Reply With QuoteYes, that was one of the few highlights.Originally Posted by Mouse
If they can’t race flat out we might as well all watch just WEC.
I have zero issues with the engineering skills to make these engines do what they do. They're brilliant, as was the e-tron Quattro that Audi built.
My issue is hearing drivers asking engineers if they should drive faster. Race craft and pace is one thing, knowing drivers aren't close to their or their car's max is just...it doesn't feel like the pinnacle of motorsport.
Yes, that was one of the few highlights.
If they can’t race flat out we might as well all watch just WEC.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Perhaps the time has come to close the Pit Lane Entry when a VSC or SC is in operation. It might prevent the mad scramble to the pit lane and the safety issues that it creates.
Races should be determined by what happens on the track rather than in the pits.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
It's well known that the reason given for having such tight limits on engines/power units is to keep costs down, especially so for the teams that buy their units from others. There's also the not unreasonable aspect of engines simply not being disposable items, using them once and then chucking them away like scrap metal can't be anything other than wasteful. The engines could be made less costly through regulation, say for example removing some of the energy recovery systems and/or placing further restrictions on material use, however F1 needs to be the fastest most technologically accomplished open-wheeled championship* out there whilst also promoting green credentials and provide the engine manufacturers a challenge. It's a balancing act between cost, speed, reliability and technological advancement - that's not easy to get right, whatever "right" is.
Here's another way of looking at it. Off the top of my head there's only one form of topflight motorsport where they're 100% flat out all of the time, and that's Rallycross where they compete over a single digit number of laps (and, incidentally, will be 100% electric in the FIA RC championship 2020 onwards which suits that race format). BTCC has fuel and tyre management (and BoP where the faster cars are given weight penalties), so does the WEC, even more so in the 12h and 24h races where races can be won or lost due to time spent in the pits. F1 has been about managing the engine, fuel and tyres for just about as long as I can remember, especially fuel and tyres - in the years when pitstops weren't compulsory they had to manage them. Oh, and does anyone want to go back to the years when a race was won by a driver because their engine didn't grenade itself before the finish line? A driver had no idea as to if pushing hard will blow a conrod, nowadays they do via car to pit telemetry.
As race fans we also have a lot more information at our fingertips and certainly a lot more live information during a race. We hear conversations between a driver and their engineer, this offers a great insight as to what's going on and what it takes to maximise a result. We're more informed than ever, as fans we want to know what's going on, and it's this greater freedom of information that has pulled away whatever veil was left covering this management myth. Don't get me wrong, I understand the point about drivers being reigned in and not giving it 100% all the time, however if we apply some context to it we find that it's always been this way.
The bottom line is that they all race by the same rules, on average the team/driver that does the best job wins. That will never change.
*I know Indy is faster, but then they only turn left.
Last edited by CardShark; 26th March 2018 at 23:50.
There certainly used to be a regulation governing pit use during a safety car period, I think it may have been scrapped due to the complications that it brought about eg what if a damaged car needed to pit, not 100% on that though. Safety car periods have always provided opportunities for a car to close a gap to another, I'd guess that without introducing some form of extremely convoluted system of fairness this would be difficult to avoid.
As it stands the fact that any car or team could benefit from the luck of a timely safety car period is itself fair.
Furthermore it would be easy to remove the compulsory aspect of the pit stop with tyre change.
It was made compulsory to add a tactical element to the race. Last Sunday was a perfect illustration: statistically the Aussie GP has SC / VSC, so Ferrari split its driver’s tactics as VB was not in a position to help LH. Mercedes then had to choose whether to mirror SV or KR. They chose the wrong one (as KR was never in a position to challenge LH) yet had a chance to cover both but a software error meant he didn’t push enough.
If anything, this was the only slightly interesting bit of the race, so the pit stop served its purpose.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I wonder whether the tone of the thread would be different had Hamilton started from third on the grid, in a slightly slower car, and managed to win through a combination of tactical nous and a fortuitously-timed Safety Car?
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
I do see your point inasmuch as Ferrari decided to leave Vettel out there to see what played out. I don’t see it as tactical nous, rather “suck it and see”!
Had roles been reversed, my opinion wouldn’t be any different; I would have considered Hamilton to have won primarily through luck rather than tactical excellence.
Yes I'm sure there would have been a lot less praise of Mercedes "strategic brilliance".
Last edited by watchcollector1; 27th March 2018 at 11:28.
I for one would have said he got lucky, just as he got lucky in Singapore last year.
Sometimes the fanboys -of either colour- are pretty boring.
There was no ‘strategic brilliance’ from any side.
There was 2 slightly slower cars that had no chance to pass on the track and could settle for 2 and 3, or could split their tactics to force the leader to make a choice; and there was a mistake that made it work.
So definitely a lucky win because MB (and not the driver) screwed up. But a good tactical move as without it they would not have had a chance.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
The contributing factors in chronological order were -
- Bottas crashing out in Q3
- Kimi out-qualifying Seb
- Seb's lack of pace in the first stage of the race
- Lewis being boxed straight after Kimi thus preventing potential undercut and covering the immediate and obvious threat
- Ferrari leaving Seb out on the off-chance that there was a safety car period (and to have a shorter stint on the 2nd set of tyres)
- Mercedes' miscalculation thinking that Lewis didn't have to push to cover a safety car
- Grosjean's Haas pulling up
- Ferrari boxing Seb and gaining track position advantage
- Lewis' car reaching critical temperatures when closely following Seb and having to occasionally back off
- The nature of Albert Park making overtaking extremely difficult to pass
If any of those were different then we would have witnessed a different result, however that's stating the obvious.
So a mix of circumstances then. One team dropped the ball, the other team prised open the smallest of opportunities to their advantage.
Agreed.
Just to add - as much as there was a considerable amount of luck in Seb's win (and even Seb himself has said as such) fair play to Ferrari for playing the race out well "live". They noticed a potential opportunity to get Seb at the front, they played it out and it worked well for them - if you'd run that race again 9 times out of 10 that tactic would have failed, though.
Seb didn't look like he had the pace of either his teammate or Lewis so they threw the only dice left to them.
Got the highlights recorded but not had time to catch up on them yet, but needless to say I'm fairly pleased at the result. I have no strong dislike or like for any of the drivers or teams but I just hate to see one team dominating. It simply doesn't make it fun as a spectator sport, and I want to see the grid mixed up a bit.
Sure, being happy that a 4 time world champion, or the most decorated team in F1 taking most of the points this weekend might sound a bit contradictory to what I just said, but as long as there is SOME competition for the top spot and Mercedes or Hamilton, don't just walk it again, then I'm happy.
Also really happy to hear Alonso get 5th. It smells like some podiums are a distinct possibility for McLaren this season, finally. God knows they've gone through the mill over the last few years and really deserve some results!
Undoubtedly a great result for FA and McLaren but it will take a few race incidents for a podium. A wet Monaco, maybe?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
The only reason that Hamilton and Mercedes ended up walking away with it last year is because Ferrari imploded in the second half of the season. The first half was brilliant and the title could have have gone either way.
I don't, simply because only an idiot would suggest that Mercedes/Hamilton had outsmarted Ferrari by being in 3rd spot and managing to leap frog the 2 cars in front of him as a result of VSC.
The simply fact was that Ferrari gambled on the only strategy that would work for Vettel and it paid off. Hardly tactical nous or a massive gamble simply because Ferrari had nothing to lose from the strategy, unless of Vettel ran out of rubber before pitting. Unlikely, but not unknown.
But it once again we see Vettel winning a race without qualifying on pole and then not having to actually overtake the cars in front of him. What a driver
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
FTFY in the interests of fairness.
But it once again we see a driver winning a race without qualifying on pole and then not having to actually overtake the cars in front of him.
News from the periphery of Formula 1: Juan Pablo Montoya will drive for Zak Brown's United Autosports team at Le Mans this year. Montoya already has victories at Monaco and the Indianapolis 500 to his name, so he's in a position to beat Fernando Alonso to the "Triple Crown" should Toyota fail to win Le Mans.
Also appearing at La Sarthe this year will be Pastor Maldonado, driving an LMP2 car for Dragon. No further comment.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Hmm not the best choice for an endurance race perhaps? At least he's found a level of motorsport more suited to his ability (in terms of pace).
Last edited by watchcollector1; 28th March 2018 at 11:14.
I'd disagree - dealing with the speed differences across the classes is not something I'd expect him to cope very well with.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Yes a very good point. He's probably the last driver you'd want to be in that situation! I meant suited to his ability in terms of his pace (or lack of).
Last edited by watchcollector1; 28th March 2018 at 15:04.
Quite correct, however I highlighted Vettel simply because he has benefited more than most, especially in the past 4 years. But at least Kimi was not asked to move aside.
Now that would have been much more interesting
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
“Sebastian is faster than you, can you confirm?”Quite correct, however I highlighted Vettel simply because he has benefited more than most, especially in the past 4 years. But at least Kimi was not asked to move aside.
Now that would have been much more interesting
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Bit off topic but this came up on my Facebook feed tonight. Made me chuckle.
An interesting piece. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13...i-investigated.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Think that sort of fits under the 'U OK Hun?' Facebook group :|Bit off topic but this came up on my Facebook feed tonight. Made me chuckle.
Bit of a non story really given this quote from the Australian GP
FIA's F1 director Charlie Whiting said he had no concerns about the relationship with Ferrari, saying: "We know exactly what's going on between Haas and Ferrari, which is completely legal. Last year we had one team expressing some concerns but we have not seen anything that concerns us at the moment."
I'm sure that it's just an innocent coincidence that the two teams expressing concerns are two that would benefit should Haas be found to be at fault.
Just the usual mud slinging
Interesting to hear that Dallara are using Ferrari's wind tunnel. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that there may be some similarities between cars just on that basis though while I can see a benefit for Haas if they were using too much of Ferrari's data/assistance what would Ferrari get in return? They certainly wouldn't want Haas to be in a position to challenge them and they're now tied in closer with Sauber in terms of engine supply and a junior driver programme.
Force India appear to be teetering on the financial brink, and (it is reported) applied to FOM/Liberty for an advance on the money that they are due for finishing fourth in the Constructors' Championship last year.
The rules require agreement from all teams to the advance payment, and apparently Williams have veto'd the request. The payment is due on 1 April anyway, so depending on the date of Force India's request, and the forbearance of their creditors they might have been able to bridge the gap, but the episode raises a couple of important questions: were Williams trying to force a rival team out of business? What would happen in the future if Williams need an advance of their prize money?
There are several Formula 1 teams living hand-to-mouth, and a few which have failed to do so in recent years. If nothing else, this potentially divisive episode spotlights the importance of cost control, and highlights the responsibility of the teams to operate within their means, and the FIA to have the capability to monitor the sport closely.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
That’s worrying for them to have to ask so close to the payment date.
Cheers..
Jase
Maybe if Williams felt that they had already made sacrifices in order to exercise financial responsibility themselves, then they might be reluctant to see a team which they deemed to not be so prudent benefit therein?
Williams have certainly sailed close to the wind in the past, but now that they're quoted on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange their finances will be public knowledge.
In the past couple of years they have, of course, benefitted from the signing of Lance Stroll and Sergei Sirotkin, and the sale of Valtteri Bottas to Mercedes for (allegedly) their 2017 supply of Mercedes power units. But who knows, there may come a time in the future when they might need the agreement of their rivals to release an advance payment of their prize money.
Force India finished fourth in the 2017 Constructors' Championship, with Williams in fifth. Which means that they will be spending the 2018 season in adjoining pit garages, and will (probably, depending on space) be allocated adjoining paddock spaces. You know what it's like when you really don't get on with the neighbours?
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Round two. Bahrain.
A Tilkedrome set in a desert, in a country with a questionable Human Rights history or an example of the future direction of Formula 1? In Bernie's day, when the deal was done, it was very much a case of "never mind the ethics, feel the money", so here we are. At least there's little chance of rain. It's one of those circuits that nobody would really miss should Liberty decide that they would rather have a street race around Manhattan instead.
Tyre choices:
Not many conclusions to be drawn from that, other than the likelihood of a one-stop race. Sand blowing on to the track is the only real hazard at Bahrain, and although ambient temperatures are high during the day it's a night race, so demands on power unit cooling shouldn't be too high. Having said that, the desire to under cut the sidepods (where the radiators and intercoolers are located) in order to channel air round the sides of the car and over the top of the diffuser has resulted in the 2018 cars having much smaller cooling intakes.
Herr Tilke's favoured formula of "slow corner into long straight followed by slow corner" finds full expression in Bahrain, which is one reason why fuel consumption is an issue, so engine management becomes an overriding consideration for the teams, as is engine wear. Such are the priorities of Grand Prix racing in 2018.
On the plus side we've been entertained by some serious side-by-side scraps in recent years, although these have often been between team-mates - Rosberg and Hamilton, Button and Perez. The sweeping turns 5,6 and 7 seem to attract optimistic overtaking moves, and are probably the best section of what is otherwise a fairly anodyne circuit.
Channel 4 is showing this one live, for those without Sky.
More later.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Bahrain, China, Singapore, Azerbaijan, Russia, Abu Dhabi;
I would say it’s the current direction
Just another good reason to bin it
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
As far as Bernie was concerned, it was all about the money.
In my world, if a country has had their Human Rights investigated by the UN or other global authority, or has a Presidential Palace (the two often go together) their race hosting fee should be doubled and used to subsidise Grands Prix at proper circuits such as Monza or Spa.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Its all too easy for tinpot dictators to use money that should be going into public services for ordinary people to buy an F1 race and then gain some form of credibility as a result. It looks good for them on tv to see all these important western business types and celebrities who don't know one end of a car from another mulling about the grid.
My view is take some of the money out of F1 and allow races to be staged at less cost. In this way the dictators don't get an easy win.
But most important of all. Make the racing entertaining. They really have to start doing that fast.
It won’t happen of course, but what F1 really needs to do is go back to big (bigger) capacity NA engines. The modern hybrid engines are far too complex and expensive. Going back to NA engines could also see new manufacturers entering the sport as engine suppliers which can only be a good thing.
But F1 is seen as the pinnacle of racing technology wise and the old argument of trickle down tech eventually finding its way into road cars is always going to be used, when the reality is, road car manufacturers are racing headlong into battery power.
Hey come on; you do not expect the US!!! company do do anything really serious towards human rights do you? They already binned grid girls; is thát not an example of a proper future direction?!
Sofar no developments into the direction of better rácing unfortunately.
They are also racing head long in to driverless cars so would you also advocate F1 employ this technology as well?
Personally I would rather see F1 return to normally aspirated engines, but with a cap on the amount of fuel used and a reduced weight limit. Imagine a car capable of 200mph and 200mpg.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Andy read my post again. I’ve already said I would like to see a move back to NA engines, and to dispense with the hybrid system.
Last edited by jaytip; 3rd April 2018 at 18:17.
Sorry, I focused on the second para. In which case we agree.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Making fit women unemployed to appease a group of harpie feminists does nothing for human rights in my view. Especially mine
Looking forward to Bahrain.
Merc, and Lewis, will be heading the field however Red Bull vs Ferrari could be a cracker. I'm hopeful that Haas will still be up there, I can't see why not, and it's good to see that Grosjean has got a reasonable set of wheels underneath him (or should that be around him?) seeing as he's come a long way from his days that would have made even Maldonado blush.
Bottas needs a result, "for sure".
Agreed, but I think he is already a "dead man walking". I can see him being traded for someone like Ocon.
As for the race, i to am very much looking forward to it. At least we might see some overtaking (on the track).
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The fact that he was initially employed on a one year contract which was subsequently renewed with another single year contract is telling. It's a result of his own performance and the contract status of other drivers as well, for example Ricciardo, though the ball is definitely more in Bottas' court than it is Mercedes. If he pulls out the stops then he'll be in a Merc seat next year, if he doesn't he won't. Mercedes hold the Aces, Bottas has Jacks at best.
Lewis' contract also runs out at the end of this season, negotiations are ongoing though both sides say that they're in no rush. Both are in a position of strength, the Mercedes is the best car and Lewis certainly competent, and with no major changes due in the next couple of years with regards to engine regs the pairing could well continue to be an unstoppable force. Lewis has four DCs, staying at Merc could give him the best opportunity to potentially raise that to seven.
Last edited by CardShark; 6th April 2018 at 00:33.
Kevin Magnussen providing more evidence that F1 drivers are boring these days:
https://giant.gfycat.com/NervousInfiniteArcticseal.webm
Ferrari looking very fast.
Don’t agree to returning to naturally aspirated cars. Majority of road cars are now turbochaged and I think this is still the way to go, together with hybrid electric assistance.
I would like to see the MGU-H dropped though as I think this overcomplicates maaters and is hugely expensive. It also has little relevance to road cars if we are using the trickle down argument.
I think the main issue is the aerodynamics which prevent close following.
Posting Permissions
