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.
A chap 'FlukieLucas' wrote how the rules for 2010 made for a pretty predictable season of races. I tend to agree! (Abu Dhabi was especially boring but should have been fabulously exciting-more so than Brazil in 2008)
I just thought it was me that had grown bored, with the races especially, but even qualifying (my favorite part previously) seemed more predictable for me this year (low fuel loads).
I had been a supporter of 'no more refueling' but during 2010 wondered if things would have been more 'interesting' (more unknowns, mistakes, different strategies, fuel loads, etc) and thus less predictable if the rules were unchanged from those in 2009.
2011, Maybe with KERS, simple diffusers and adjustable rear wings things may be better but....
I have been wondering, when the new engine rules change (1.6 4cyl turbo) that I just might so goodbye as a fervent fan of F1 since 1988?
The sound of screaming non-turbo engines is one of the greatest likes for me, both first hand and via TV. But the restrictions of first no 12 cylinder engines, then no 10 cylinder and now 18,000 rpm V-8's with odd off power sounds, makes the sound progressively less and less interesting. And Aero is as important as ever but the racing and passing no greater.
Pace cars/running order/track position really needs attention, to add more mix up and competition, it ruined more than 1 race this year!
I, for one, do not necessarily see that F1 needs to be 'real world' relevant, Avatar (movie) was not reality and F1 is as purely for entertainment as a movie (both have produced new and valuable tech to produce that entertainment).
So, maybe we should add back refueling (and unfortunately the danger/expense) and anything else (smaller wings front and rear, bigger tires) that will improve the show and mix it up more!!
[-o<
hmmm... this season wasn't predictable, but I agree that the strategies were predictable this year. Fortunately, some very closely matched car/driver/team combinations gave us drama.
You could argue that the boring approach to strategy was fundamental in preventing one team running away with the championship. It removed the "get out of jail card" for drivers who ended up out of position. Remember in 2009 when Button sometimes had a poor quali, but strategy moved him up the field during the race?
To conclude, it was a very exciting unpredictable season. It would be great if variable strategy was added to the mix, but not if the strategy kills the tension we saw this year.
ps - lazy journalism by James Allen - he said "Tomorrow I’ll explain why 2011 will be a completely different story." Trouble is that he didn't. Doh!
I have been watching F1 since the age of 5. thats through the original Turbo era (1.5L turbo charged 4 cyclinders, Turbo V6 and normally aspirated V12's and V8's
there were some boring years, there were some really exciting years but basically there was a lot of room for innovation.
30 years lter a lot of innovation has been scrapped and it becomes tougher for the engineers to find an advantage, yet they do e.g. F-Duct.
What is consistent is that as the technoogy in F1 improved, the racing degraded.
this is true of anything in life. Think of corporte enterprises. These used to be fun places to work, these days everything is about process and automation. Suddenly you're ham strung by rules. There i no room left for individuals to stand head and shoulders above the rest, its all "teamwork".
F1 used to be a racing formula that tried to produce the fastest race cars and indentify the bravest pilots and reward both.
These days with the corporate influence its more about the team and the car (which is the moving bit of advertising that sponsors pay for).
Fact of life.
I look forward to the 1.6L turbo engines. I hope that more manufacturers wil get involved, I hope that the racing will be closer. I hope that Ferrari will shut up and stop poiticing (I hope in vain).
F1 has become more than a sport, it has become a show case for technology and at some point, that technology has to become relevant since its paid for by shareholders, there has to be a return and spinoffs of the technolgy only maximises the return.
you cannot want the best technology and expect it not to be relevant. Thats naive.
Raptor - We can see that lack of innovation in the cars becoming more mechanically reliable as they get less mechanically experimental. Innovation inevitably leads to failures as well as success. So when the regs are tuned to get rid of eccentrics we see more homogeneous cars, and reliability improves too.
Remember when we could watch a race with that excitement/anxiety of wondering if the car would actually finish? In 1984, 69% of entrants failed to finish, and if you only look at those who actually qualified, 54% of starters failed to finish. In 2009, only 20% failed to finish.
So it has got a little dull because cars are able to hold position without things falling off or exploding! Also, there are no jokers in the pack, cars typically qualify, race and finish within a couple of places of their normal position. Imagine if you had cars that struggled to to stay in one piece as they went around the track, that gets a bit more excitement.
I really don't understand why people make such a big fuss about overtaking in F1. If the fastest car puts it on pole and doesn't have any technical gremlins, it's pretty obvious who's going to win the race. the rest of the order doesn't really matter.
sticky667 wrote:I really don't understand why people make such a big fuss about overtaking in F1. If the fastest car puts it on pole and doesn't have any technical gremlins, it's pretty obvious who's going to win the race. the rest of the order doesn't really matter.
The solution is simply to introduce blue shells. That'd teach them to be winning and all.
You mean the races are predictable individually, or the season as a whole?
I think the relationship between qualifying position and race position has been discussed extensively many times before, but I just can't help thinking - The rules getting more rigid might have played a part in getting performance levels closer between teams. If you look at the past five years you could say, on average, it has been a closer title fight than maybe compared to the Ferrari-era, don't you think?
I mean, if we can't have closer races, it's still good to have closer seasons, IMO. Look at this year's title race, at least it provided a somewhat exciting finale...
Richard, Interesting insight on the effect of reliability.
Reliability is also a child of current engineering practices and rule stability, particularly wrt to engines.
Its all really a child of the age we live in. The only ways to make racing more exciting is to throw some of the technology away e.g Semi auto gearboxes, whilst freeing up other areas such as engine development.
the 1.6L formula is exciting from thisperspective since they could be based n production blocks and cylinder heads which means there is plenty scope for innovation a d touch of unreliability whilst these engines are developed.
Whats Interesting is that Alain Prost was dead against the 3.5L enginesthat were mandated from 1989 onward. He said then he would have prefered to see a more efficient engine like a 1L turbo introduced..
Now we're almost ful circle back to 1988 when the winning engine was a 1.5L V6 Twin turbo. (one turbo per bank)
BMW's 1.5L turbo was based on the unit used in their M3 model
I'd be happy with simply enforcing penalties across the board. Too many rules are written so vaguely and enforced so lazily and without consistent punishments we never know who the stewards and the FIA are going to screw over to help influence a result. Set the rules in stone, written in clear and concise wording and then punishing infringements consistently and F1 would be better for it. I'm so sick and tired of rules being ignored or not enforced to the full extent and seeing the results skewed. The FIA is more to blame for race influence than the teams could ever dream to be.
sticky667 wrote:I really don't understand why people make such a big fuss about overtaking in F1. If the fastest car puts it on pole and doesn't have any technical gremlins, it's pretty obvious who's going to win the race. the rest of the order doesn't really matter.
The solution is simply to introduce blue shells. That'd teach them to be winning and all.
some good coments and discussions going on here, so I will just throw my hat in the ring as well.
I know, that many people only blame the aero for the lack of overtaking, and are sure that with GE cars and less wings things will automaticly become better.
This jumps a little bit short IMHO. Let me give an example VSupercars Australia,
large chunky powerful sedans with V8engines and skinny tires in relation to the car weight and power. These cars have more power then tire/aero and you can get wheel spin in 3rd gear, no problem. They have some wings and a font splitter, but overall the aero in minute, compare to F1 or even DTM.
STill, there is a lack of overtaking, and most races are processional. Why? To much downforce/aero? No far from, the reason is another.
The cars are more or less all the same, due to the rules. Same brake package, same tire, same gearbox same weight etc.
Some small differences in setup,spring,dampers mot more.
These cars qualify regluary within 2/10th for the top 10, it´s extremely close, at times the difference between pole and 2nd is 1 or 2/100th of a second.
Throw 10 drivers into the mix, which are more or less equally good, and you have an answer. Where should the overtaking come from? THe performance level and the the level of the drivers are just too equal.
IMHO, the same holds true for F1. The racing in the 70/80´s was not better, because the car´s had less aero. It was better because the where so different, there was much more technical freedom.
more power vs. lower weight. V12 vs. V8, turbo vs. n/a engines. 6wheels vs. 4 wheels. etc. etc.
In my mind, that was the main reason for better racing. People could trade better braking/cornering in a ligther V8 car against massive power in a V12. So, one was quick on the straigths and one was quick(er) in the corners.
There was more room for an "out of the box" attempt (like 6wheel Tyrell etc.), and this was what made the racing "better" or at least less predictable. Because different tracks or parts of the track would play into the hand of different cars/drivers. A lighter less powerful car would maybe dominate at Monaco, but two races later get murdered on the straights in Monza by the V12 etc.
More and more race series around the world, going down the spec-all route, to keep costs in check (I understand and respect it from this angle), but the downside is, you turn it into another Porsche Supercup.
Yes, the drivers become more important, but honestly, I know that everybody has it´s favorites and we can discuss it forever, across the board the level of driver talent is very high and very close.
There is not really a "bad" driver in F1 anymore.
Not to the extent it was 15-20 years ago.
I´m pretty sure that at least 6 other drivers would have won in an RB6 this year as well. The deviation from the optimum get´s very small, compare to years gone by.
Everybody understands the importance of fitness, everybody has it´s PT´s now etc.
The same goes for the engineering side, there is (too) little room left for inovations. The rules force everybody down the same path. Yes, some arrive a little bit earlier there, by coming up with a "trick bit" like the F-duct or DDD, EBD etc. But within 2-5 races, when the trick is out, most top teams and half of the rest will have copied it, again concentrating onto the same area.
One reason, that GT(3)and long distance races are quite often exciting and making for good racing with more overtaking, is the fact that the car´s are rated and leveled (at least that´s the aim) on a power/weigth basis. So you have fundamently different cars turbo vs. n/a , V12 vs. H6 mid-engine vs. front engine etc. but all are somehow comparable. Some are better on one track, others on another. Over the season it (hopefully) levels out.
This concept I would like to see return to F1. This is why I´m against the minimum weigth rule.
I´m 100% cool with the idea to try to save fuel, and making the cars more efficient, but I´m against the dumb down method of "and this is how you have to do it" (KERS+I4t).
I would like to see, people building a gasturbine car, others a V6 n/a engine and others a I4t, let them choose if they want to carry 150kg for a monster KERS and 90kW extra, or if some want to try their luck with an ultra light but less powerful car (the old Lotus vs. Ferrari battle so to speak). There should be different ways to the same goal, not a one size(concept) fit´s all mentality.
Sure, there is a downside to my proposal. People with enough resources will spend a lot of money, trying different concepts, if they feel the ne or if they have the money. Can´t have it all.
I know, that it is impossible to police (IMHO) and therefor not practical, but other then that, I see a lot of merrit in the cost cap approach.
It would be nice if we could say, and successful police, "here you have XX Million $ a year, a given tire, a given amount of fuel, and a box in which your car must fit", come up with something, that covers 300km in the shortest possible time. Everything goes AWD, KERS, WINGS, GE etc. in the budget the driver wages are included. So you can choose if you want to build your car in China (just an example) to save costs and hire Alonso or Schumacher for big$$.
Or if you spend your money on Newey and engineering and get a kid out of F3 to race for free. (over simplyfied, just to show the concept)
I have little "hope" that the new rules will lead to "better racing", maybe things get shaken up for a year or two (ala BrawnGP) if somebody makes his water cook quicker then the rest.
But at the end (after a year or two with stable rules) we will be back to square one, as people will migrate to the "optimal" solution under the heavily restricted rules. It will be a expensive version of Porsche Cup again, with allmost equal cars.
IMHO - I´m happy if time would prove me wrong, but for now it´s difficult to see, that things will change dramaticly.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
I agree with 747 Heavy, the intention in F1 should be, to cover a set distance using the peak of technology and the finest drivers in the shortest possible time.
The only regulations in principle, should be those for safety, fuel limitation and a cost maximum.
As soon as other restrictions are added you create a controlled formula, which should only be for those below F1.
In spin-off games, such as Mario Kart, there are blue shells that are dangerous power-ups. They were called Spiny Shells in Mario Kart 64 and Mario Kart Super Circuit. Spiny Shells act similarly to Red Shells, as they knock over the target in front of the player who used it. However, it targets the one in first place, where the shell bowls over the kart and gets destroyed.
In Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, the Spiny Shell gained wings, allowing the item to fly over the course while avoiding all the obstacles around, as opposed to its former appearance. After firing one, it flies over the track, homing on the current contestant in first place. Once it reaches its destination, the shell hovers briefly on its target and crashes into the kart, blowing up everything in the vicinity in an explosion.
