is F1 on its knees
Discussion
rallycross said:
Latest news is that for 2017 refuelling is back, this just goes to show the people that make these decisions have no idea what is required to make things better, what a stupid idea is that the best they could come up with?
how does that work with a 100Kg's race fuel limit?as you say, lost the plot.
Based on the decisions taken at the "Strategy Group" today, after another prolonged bout of navel gazing without any reference to the fans on which any sport is dependent for its survival, yes, in the long term it's screwed.
The people that run the sport have, sadly, yet again demonstrated they are a bunch of utterly self absorbed, self interested, self indulgent pricks.
The people that run the sport have, sadly, yet again demonstrated they are a bunch of utterly self absorbed, self interested, self indulgent pricks.
rallycross said:
Latest news is that for 2017 refuelling is back, this just goes to show the people that make these decisions have no idea what is required to make things better, what a stupid idea is that the best they could come up with?
Remind me how that's going to save money, by reintroducing a load more infrastructure to lug around the world, and another system to incorporate into the cars?rallycross said:
Latest news is that for 2017 refuelling is back, this just goes to show the people that make these decisions have no idea what is required to make things better, what a stupid idea is that the best they could come up with?
It's bizarre. Refuelling didn't seemn to improve racing last time around.I'd be looking at alternatives:
- reducing the aero
- getting rid of transmission automation
- limiting the pit crew size
- ditching kers
- fixing the selection tyres on offer
And given the problems with teams running away with the championship I'd perhaps be looking at handicapping.
glazbagun said:
Same here, though I imagine there would be a mean optimum that would become the norm. Engine wise I'd just say "here is xyz amount of fuel. It must last you all race. Good luck."
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but having seen the results of fuel saving technology and tactics such as 'lift and coast' I've come to the conclusion that extreme fuel saving isn't good for the show. Given a choice between fuel efficient hybrids or high revving V10s I know what I'd choose.Redlake27 said:
In 2004 , Michael Schumacher took 1hr 28m 34s to win Bahrain.
In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
article by Webber said:
We did the maths based on the quickest full-distance Malaysian Grand Prix in history, the 2006 race won by Giancarlo Fisichella in 1hr30m40.529s. Vettel took about nine and a half minutes more to win this year’s race, cutting out the time lost by the early-race safety car.
All up, Fisichella would have lapped Vettel almost six times by the time the Renault driver completed the 56-lap distance.
All up, Fisichella would have lapped Vettel almost six times by the time the Renault driver completed the 56-lap distance.
RYH64E said:
glazbagun said:
Same here, though I imagine there would be a mean optimum that would become the norm. Engine wise I'd just say "here is xyz amount of fuel. It must last you all race. Good luck."
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but having seen the results of fuel saving technology and tactics such as 'lift and coast' I've come to the conclusion that extreme fuel saving isn't good for the show. Given a choice between fuel efficient hybrids or high revving V10s I know what I'd choose.Eric Mc said:
dudleybloke said:
Remember when it was about going fast.
Let's get back to that instead of trying to slow things down.
The last time it was absolutely about going fast was 1981.Let's get back to that instead of trying to slow things down.
some of this is aero related (not being able to follow the car in front) but most of it is tyres.
the basic issue now is the drivers have a very small window of performance to use, so they are having to drive to that window, as opposed to actually racing each other.
Eric Mc said:
dudleybloke said:
Remember when it was about going fast.
Let's get back to that instead of trying to slow things down.
The last time it was absolutely about going fast was 1981.Let's get back to that instead of trying to slow things down.
The sport is formula 1, the clue is in the name, it's about building and racing cars to a set of rules (the formula). They always have and always will be going as fast as posible as the current formula will allow.
jsf said:
There is so much nonsense in this thread.
The sport is formula 1, the clue is in the name, it's about building and racing cars to a set of rules (the formula). They always have and always will be going as fast as posible as the current formula will allow.
your right.The sport is formula 1, the clue is in the name, it's about building and racing cars to a set of rules (the formula). They always have and always will be going as fast as posible as the current formula will allow.
the issue is that in days of old, the rules were a lot less prescriptive, they were more akin to the size of a box, rather than the contents.
engine regs of old were pretty open, max CC, SC and turbo stuff, and that was about it.
And the difference was that in former times the rules were not specifically designed to slow the cars down.
The first time rules were changed to slow the cars down was in 1961 when the 1.5 litre formula was selected.
It was abandoned in 1966 when a 3 litre rule came in. This was because other formulae were being seen as faster and superior to F1.
The next batch of "slowing down" rules was in 1980/81 and 1983 when restrictions on side pod skirts and then sidepods themselves were introduced. Ever since then, much of the formula changes have been about stopping the cars going too fast.
The first time rules were changed to slow the cars down was in 1961 when the 1.5 litre formula was selected.
It was abandoned in 1966 when a 3 litre rule came in. This was because other formulae were being seen as faster and superior to F1.
The next batch of "slowing down" rules was in 1980/81 and 1983 when restrictions on side pod skirts and then sidepods themselves were introduced. Ever since then, much of the formula changes have been about stopping the cars going too fast.
Penalties likely to be hitting several teams soon - not quite sure how this helps 'the show' at all ?
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-and-tor...
The way the penalties are cumulative if you change more than one component, when will a team decide there's no point turning up ?
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-and-tor...
The way the penalties are cumulative if you change more than one component, when will a team decide there's no point turning up ?
Gaz. said:
MartG said:
Penalties likely to be hitting several teams soon - not quite sure how this helps 'the show' at all ?
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-and-tor...
The way the penalties are cumulative if you change more than one component, when will a team decide there's no point turning up ?
The teams dreamed up these rules so they can hardly say it isn't fair or not good for the show.http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-and-tor...
The way the penalties are cumulative if you change more than one component, when will a team decide there's no point turning up ?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff