical roots whilst looking forward to the challenges of the future to maintain its position as the very pinnacle of motor racing.
This is where the disconnect between what F1 is and what we are currently seeing, begins. So I simply cannot agree with anyone that "speed" isn't everything, when that's the motto of the sport. I would suggest the same people read that statement in full and attempt to convince me otherwise.
I wonder if you´re complaining about this since the 80´s, because that would be the only reasonable way to complain. Since then F1 cars have never been what they could be, 2014 regulations didn´t change anything, it´s the same they´re doing since then.

So if the problem is GP2 cars and World Series came too close, let´s put some more restrictions to those categories and problem solved, but F1 cars CANT be faster while they use urban tracks. Safety reasons, like it or not.

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

I recall a situation where annual exams were held for a large we'll know computer company. The pass mark was 80%. So many people failed to get that mark that, rather than fix the lack of skill, they reduced the pass mark.

Just cause it is, doesn't mean we have to accept it.

I've accepted I'm in the minority here (as I was when speaking out about the pass mark reduction). That people are happy to dumb down things in order for them to be acceptable, appalls me, but when you're in the minority, it doesn't matter.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

Interesting piece with Dieter Zetsche on Mercedes' approach to F1.
Sky Sports wrote:"There has to be an intelligent business decision and of course the motivation is marketing," Zetsche said. "We want to present our brand and we do believe there is no better place to present the brand than in our core marketing in our core business, which is engines, cars and therefore racing."

[...]

"With the objective to save fuel, be efficient and have very high performance, that's exactly what we have to do with our production cars and we use exactly the same technical components," he added.

"That's why it's making even more sense with the regulations than in the past."
In one fell swoop, we see the reality of F1 marketing and the road-to-track nature of technology transfer.

And it's precisely why I think F1 is so slow. They're trying to serve too many masters.

Sevach
Sevach
1081
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 17:00

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

Cam wrote:I recall a situation where annual exams were held for a large we'll know computer company. The pass mark was 80%. So many people failed to get that mark that, rather than fix the lack of skill, they reduced the pass mark.

Just cause it is, doesn't mean we have to accept it.

I've accepted I'm in the minority here (as I was when speaking out about the pass mark reduction). That people are happy to dumb down things in order for them to be acceptable, appalls me, but when you're in the minority, it doesn't matter.
I'm not sure it's a minority this time, even non hardcore guys are pretty pissed with the lack of sound, fuel saving, eletric power...

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)as

Post

bhall wrote:And it's precisely why I think F1 is so slow. They're trying to serve too many masters.
Agree. I think.

F1 had a great product. It was fast, exciting, dangerous. That's what lured the best drivers, engineers and in turn, the big money. That's also what pulled the crowd. Somewhere, that big money took over. F1 was no longer just about being fast, exciting, dangerous - it had to turn a profit. And a large one at that. To do that they had to grow the audience. To keep doing that they needed data. Say hello market research. Between t-shirts, posters and pit walks, all grossly over-priced, the sport got 'Kelloged' to death trying to find something everyone wanted. This is what killed the 'purist' F1.

In trying to appease every one (to get the cash), they changed what it was that attracted them there originally.

The fact there's a debate at all if F1 is "too slow", tells the whole story really. It should never be questioned in the first place.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

God,, I could not agree more Cam.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)as

Post

Cam wrote:
bhall wrote:And it's precisely why I think F1 is so slow. They're trying to serve too many masters.
Agree. I think.

[...]
Even if you take every justification for the current state of F1 at face value, it's quickly apparent that the sport is somewhat lost within its own mythology.

A testing ban may very well limit some costs as intended, but it also degrades the quality of racing, because it makes it more difficult for teams to improve their cars. The result is often a runaway winner. (Though, to be fair, in-season testing did very little to stop the MP4/4, FW14, F2002, F2004, etc.)

The process of standardization and homologation may very well limit the cost of some components, but they also stifle innovation, which is the very lifeblood of F1, and increases the cost of others.

The idea that F1 needs to be road relevant may indeed help justify the costs of participation to automakers, but it's a facet of the sport that's never existed before and tries to incorporate technologies that are often diametrically opposed to racing.

It may be desirable to reduce the influence of aerodynamics in the sport, but such reductions bring with them considerable and irreplaceable losses. The cars have been at or over the limit of usable engine power for decades; it's generally only been aerodynamic advances that have made them quicker.

The ban on refueling has absolutely saved the cost of transporting fuel rigs around the globe - believe it or not, one of the original justifications for the ban - but it's made the cars both slower and, somewhat ironically, less efficient.

The move to a single tire supplier has undoubtedly saved testing costs, but it's created a new paradigm in which the tires are far more often too conservative or too aggressive than they are exactly right and, thus, most efficient.

These are all tasks the sport thinks it can accomplish and simultaneously remain "the pinnacle of motorsport," simply because F1 thinks it's mighty and can do anything. The net result, however, is that teams are being forced to jump through very expensive hoops to create cars that are only marginally more capable than those found in GP2 and The World Series by Renault for often 100x less money. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize it doesn't quite add up.

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

My day to agree with people I usually am on the opposite side of the fence from. :wink:
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

tuj
tuj
15
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 15:50

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

So here is the thing I don't understand: you want the cars to get faster and faster every year? Well that comes at a price; you will have more driver deaths every year or statistics-wise. It's a simple fact, speed kills. No matter how heavy or strong you make the monocoque, someone is going to die for your lust for speed.

Now if you are ok with Hamilton or Vettel biting the dust in the heat of racing, then fine. But if you are not, then the FIA/F1 does have to do something to slow the cars down from the ever increasing development.

How many of you have played GT5 or GT6 where they let Adrian Newey design the 'ultimate' car? It's a car that has fairings over the wheels and a closed cockpit and it a 'fan car' like the 2J of yore. A car like that in reality can pull probably 7 or 8 lateral g's. But what happens if something goes wrong? If the sucker-fan breaks mid-corner? If a tire blows out? Yeah most of the accidents at modern tracks the drivers will walk away from, but at some point you are going to reach the limits of human being.

Have you seen the Red Bull air race stuff? They put a G limiter on those guys at I think 10g's or so, so they aren't blacking out at 100' above the ground pulling super-tight turns. Is that what you want F1 to become?

I want to see what unrestricted F1 could do too, but in the name of safety it's probably best that we don't.

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: 2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

Post

tuj wrote:So here is the thing I don't understand: you want the cars to get faster and faster every year? Well that comes at a price; you will have more driver deaths every year or statistics-wise. It's a simple fact, speed kills. No matter how heavy or strong you make the monocoque, someone is going to die for your lust for speed.

[...]
While I genuinely understand the motivation, I typically don't buy into such polemical statements, because the only form of motorsport that's 100% safe doesn't exist, nor will it ever. From then I think the question becomes, what's worth the inherent risk of racing? I'm no racing driver, but I'd probably rather die doing something at the bleeding edge of what's capable - no pun intended - than in the process of a homogenized and convoluted marketing exercise.

Beyond that, Formula 1 hasn't suffered a fatality since 1994, despite the fact that speeds reached historical highs some ten years later. Both car and circuit design have improved dramatically from a safety standpoint.

Image

There was a time when that would have been fatal. Instead, Kubica missed one race and then finished in 4th place at his next event three weeks later.

It took far less in terms of speed to virtually end his career as a top-tier driver when he crashed in 2011 in a car and on a track that were both nowhere near current F1 standards.

Image