F1technical.net

godlameroso wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2020, 17:25

hurril wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2020, 22:53

mzso wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2020, 16:25

Runaways costs, substantial power differences, giving a strong drive towards more efficient designs, troublesome fuel flow policing. Hell it might even allow them to remove other restrictions so we could have a variety of engines. (Unless they think it would increase costs)

They could just all use the same engine then.

All it takes is a standard fuel supplier after next year, since they'll all have the same layout.

No?

Forced-equal engine power is not going to cut costs since there will be an even greater incentive to find an edge. All these things are just naive and half-baked attempts at solving imaginary problems. The differences aren't imaginary, the problems are. You just don't like the fact that Usain Bolt is whipping the competition so you're asking that he be made to wear weights. To cut costs.

hurril wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2020, 23:33

Forced-equal engine power is not going to cut costs since there will be an even greater incentive to find an edge.

Not that you were responding to me, but it would actually shift interest towards other areas.

hurril wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2020, 23:33

The differences aren't imaginary, the problems are.

Nope. Also the huge differences are part of the problems.

What huge differences ? Ferrari is the only outlier power wise and we know why that is. The other 3 are all in the same ballpark.

Differences are part of the sport, otherwise they would all cross the finish line holding hands.

hurril wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2020, 23:33

godlameroso wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2020, 17:25

hurril wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2020, 22:53

They could just all use the same engine then.

All it takes is a standard fuel supplier after next year, since they'll all have the same layout.

No?

Forced-equal engine power is not going to cut costs since there will be an even greater incentive to find an edge. All these things are just naive and half-baked attempts at solving imaginary problems. The differences aren't imaginary, the problems are. You just don't like the fact that Usain Bolt is whipping the competition so you're asking that he be made to wear weights. To cut costs.

What I'm proposing won't force equal engine power, but it'll make the variation smaller. I'm not saying there shouldn't be differences, I'm saying they should be smaller so the human element can compete with the mechanical element. The less the machine makes a difference, then the more the team/human element makes a difference, there needs to be balance between technical and team games to keep things interesting from a spectator perspective. At the same time you can't dilute the purity of F1 being an engineering challenge.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 00:51

The less the machine makes a difference, then the more the team/human element makes a difference, there needs to be balance between technical and team games to keep things interesting from a spectator perspective.

I think what would help most with that is banning radio communications. It's ridiculous that teams collect wast amounts of data and run simulations off site even. And then just tell the driver what to do. (It would also help with cost)
Let them drive on their own and choose pit stops when they feel is the best.

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 02:33

godlameroso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 00:51

The less the machine makes a difference, then the more the team/human element makes a difference, there needs to be balance between technical and team games to keep things interesting from a spectator perspective.

I think what would help most with that is banning radio communications. It's ridiculous that teams collect wast amounts of data and run simulations off site even. And then just tell the driver what to do. (It would also help with cost)
Let them drive on their own and choose pit stops when they feel is the best.

It's a team game.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 00:51

hurril wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2020, 23:33

godlameroso wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2020, 17:25

All it takes is a standard fuel supplier after next year, since they'll all have the same layout.

No?

Forced-equal engine power is not going to cut costs since there will be an even greater incentive to find an edge. All these things are just naive and half-baked attempts at solving imaginary problems. The differences aren't imaginary, the problems are. You just don't like the fact that Usain Bolt is whipping the competition so you're asking that he be made to wear weights. To cut costs.

What I'm proposing won't force equal engine power, but it'll make the variation smaller. I'm not saying there shouldn't be differences, I'm saying they should be smaller so the human element can compete with the mechanical element. The less the machine makes a difference, then the more the team/human element makes a difference, there needs to be balance between technical and team games to keep things interesting from a spectator perspective. At the same time you can't dilute the purity of F1 being an engineering challenge.

I absolutely agree.
What that balance should be is highly subjective of course but both elements are at the core of F1.

godlameroso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 03:14

It's a team game.

Not inherently, or classically. It just got coerced into one, because of lack of meaningful action on the racetrack.

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 12:38

godlameroso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 03:14

It's a team game.

Not inherently, or classically. It just got coerced into one, because of lack of meaningful action on the racetrack.

You do not have the privilege to define inherency the way you do. F1 is both de facto and de jure a team sport. Someone can definitely disagree with that but claiming that it Really(tm) (C) mzso isn't so is just a futile exercise. Even if F1 came to be this way for the reason(s) you name, that's still where we are today.

You make a category error just like so many others in this context. Having different engine and car manufacturers and suppliers means that they want in on The Thing. That is why they're here.

An awesome driver could be in any sort of driving championship and motor racing category, that will come down to the right combination of driver preferences, circumstances and probably money.

A car brand works much like the driver where the emphasis is very likely to be money on some term tenor.

F1 is just one of those combinations of preferences, circumstances and money in the sense that: if your preferences don't match it, then maybe it isn't sport for you. I don't watch Nascar and Hamilton doesn't drive Nascar. That's not because there's anything inherently wrong with it, we just don't like it _as much_.

But you're saying: for Nascar to be reasonable and right, it has to change. I'm saying: no.

(Wow - did I just put myself in the same sentence as Hamilton? that is embarrassing.)

Some data to support @hurril

Since the inception of WCC in 1958 there have been just 10 occasions when the WDC individual didn't drive for the WCC team. That’s 16%. Decade by decade the occasions are:
50s 1
60s 0
70s. 2
80s 4
90s 2
00s. 1
10s. 0

I haven’t checked but I think it likely that those 10 were in the team that finished second.

hurril wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 13:09

You do not have the privilege to define inherency the way you do. F1 is both de facto and de jure a team sport.

It isn't... I just point it out. One driver sits in the car not a 100. You can deny reality all you want, but it will still be there.
Furthermore I fail to see a point in this comment. Just some rant that drifts from one thing to another.

henry wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 14:06

Some data to support @hurril

And what exactly is it supposed to support?

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 17:01

hurril wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 13:09

You do not have the privilege to define inherency the way you do. F1 is both de facto and de jure a team sport.

It isn't... I just point it out. One driver sits in the car not a 100. You can deny reality all you want, but it will still be there.
Furthermore I fail to see a point in this comment. Just some rant that drifts from one thing to another.

henry wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 14:06

Some data to support @hurril

And what exactly is it supposed to support?

It shows that over the totality of existence of the WCC the WDC has been part of a team not an individual. That they get a special prize is an anomaly.

mzso wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 17:01

hurril wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 13:09

You do not have the privilege to define inherency the way you do. F1 is both de facto and de jure a team sport.

It isn't... I just point it out. One driver sits in the car not a 100. You can deny reality all you want, but it will still be there.
Furthermore I fail to see a point in this comment. Just some rant that drifts from one thing to another.

henry wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 14:06

Some data to support @hurril

And what exactly is it supposed to support?

1. Each driver sits in: a) a team car or: b) not a team car.
2. There is a constructors championship: a) true; b) false.
3. There are: a) team orders; b) not - because:
4. Brands care about: a) the outcome; b) not.

Count your points.

Besides: aren't you saying that it is unfair that _ONE OF THE BLEEPIN' TEAMS_ has too much money/ power/ resources so the fruits of their labour has to be curtailed somewhat. So reality as well as your argument here are both in favour of my line. Yes?

Why not settle for a nice high revving noisy spec ICE and let them develop the electric part?

BMW, Audi, Toyota, Hyundai & Ford are not interested in competing with an ICE, Honda isn’t anymore and who knows for how long Merc & Renault will be there.

NL_Fer wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2020, 19:56

Why not settle for a nice high revving noisy spec ICE and let them develop the electric part?

I don't think they will go backwards in technology.