Poll: Pirelli tyres
Total Members Polled: 337
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I was talking specifically about circuit racing rather than out and out LSR attempts.
I think Bloodhound is great and I hope it succeeds. But it's not F1.
I don't see the distinction, no other field of engineering has 'stopped' has it?I think Bloodhound is great and I hope it succeeds. But it's not F1.
Are you seriously saying that we know everything there is to know about making a racing-car faster and that there is nothing new to learn?
Not at all. What I am saying is that, in order to keep the sport in an environment where it can be watched and marshalled in comparative safety, restrictions on making the cars go faster and faster have to be set.
It's been this way since the early to mid 90s at least. Indeed, the first real restrictions began to be placed as early as 1982 when a whole generation of downforce generating devices was banned.
And that has been the thrust of most of the technical rule changes since then - preventing the cars from going too fast.
And there are certainly other fields of engineering where work has been, if not stopped, at least severely curtailed. We don't hear much talk about atomic engined bombers any more - or even manned lunar landers.
It's been this way since the early to mid 90s at least. Indeed, the first real restrictions began to be placed as early as 1982 when a whole generation of downforce generating devices was banned.
And that has been the thrust of most of the technical rule changes since then - preventing the cars from going too fast.
And there are certainly other fields of engineering where work has been, if not stopped, at least severely curtailed. We don't hear much talk about atomic engined bombers any more - or even manned lunar landers.
Eric Mc said:
Not at all. What I am saying is that, in order to keep the sport in an environment where it can be watched and marshalled in comparative safety, restrictions on making the cars go faster and faster have to be set.
It's been this way since the early to mid 90s at least. Indeed, the first real restrictions began to be placed as early as 1982 when a whole generation of downforce generating devices was banned.
And that has been the thrust of most of the technical rule changes since then - preventing the cars from going too fast.
And there are certainly other fields of engineering where work has been, if not stopped, at least severely curtailed. We don't hear much talk about atomic engined bombers any more - or even manned lunar landers.
that's kind of a different argument...It's been this way since the early to mid 90s at least. Indeed, the first real restrictions began to be placed as early as 1982 when a whole generation of downforce generating devices was banned.
And that has been the thrust of most of the technical rule changes since then - preventing the cars from going too fast.
And there are certainly other fields of engineering where work has been, if not stopped, at least severely curtailed. We don't hear much talk about atomic engined bombers any more - or even manned lunar landers.
As for Atomic engined bombers, yes, that one is probably dead, but that does not mean nuclear physics has stopped, there are huge sums of money being poured into it at the moment.
Ans was it not only int he last few years the US stated an intention to return to the moon?
It did - and then changed its mind.
No doubt, at some time in the indeterminate future, manned lunar landers will be back on the agenda again. At the moment, there are no formal projects anywhere in the world to return men to the moon. A couple of countries have expressed vague aspirations in that direction - but no fully funded and backed projects exist at the moment.
Nuclear physics definitely hasn't stopped - and neither has the motor industry and neither has motor sport. But certain aspects of these industries have to operate in different ways to the way they might have done things 50 or 60 years ago.
Geting back to motor sport - we will never again see an era where designers can go back to a generally free-wheeling and relatively unfettered licence to do what they want. Instead we will see variations on what we have now - designers working within extremely restricted parameters trying to extract the best performance out of extremely tight regulations.
No doubt, at some time in the indeterminate future, manned lunar landers will be back on the agenda again. At the moment, there are no formal projects anywhere in the world to return men to the moon. A couple of countries have expressed vague aspirations in that direction - but no fully funded and backed projects exist at the moment.
Nuclear physics definitely hasn't stopped - and neither has the motor industry and neither has motor sport. But certain aspects of these industries have to operate in different ways to the way they might have done things 50 or 60 years ago.
Geting back to motor sport - we will never again see an era where designers can go back to a generally free-wheeling and relatively unfettered licence to do what they want. Instead we will see variations on what we have now - designers working within extremely restricted parameters trying to extract the best performance out of extremely tight regulations.
The truth is that a truly unrestricted racing car would be too fast for a human driver anyway - we're no good at handling G forces in the wrong directions. Even if 'human driver' was mandated, in an otherwise unrestricted formula, they'd probably be little more than ballast as everything important would be computer dictated or controlled from the pits.
I genuinely think that is true. As I said, we now know far too much about vehicle dynamics. In other words, we could probably make much faster autonomous and driverless racing cars that really would be the ultimate in racing car technology.
But who would want to watch and in what venue could such racing be held?
But who would want to watch and in what venue could such racing be held?
Eric Mc said:
I genuinely think that is true. As I said, we now know far too much about vehicle dynamics. In other words, we could probably make much faster autonomous and driverless racing cars that really would be the ultimate in racing car technology.
But who would want to watch and in what venue could such racing be held?
It's quite easy to limit the overall speed of the cars by restricting either engine size or, my preferred option, limiting fuel allocated per race. I don't really care if the engines are 3l, 2l, or 1l, in fact the idea of a 1l series with no other restrictions is quite appealing.But who would want to watch and in what venue could such racing be held?
I don't like the arbitrary nature of these tyres, if the show needs livening up you might as well go for Bernie's idea of random sprinklers turnedd on during the race.
RYH64E said:
Eric Mc said:
I genuinely think that is true. As I said, we now know far too much about vehicle dynamics. In other words, we could probably make much faster autonomous and driverless racing cars that really would be the ultimate in racing car technology.
But who would want to watch and in what venue could such racing be held?
It's quite easy to limit the overall speed of the cars by restricting either engine size or, my preferred option, limiting fuel allocated per race. I don't really care if the engines are 3l, 2l, or 1l, in fact the idea of a 1l series with no other restrictions is quite appealing.But who would want to watch and in what venue could such racing be held?
I don't like the arbitrary nature of these tyres, if the show needs livening up you might as well go for Bernie's idea of random sprinklers turnedd on during the race.
Having been originally enthusiastic, I'm not altogether convinced about the benefits of DRS.
I wouldn't want random sprinklers though.
Eric Mc said:
I am happy with the tyre situation. It replicates what used to be a crucial part of GP racing - car management. That art was gradually lost in the 1990s and early 2000s. It's nice to see it back.
Having been originally enthusiastic, I'm not altogether convinced about the benefits of DRS.
I wouldn't want random sprinklers though.
I wouldn't have a problem with tyre management if there was some consistency to it, but having 5 different winners in 5 different cars suggests that there is more to it than an ability to look after the tyres. Button won the first race and was hopeless in the last, Rosberg won in China but has done nothing since, if they were good at managing their tyres then they should be good in all conditions on all circuits - but they're not. Even the teams haven't been able to work out why things work one day and not the next, it's maybe good for the show but too random for me.Having been originally enthusiastic, I'm not altogether convinced about the benefits of DRS.
I wouldn't want random sprinklers though.
Not necessarilly, Tracks and conditions at tracks vary. Even with consistemnt tyres the tyres can still behave differently dependent on lots of factors.
To me the variances seem to be to do with track tempartures and abrasiveness.
I think it's all good and look forward to more similar races this year.
I am pretty sure the teams will suss out how the tyres behave before too long and you will get the precessional and predictable racing you seem to hanker after.
I'm enjoying the unpredictability whilst it lasts.
To me the variances seem to be to do with track tempartures and abrasiveness.
I think it's all good and look forward to more similar races this year.
I am pretty sure the teams will suss out how the tyres behave before too long and you will get the precessional and predictable racing you seem to hanker after.
I'm enjoying the unpredictability whilst it lasts.
Eric Mc said:
Not necessarilly, Tracks and conditions at tracks vary. Even with consistemnt tyres the tyres can still behave differently dependent on lots of factors.
To me the variances seem to be to do with track tempartures and abrasiveness.
I think it's all good and look forward to more similar races this year.
I am pretty sure the teams will suss out how the tyres behave before too long and you will get the precessional and predictable racing you seem to hanker after.
I'm enjoying the unpredictability whilst it lasts.
I don't enjoy the processional racing that we have had in the past but I don't like the artificial racing that we are getting today either. 5 different drivers in 5 different cars winning so far this year just seems wrong.To me the variances seem to be to do with track tempartures and abrasiveness.
I think it's all good and look forward to more similar races this year.
I am pretty sure the teams will suss out how the tyres behave before too long and you will get the precessional and predictable racing you seem to hanker after.
I'm enjoying the unpredictability whilst it lasts.
We've always had variances between tracks, and some cars have been more sensitive to track temperatures than others, but this year it is extreme. Previously, if a car has struggled to get heat into the tyres that has been an identifiable problem that has been addressed over the course of a few races, This season the differences are too extreme imo, from day to day and circuit to circuit a car goes from being a front runner to a mid pack, that's not right (again, imo).
Which would you prefer though?
Predictable or unpredictable?
Nobody wants things too predictable and it seems quite a few don't like things being too unpredictable either.
How can we achieve a reasonable balance?
It has taken almost 20 years of effort for the FIA to come up with a formula that has allowed us some unpredictability. If they change their mind on the current tyres I expect that processional racing will return. As it is, I fully expect that racing will resume its more normal balance as the season progresses and the tyre wear is better understood.
Predictable or unpredictable?
Nobody wants things too predictable and it seems quite a few don't like things being too unpredictable either.
How can we achieve a reasonable balance?
It has taken almost 20 years of effort for the FIA to come up with a formula that has allowed us some unpredictability. If they change their mind on the current tyres I expect that processional racing will return. As it is, I fully expect that racing will resume its more normal balance as the season progresses and the tyre wear is better understood.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99670
The Emporer strikes back, but my money would be on Dietrich Mateschitz having greater influence on Bernie & FIA for next year.
The Emporer strikes back, but my money would be on Dietrich Mateschitz having greater influence on Bernie & FIA for next year.
Eric Mc said:
Which would you prefer though?
Predictable or unpredictable?
Why not racing or lottery? To me this is the key question.Predictable or unpredictable?
JB is good at preserving tyres, but was scratching his head at the weekend.
LH drove a great race, but could he have got on the podium with half-decent tyres?
SV & MW's comments basically summed it up. No one has much of a clue and they have Newey on their side.
KR looks like an idiot in one race and gets on the podium in the next two
Same for Mercedes, but they get a win
Q3 has become a farce
While everyone is please to see Williams have a podium, I prefer racing to sentimentality.
Edited by rdjohn on Friday 18th May 13:02
rdjohn said:
He would hardly say anything else would he..........and he's wrongAdrian W said:
rdjohn said:
He would hardly say anything else would he..........and he's wrongI do.
There you go.
This idea of "Purity in Racing" is, I think, somewhat of a Utopian dream. I feel that perhaps the only thing that defines this is the unilateral use of the same technology, cars, parts and team leaving the drivers to race on fully equal terms. Where this has been attempted (A1GP, Formula Palmer Audi, Superleague...) all have failed.
Looking at all the winners in F1 this season, I don't think that any one was undeserving of the victory. Nobody lucked into to the win. For me, this is the telling factor. If we had a situation where HRTs, Caterhams, etc where qualifying at the back but scooping up the wins, then you might then argue that something wasn't quite right.
Looking at all the winners in F1 this season, I don't think that any one was undeserving of the victory. Nobody lucked into to the win. For me, this is the telling factor. If we had a situation where HRTs, Caterhams, etc where qualifying at the back but scooping up the wins, then you might then argue that something wasn't quite right.
How many races between 1998 and 2007 were won by someone overtaking on track?
Even if the winners this year may not have done a huge amount of overtaking - there certainly has been a reasonable amount of overtaking for other positions - and that, to me, is just as much part of the action.
Jim Clark won a load of GPs in an era when overtaking was realtively easy and common. And yet, he rarely overtook anybody.
Even if the winners this year may not have done a huge amount of overtaking - there certainly has been a reasonable amount of overtaking for other positions - and that, to me, is just as much part of the action.
Jim Clark won a load of GPs in an era when overtaking was realtively easy and common. And yet, he rarely overtook anybody.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff