|
SRT77
509 posts
87 months
|
TheHeretic said: SRT77 said: Exactlly - better tyres would benefit all drivers and bring out the true racers. The point I was making was that extolling how much quicker Kimi may have been ignores the fact that with durable, long life tyres, it is the same for all, so you won't get that bit where the fast driver is buggering up his tyres catching the one who is conserving ahead. They will both be going full bore, and interaction, (as we have seen in previous seasons), will be minimal. The reason they have tyres that are not as durable, with narrower windows is that it will, and does, as we have seen, increase the chances of drivers races overlapping, meaning more overtaking. That is the point. Processional parades do not a good race make. The current artificially contrived races can hardly be classed as "good".
|
|
|
TheHeretic
67,902 posts
124 months
|
SRT77 said: The current artificially contrived races can hardly be classed as "good". Seriously? You think the current format is not 'good'? Tell you what... Go back to when you had durable tyres, and watch them on DVD. I can tell you I am glad those days are gone. Too many years of procession.
|
|
|
SRT77
509 posts
87 months
|
TheHeretic said: Seriously? You think the current format is not 'good'? Tell you what... Go back to when you had durable tyres, and watch them on DVD. I can tell you I am glad those days are gone. Too many years of procession. Well, I've been following since around 1984. Yes since then there has been the odd boring period, but nothing from 2012 is quite matching some of the epic Senna, Mansell, Piquet battles. It's like X Factor or real music, whatever turns you on.
|
|
|
TheHeretic
67,902 posts
124 months
|
Well, don't watch it then. F1 has moved in within it's limits to include heavy aero, and so on, which was not so drastic back then. Unless you want to go back to the formula they had back then, (good luck with that), then they have to do what they can within the limits. Without the tyres you will either have a boring procession, (we had these just a few seasons ago), or we re-introduce refueling, which will be just as artificial, and create equal interactions on the track.
How would you like it? You tell us. What should they do with the formula.
|
|
|
pingu393
628 posts
74 months
|
I suspect that the "problem" with the tyre design is that it wasn't frozen early enough. This meant the cars weren't able to be designed around the only constant in F1.
The initial technology race was won by Mercedes with the double DRS. The next technology race will be won by the team that can evolve their car to make the tyres last longer. Shumy must be worried that he will lose his advantage.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
davepoth
19,884 posts
68 months
|
TheHeretic said: Well, don't watch it then. F1 has moved in within it's limits to include heavy aero, and so on, which was not so drastic back then. Unless you want to go back to the formula they had back then, (good luck with that), then they have to do what they can within the limits. Without the tyres you will either have a boring procession, (we had these just a few seasons ago), or we re-introduce refueling, which will be just as artificial, and create equal interactions on the track.
How would you like it? You tell us. What should they do with the formula. Aero is the killer IMO. Sort that out so that the cars can follow each other without shredding the front tyres, and you'll go a long way to making it work properly.
|
|
|
Jungles
3,490 posts
90 months
|
Yeah aero is the killer. But to reduce it to the extent that cars can follow each other comfortably, and keep them that way, will need spec wings.
F1 is already very close to being a spec series. How would teams and fans react to spec aero parts?
|
|
|
Alfanatic
5,983 posts
88 months
|
I think both Schuey and the FIA are right.
Schuey is right that the current tyres don't allow a driver to make a positive difference by going flat out, and I'd suspect it doesn't feel like racing when you're trying to glide around at nine tenths of your capability. I is similar to the '80s turbo days when fuel capacity was restricted, but back then the driver could just turn the boost down and then still go flat out with the power he had left.
The FIA is right in that the tyres are making the racing look far more like racing from a spectator point of view.
So the driver feels like there is less racing going on, the spectators feel like there is more racing going on.
Both are right, so it's down to whether you please the drivers or the spectators, and spectators indirectly bring the money in, so they'll win. The ones (like me) who would rather see the best driver / car combo win by going as fast as they can, and with the minimum of official interference, even if it produces another 1988 or another Ferrari Road Show, are the minority.
|
|
|
Reardy Mister
11,039 posts
91 months
|
As long as its the same for everyone, who cares? 
|
|
|
Alfanatic
5,983 posts
88 months
|
Reardy Mister said: As long as its the same for everyone, who cares? I suppose, the drivers who can't drive around it care that it goes, the drivers who can take advantage of it care that it stays? Sounds like Schuey might be in camp 1.
|
|
|
wicz
119 posts
41 months
|
If they were to fix the tyres, they'd start to complain about the fuel. The drivers spend some of the race fuel saving anyway so aren't always driving at 100%
That 100% driver ability does come into effect at qualifying when they all go for that 1 perfect lap, fresh tyres and unlimited use of DRS. This is F1 cars at their fastest and has made qualifying a lot more exciting. Something that does need addressing however is the fact some cars don't take art to save tyres. That is where i think it goes too far.
|
|
|
rdjohn
Original Poster
867 posts
64 months
|
If you compare the race duration for the Oz GP in 2012 with Mickey Mouse tyres, and 2007 when there were durable Bridgestones and re-fuelling meaning that drivers could go pretty much flat out for the whole race, you have:-
2007 Kimi Raikonnen 58 laps 1hour:25min:28secs
2012 Jenson Button 58 laps 1hour:34min:9secs
8 1/2 mins (about 10%) is a lot of fuel saving / tyre conservation in an F1 car
|
|
|
zac510
4,957 posts
75 months
|
Why on Earth did you cherry pick two races 5 years apart, one with a safety car period and one without?
|
|
|
davepoth
19,884 posts
68 months
|
Jungles said: Yeah aero is the killer. But to reduce it to the extent that cars can follow each other comfortably, and keep them that way, will need spec wings.
F1 is already very close to being a spec series. How would teams and fans react to spec aero parts? Doesn't need spec wings at all IMO. You could do away with all of the aero regs and go with 1. At 300kph a wing 1m wide with section as per figure a placed x metres behind the rear of the car must be able to produce at least y kgs of downforce, as measured in a specified wind tunnel. Thereby putting the onus onto the teams to produce a car that allows another to follow close behind without losing downforce.
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,042 posts
90 months
|
Nice try but that same wing would produce a lot more down-force running in clear air, it's the delta that's the problem.
|
|
|
wicz
119 posts
41 months
|
There are so many variables between 2007 and 2012 cars, aero being one that i'm not really sure what your point is?
All the rules that apparently make the result "artificial" are what makes it a "formula" series. The rules will change and teams and drivers adapt to make sure they are the ones that cross the line first. It will not remain this way forever, but at the moment I think the races have been exciting to watch, China in particular, bahrain not so much, but when has it ever!
At the end of the day what makes a great team and a great driver are the people who can work to the rules placed on them, all the teams have the same rules.
|
|
|
Megaflow
3,338 posts
94 months
|
rdjohn said: If you compare the race duration for the Oz GP in 2012 with Mickey Mouse tyres, and 2007 when there were durable Bridgestones and re-fuelling meaning that drivers could go pretty much flat out for the whole race, you have:-
2007 Kimi Raikonnen 58 laps 1hour:25min:28secs
2012 Jenson Button 58 laps 1hour:34min:9secs
8 1/2 mins (about 10%) is a lot of fuel saving / tyre conservation in an F1 car As others have pointed out, '07had a safety car, '12 didn't. Plus you need to factor in they have had a significant chuck of downforce removed since '07.
|
|
|
TheHeretic
67,902 posts
124 months
|
Megaflow said: rdjohn said: If you compare the race duration for the Oz GP in 2012 with Mickey Mouse tyres, and 2007 when there were durable Bridgestones and re-fuelling meaning that drivers could go pretty much flat out for the whole race, you have:-
2007 Kimi Raikonnen 58 laps 1hour:25min:28secs
2012 Jenson Button 58 laps 1hour:34min:9secs
8 1/2 mins (about 10%) is a lot of fuel saving / tyre conservation in an F1 car As others have pointed out, '07had a safety car, '12 didn't. Plus you need to factor in they have had a significant chuck of downforce removed since '07. And the 1998 grand prix took 1:31:46... So despite all the extra regs, tyres, etc, it is only slightly longer. I'm not sure what this proves at all.
|
|
|
Phil-CH
1,124 posts
133 months
|
I already made a topic around this topic sometime last year...
While the racing seems to be good, I still think I'd rather have back re-fueling and not force drivers into this gimmick of strategy and tyre managment to make up for the lack of re-fueling.
With re-fueling and better tyres - we had drivers being able to extract more of their car, while others tryed to gain advantages through different strategies, i.e. more fuel, less pitstops etc. Because of the weight differential, we had a bigger gap between cars than we did now when drivers are on different tyres or on equal tyres during different state.
|
|
|
davepoth
19,884 posts
68 months
|
Bedazzled said: Nice try but that same wing would produce a lot more down-force running in clear air, it's the delta that's the problem. So specify the delta then.
|
|
