F1 2012 style.

[Razzzor]

The DRS at Canada last year was worse.

And look at Indycars especially at Indy - anyone could overtake the car ahead going down the straight on every lap. It may not be artificial passing, but it's just as easy and unspectacular as the Canada straight. Having said that, Mercedes couldn't pass anyone down the Canada straight, so it wasn't THAT bad.

I do like the variety this year. Taking Canada as an example, if Lotus and Sauber managed to make the tyres work far better than Red Bull and Ferrari, then congrats to them. RB and Ferrari will just have to try harder next time. It's great to see some variety, and I think Maldonado and Rosberg winning, and Perez nearly winning is all good for the sport.

What I worry about is that the most deserving champion at the end of the season ends up 2nd. After 7 races we've got Rosberg still within a race win of the points lead. And that shouldn't be happening, especially after the first two races where he was nowhere. Vettel and Hamilton should have a bit of a gap over the rest by now, but because of neither car being Pirelli-friendly, they're struggled to make a points gap. There shouldn't have been such a big difference in tyres between Grosjean/Perez and Vettel/Alonso near the end of the Montreal race. It can end up with the fastest car not winning.

But the artificial-ness isn't as bad as, say, Nascar where they'll a throw yellow just to get a big free-for-all in the last 2 laps and anyone can win. And end up having a championship where they champion has only won a single race out of over 35 (if Carl Edwards had prevailed last year). THAT is just a mess, and would ruin F1.

[Knowlesy]

Are we comparing DRS (an aid that actively anchors the car ahead whilst you whizz by) to oval racing, which is the art of using the air around you? That race at Monza all those years ago was artificial as well then. Dear me.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Are we comparing DRS (an aid that actively anchors the car ahead whilst you whizz by) to oval racing, which is the art of using the air around you? That race at Monza all those years ago was artificial as well then. Dear me.

AAhhh Monza. That race was always interesting until the full aero=package came into being. It wasn't just the "Gethin" race, it often happened.

Superb dicing, all race long. So that's the answer then - ban any aerodynamics. If only.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Are we comparing DRS (an aid that actively anchors the car ahead whilst you whizz by) to oval racing, which is the art of using the air around you? That race at Monza all those years ago was artificial as well then. Dear me.

No he's comparing the artificial DRS, which does as you describe, with the artificial yellow flags which does the same thing.

Under no circumstances could your assertion (even in jest) that Monza '71 was artificial be taken seriously because it just doesn't stack up. Gethin had to pick his moment to overtake because he knew that any earlier and he'd have been slipstreamed by Ronnie (as he so nearly was). And that is the skill that the DRS (and the waved yellows in NASCAR/Ovals) takes away.

[Knowlesy]

NASCAR does

[Peter Mallett]

Actually no it doesn't simply because; 1) an oval is pretty much foot to the floor so the alternative lines and conditions don't exist; and 2) the aforementioned outside assistance.

I mean no discredit to oval racers who in the most part are very brave. But the oval is a false environment when compared with road courses. One of the reasons why Brooklands was never considered an international track. Montlhery and Monza had cominations which tended to equalise the oval effect.

So the DRS removes that element of chance by (as you said) anchoring the car in front whilst the overtaker can make the move. If we recall Bahrain, Alonso made that dive towards the pit so that, as the lead driver, he could open his DRS to stop the following cars geting past. Bloody good racing under the circs.

[JohnSSC]

When talking about ovals, I think it would make sense to separate the "restrictor plate" races held on the superspeedways from tracks such as Martinsville Speedway. The shorter tracks rely far less on aero and slipstreaming than they do on driver skill and "driving" the car. It is definitely not "foot to the floor" racing at the short tracks.

Ovals are a particular genre of racing, but I don't believe them to be any more artificial then a road course designed to include particular elements rather than one that grew organically from the existing roads/topography such as you have at Watkins Glen, Spa or perhaps Brands Hatch. Certainly a dedicated road course would be more artificial than special stage on a WRC rally or the old Mille Miglia.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Ultimo

Still no! Set up, engineers, strategy, luck, it goes on! There is no such thing as equal machinery even in spec series! And if there is, the spec car may suit a certain kind of driver over another for arbitrary reasons! So bleh!

F1 this year has been amazing, end of as far as I am concerned.



... and if the tires are a lottery, then why have all race winners come from the front row? Wouldn't the in-race degradation screw things up?

Good answer
The tyres are not a lottery. if that was the case they would perform differently from tyre to tyre. that is not happening. They just have a narrow window of optimum performance in particular conditions. Drivers and teams have to manage that just as they do with DRS etc.

A team/driver who manages their tyres well and consistently matches with something approaching determination and the exercise of intellect. Smart drivers will be enabled win with regularity.

[chillibowl]

im probably becoming a broken record on this so ill try to come up with some new arguments and hopefully they make sense.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The tyres are not a lottery. if that was the case they would perform differently from tyre to tyre. that is not happening.

do we know that for sure? their stated aim is to provide tires that make things more entertaining. thats hardly an assurance that they are aiming for consistency in their compound construction but that is far from being real proof that they are different either.

so obviously i dont have any evidence, just speculation but i feel as though teams are splitting their strategies and teammates are finishing further apart to each other...more so then in other seasons anyways. everyone seems to be at a loss, which on the whole is not terrible, but after 7 races it still doesnt look like anyone has a better understanding then their rivals. whatever way you want to look at it there is more inconsistency this year then in the past and while inconsistency is not necessarily randomness, until someone can figure it out i dont think its just that simple to say every set of softs is exactly the same.

it would be nice to know what their supercomputers are telling them. tens of millions of calculations per second would do a lot to answer this question.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

A team/driver who manages their tyres well and consistently matches with something approaching determination and the exercise of intellect. Smart drivers will be enabled win with regularity.

well we have had 7 races and 7 winners. no one is winning with regularity but we have seen some special drives from the younger drivers coming out of the mid field.

it makes me wonder how the F1 talent scouts are measuring the drivers this year. there was a time when one solid race could get a young driver a bump to a bigger team (Schumi at Jordon) or even a decent bulk of a season (FA at Minardi or KR at Sauber) and you would find yourself sitting in a much better car.

Perez has put in a couple of podiums now and maybe made up more spots from start than anyone else...why is he not moving to a bigger team? Maldonado won for a team which hasent won in 10 years based on pace and he comes with a big bag of money...why hasent anyone made Frank an offer he cant refuse?

maybe not exactly the best comparisons but hopefully everyone gets my meaning which is that even the people on the inside, with access to all the data, dont seem to drawing any conclusions in so much that if a driver does well it cannot be taken as an adequate predictor of future consistency or talent. or that if a driver is doing poorly (Massa and recently Button) its not a given that they have lost quality.

in the past they could at least make somewhat informed decisions like 'that driver is talented despite the car they are driving'...i dont think they can make similar determinations with these new tires...to me that suggests an inconsistent, if not random, quality in the tires.

[luke g28]

No matter how powerful the computer it is only as good as the data put into it.

The problem with the tires is that there are so many variables it is different to narrow down which ones are influential and which are coincidental.

No two races have been in the same conditions be it a different temperature, different humidity, different loadings etc etc.

[Born Racer]

Anything that can't be figured out by a ruddy computer makes things a bit better in my opinion.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Yeah, that one race in twenty years was really bad. Good point.

Not sure why that statement has anything to do with my admiration for Mercedes/Ilmor going to the trouble and expense of making a one off engine for a particular type of circuit/race?!

That particular engine regulation loophole was also banned at the end of that season. Oh bum!

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Anything that can't be figured out by a ruddy computer makes things a bit better in my opinion.

Agreed. Ban computers, I say!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by luke g28

No matter how powerful the computer it is only as good as the data put into it.

The problem with the tires is that there are so many variables it is different to narrow down which ones are influential and which are coincidental.

No two races have been in the same conditions be it a different temperature, different humidity, different loadings etc etc.

I think it's great watching everyone scramble about trying to work out what is going on with the cars!

As Born Racer said : "Anything that can't be figured out by a ruddy computer makes things a bit better in my opinion."

To me DRS is simply an anti-waketurbulence device, no more artificial than the wings creating the problem, particularly the front wings which are so artificial they can only run on billiard table smooth surfaces!

Nicanary's proposal to ban aero would eliminate both artificial problems.

Till then, the racing this year is the best we've ever had by miles!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

Nicanary's proposal to ban aero would eliminate both artificial problems.

Then you would have the other problem of explaining to the 'fans' why it is that F1 cars are substantially slower than Indy cars. Because most open wheel series, even fully specced series, rely on aerodynamics for the greater part of their performance.

Originally Posted by wnut

Till then, the racing this year is the best we've ever had by miles!

You'll get no argument from me on that score.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Then you would have the other problem of explaining to the 'fans' why it is that F1 cars are substantially slower than Indy cars. Because most open wheel series, even fully specced series, rely on aerodynamics for the greater part of their performance.

Indycars have traditionally been faster than F1 with the ovals. But even if that wasn't so, I don't think it's an issue that would illicit as much controversy as people think it would, as long as they are visibly quick. Personally, I'm completely blasé on that question, I much more satisfied in tough, traditional racing rather than a movie length version of Wacky Races.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Anything that can't be figured out by a ruddy computer makes things a bit better in my opinion.

weird. i totally agree with that yet here i am complaining about something that has not been solved by a computer. not sure what to do with that.

'stop complaining' comes to mind.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

But even if that wasn't so, I don't think it's an issue that would illicit as much controversy as people think it would, as long as they are visibly quick.

You may have a point there.

I watch MotoGP, and it looks 'visibly quick'. Mainly because the speeds on the straights, compared to cornering speeds, are vastly different to that of an F1 cars. A MotoGP bike can reach the same top speeds that an F1 car can reach (higher, in most cases, because they aren't trying to push what amounts to a 'barn door' through the air), but is unable to take the following corner at anything approaching that of an F1 car, on the same circuit. Therefore you can 'see' that the bike appears to be much quicker on the straights because of its lack of speed around the corners.

It's something worth thinking about, but there will still be those who will complain.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I watch MotoGP, and it looks 'visibly quick'. Mainly because the speeds on the straights, compared to cornering speeds, are vastly different to that of an F1 cars. A MotoGP bike can reach the same top speeds that an F1 car can reach (higher, in most cases, because they aren't trying to push what amounts to a 'barn door' through the air), but is unable to take the following corner at anything approaching that of an F1 car, on the same circuit. Therefore you can 'see' that the bike appears to be much quicker on the straights because of its lack of speed around the corners.

Ironic how quick they look (for the reason you gave) yet will be about 25 seconds a lap slower !

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Indycars have traditionally been faster than F1 with the ovals. But even if that wasn't so, I don't think it's an issue that would illicit as much controversy as people think it would, as long as they are visibly quick. Personally, I'm completely blasé on that question, I much more satisfied in tough, traditional racing rather than a movie length version of Wacky Races.

Agreed. If we now have to accept that F1 is about entertainment, and not engineering excellence, then I don't think the public would have a problem with it. No aero , surely closer racing and more overtaking?

Seems to me that F1 is moving away from its original remit, which was to encourage designers to create the ultimate machine for racing, and more towards becoming the ultimate "show" for racing fans.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by nicanary

Agreed. If we now have to accept that F1 is about entertainment, and not engineering excellence, then I don't think the public would have a problem with it. No aero , surely closer racing and more overtaking?

Seems to me that F1 is moving away from its original remit, which was to encourage designers to create the ultimate machine for racing, and more towards becoming the ultimate "show" for racing fans.

It's because the limits of safely navigating a carbon fibre projectile around circuits that have not vastly changed over time, were reached a long time ago. Therefore, particularly in recent times, the battles have been mainly between the teams and the governing body, rather than actual battles out on the track.

The moment that F1 cars reach a particular lap time or cornering speed on a specific circuit, will also see the FIA start making noises about the cars getting too fast again and what is it that the teams intend to do about that before they are forced to inflict their own draconian rules onto them.

[JamesH]

Get rid of aero in F1 means you also need to get rid of aero in most other disciplines, as F3 (and probably F4!) would be faster, and sport cars would be faster and and and and....

Massive cornering speeds is what make F1 so much faster than anything else (see MotoGP comment above), and that only comes with aero. You simply cannot get grip levels high enough without it.

[nicanary]

Why not apply the principle to all formulae? Great way to reduce costs and encourage new participants.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by nicanary

Why not apply the principle to all formulae?

Not all open wheel series are governed by the FIA.

You would need the agreement of the IRL, for example, in order to bring these changes about and have them make any sense at all. And I'm also pretty sure that the Historic F1 series, as another example, would be extremely reluctant to remove anything from their cars that would spoil the authenticity of them.

[Mr V]

Not sure how Indy cars are meant to make it round ovals without aero?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Not sure how Indy cars are meant to make it round ovals without aero?

Rather more slowly, I would imagine.

However, NASCAR seems to do it rather well with much less aero.....

EDIT: And didn't the open wheel cars have much less aero in the sixties, for example?