The Official 2015 Canadian Grand Prix thread **SPOILERS**
Discussion
RichB said:
Allow as many manufacturer's cars to race as they want - what's wrong with 3 or 4 Ferraris?
So long as all the teams run the same number of cars then fine but if not, you'd have the team with the most cars with an unfair advantage in terms of the WCC.RichB said:
Allow privateers to buy manufacturer's cars? Why not allow teams to run last years Mercedes or Ferarri?
It's happened in the past. The Super Aguri was the previous year's Honda and I think the Torro Rosso took an old Red Bull or two!RichB said:
Allow leading drivers to swap into a team mate's car when they break down - why shouldn't Alonso take over Jenson's car when his own one breaks?
Good luck with that one! RichB said:
Replace kerbs, rumble strips and sausages with oil cans and bales of hay - that'd stop them cutting the corners!
Or bring back the kitty litterRichB said:
Give a point (or two) for fastest lap and a point for pole.
Yep. Totally!
The problem with modern F1 is purely because the teams and cars have got too good. They are generally stable, reliable and generate lap times getting on for as quick as the formula allows. There is relatively little variation in the cars and what variation there is constant. So they all edge away from each other as the race progresses.
If you change the formula, this will still happen. Give them 5 litre V10s and it will still happen. The teams can't unlearn what they know. So FOM have had to look at ways of creating variation with things like DRS and the way Pirelli have been asked to make tyres. Even if you give them free reign of engine design they will gravitate towards the optimum setup, which would probably be a V6 or V8 with hybrid assistance.
The only way to add variation without forcing it is through removing downforce so the cars become a lot harder to drive and drivers make more of a difference. But then F1 becomes slower than the feeder series, so as we know from posts on here 12 months ago, people whinge about that as well.
You get boring races, like you get boring football matches and boring rugby matches etc... One of those things
It's certainly less boring than the mid 2000s :-)
Stop fiddling, let the manufacturers and teams get to grips with the regs...but sort the money side of it out and give more to the smaller teams so they can stand a chance of competing.
I'm not sure what people want to be honest...from reading here they want simple cheap unlimited low downforce high tech spec series cars with rock hard super soft thin wide tyres and massive tiny wings. The drivers should be robotic characterful people with lots of no opinions. The race tracks should be thin and wide with lots of asphalt gravel run offs and less or more walls. The teams should be manufacturer privateers who build their own engines bought from a major manufacturer
If you change the formula, this will still happen. Give them 5 litre V10s and it will still happen. The teams can't unlearn what they know. So FOM have had to look at ways of creating variation with things like DRS and the way Pirelli have been asked to make tyres. Even if you give them free reign of engine design they will gravitate towards the optimum setup, which would probably be a V6 or V8 with hybrid assistance.
The only way to add variation without forcing it is through removing downforce so the cars become a lot harder to drive and drivers make more of a difference. But then F1 becomes slower than the feeder series, so as we know from posts on here 12 months ago, people whinge about that as well.
You get boring races, like you get boring football matches and boring rugby matches etc... One of those things
It's certainly less boring than the mid 2000s :-)
Stop fiddling, let the manufacturers and teams get to grips with the regs...but sort the money side of it out and give more to the smaller teams so they can stand a chance of competing.
I'm not sure what people want to be honest...from reading here they want simple cheap unlimited low downforce high tech spec series cars with rock hard super soft thin wide tyres and massive tiny wings. The drivers should be robotic characterful people with lots of no opinions. The race tracks should be thin and wide with lots of asphalt gravel run offs and less or more walls. The teams should be manufacturer privateers who build their own engines bought from a major manufacturer
jsf said:
F1 needs a tyre war.
That will speed the buggers up and make it more of a fight.
No, it doesn't.That will speed the buggers up and make it more of a fight.
For a tyre war to change anything, I am reluctant to call it an improvement, you need testing.
As soon as you start testing, the more you test the faster you go, and very soon we will be back to where we were before the test ban, when each team was actually two teams, the race team and the test team.
It is not affordable, hence why it was stopped.
And that's before we get to the issue of the cars becoming too fast for the circuits, the faster a car travels the longer it needs to stop, the greater the run off required. Soon, all of the traditional circuits won't be able to cope with the speed of the cars and need either radical changes, for those with the space like Silverstone, or scapped entirely for those that don't, like Monza.
Megaflow said:
No, it doesn't.
For a tyre war to change anything, I am reluctant to call it an improvement, you need testing.
As soon as you start testing, the more you test the faster you go, and very soon we will be back to where we were before the test ban, when each team was actually two teams, the race team and the test team.
It is not affordable, hence why it was stopped.
And that's before we get to the issue of the cars becoming too fast for the circuits, the faster a car travels the longer it needs to stop, the greater the run off required. Soon, all of the traditional circuits won't be able to cope with the speed of the cars and need either radical changes, for those with the space like Silverstone, or scapped entirely for those that don't, like Monza.
really getting bored with these kind of posts.For a tyre war to change anything, I am reluctant to call it an improvement, you need testing.
As soon as you start testing, the more you test the faster you go, and very soon we will be back to where we were before the test ban, when each team was actually two teams, the race team and the test team.
It is not affordable, hence why it was stopped.
And that's before we get to the issue of the cars becoming too fast for the circuits, the faster a car travels the longer it needs to stop, the greater the run off required. Soon, all of the traditional circuits won't be able to cope with the speed of the cars and need either radical changes, for those with the space like Silverstone, or scapped entirely for those that don't, like Monza.
1) tyre war - how can it NOT improve them? the ones we have now are purposely made crap, and yes, testing will help, the start point would be a world better than we have now. (worth mentioning, F1 is not the only cars running race tyres).
2) the safety argument gets rolled out every time, yet cars are slower now than they were 10-12 years ago, have the ccts got less safe?
I also agree with the comments about run-offs, no penalty for leaving the cct, this needs to be sorted, even if it's a drive-though every time they leave the cct.
I think it would be interesting to look at years when we have had seasons that have run down to the last or penultimate race, had multiple winners and analyse some of the common factors that created that racing?
2007 (3)
2008 (2)
2009 (3?)
2010 (4?)
2012 (2)
(number of drivers that could have technically won the championship going into final race)
We had a whole bunch of years with a close finish and relative rule stability, with a final race when 2,3 or 4 drivers could have won it, and many races in those seasons stick in my mind as absolute classics.
I guess it depends what we mean by "racing"
2007 (3)
2008 (2)
2009 (3?)
2010 (4?)
2012 (2)
(number of drivers that could have technically won the championship going into final race)
We had a whole bunch of years with a close finish and relative rule stability, with a final race when 2,3 or 4 drivers could have won it, and many races in those seasons stick in my mind as absolute classics.
I guess it depends what we mean by "racing"
Scuffers said:
really getting bored with these kind of posts.
1) tyre war - how can it NOT improve them? the ones we have now are purposely made crap, and yes, testing will help, the start point would be a world better than we have now. (worth mentioning, F1 is not the only cars running race tyres).
We don't need a tyre war to improve the tyres, as you rightly say, they're purposely made crap, crap by design, intentionally crap. All that has to be done is to instruct Pirelli to make a better tyre, they're perfectly capable of doing so if they choose. 1) tyre war - how can it NOT improve them? the ones we have now are purposely made crap, and yes, testing will help, the start point would be a world better than we have now. (worth mentioning, F1 is not the only cars running race tyres).
The problem with a tyre war is that, because tyres have such a huge effect on performance, whatever teams get the worst tyres are instantly uncompetitive. You'd end up with a Pirelli race and a Michelin race. It's bad enough seeing teams unable to compete because they haven't got the Mercedes engine, if McLaren ended up with the Honda engine and the worst tyres they'd be lapped by Manor.
Megaflow said:
jsf said:
F1 needs a tyre war.
That will speed the buggers up and make it more of a fight.
No, it doesn't.That will speed the buggers up and make it more of a fight.
For a tyre war to change anything, I am reluctant to call it an improvement, you need testing.
As soon as you start testing, the more you test the faster you go, and very soon we will be back to where we were before the test ban, when each team was actually two teams, the race team and the test team.
It is not affordable, hence why it was stopped.
And that's before we get to the issue of the cars becoming too fast for the circuits, the faster a car travels the longer it needs to stop, the greater the run off required. Soon, all of the traditional circuits won't be able to cope with the speed of the cars and need either radical changes, for those with the space like Silverstone, or scapped entirely for those that don't, like Monza.
In WEC, the tyre company declares three dry specs at the beginning of the year. Unless they can prove they got it totally wrong, these are the three for the year. Only allowing a couple of mechanics to touch the car during the race (same as NASCAR) means that there is an incentive to leave tyres on the car longer. This gives the teams the choice between going softer, but losing a stack of time in the pits or racing for an hour or more on the same set. The strategy variables mean the result of a race is often in doubt until the last half hour or so - unlike F1.
For the tyre companies this gives a tyre war, but without the unsustainable costs of testing and airfreighting new tyres between the races (as happened in MotoGP in mid 2000s and in F1 in 1997/98)
If the move was made to 18in wheels, potentially the same specs could be used in WEC and F1...similar to FIA's ambition to have a 'global engine formula' for multiple championships.
Scuffers said:
samvia said:
The main grumble about this race seems to be the general fuel saving/lifting & coasting.
If the TV audience didn't get to hear any radio communications referring to fuel saving, would most casual viewers have even noticed it was going on?
no.If the TV audience didn't get to hear any radio communications referring to fuel saving, would most casual viewers have even noticed it was going on?
people are not that daft to realise that Rosburg was making no attempt to get on the back of lewis and challenge for the place.
Similar to how reality TV shows can be edited together to portray a character's image as completely positive or negative, despite having the same original content to work with. If the only radio communications to be broadcast on Sunday were the drivers & teams comments on the tyres, then we'd all be moaning in this thread about how the current tyres are terrible* and the fuel saving would barely get a look in.
- (I realise there are also moans about the tyres in this thread, but you get my point)
samvia said:
Scuffers said:
samvia said:
The main grumble about this race seems to be the general fuel saving/lifting & coasting.
If the TV audience didn't get to hear any radio communications referring to fuel saving, would most casual viewers have even noticed it was going on?
no.If the TV audience didn't get to hear any radio communications referring to fuel saving, would most casual viewers have even noticed it was going on?
people are not that daft to realise that Rosburg was making no attempt to get on the back of lewis and challenge for the place.
Similar to how reality TV shows can be edited together to portray a character's image as completely positive or negative, despite having the same original content to work with. If the only radio communications to be broadcast on Sunday were the drivers & teams comments on the tyres, then we'd all be moaning in this thread about how the current tyres are terrible* and the fuel saving would barely get a look in.
- (I realise there are also moans about the tyres in this thread, but you get my point)
The best way to improve the racing is to leave the rules alone so that everyone has a chance to close the gap. Those at the front get a deminishing return on their developement whilst those behind have time to learn where they are going wrong. The best racing has always been after a period of no rule changes.
Also allow more mid season upgrades, so that all teams get a chance to catch up instead of having to wait till the end of the season.
Personnally I quite enjoy F1 at the moment. The coverage gets a chance to show racing throughout the field instead of just the first 2 or 3. I've seen racing for 13 and 14th place recently. I've never seen that before.
The finance needs changing to give the smaller teams more budget to develope their cars. That will inevitably bunch the field up, and encourage more participants.
Also allow more mid season upgrades, so that all teams get a chance to catch up instead of having to wait till the end of the season.
Personnally I quite enjoy F1 at the moment. The coverage gets a chance to show racing throughout the field instead of just the first 2 or 3. I've seen racing for 13 and 14th place recently. I've never seen that before.
The finance needs changing to give the smaller teams more budget to develope their cars. That will inevitably bunch the field up, and encourage more participants.
swisstoni said:
RichB said:
People forget that there were often some boring processions in the old days as well.
Quite.And the DNFs due to reliability.
etc
Oh, and deaths. It was not a glorious sport even in the mythical golden eras. We don't want to see our heroes die on TV as so often happened in the "golden eras"
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff