RE: Motorsport on Monday: 22/09/14
Discussion
sideways man said:
Formula 1.
Entertainment,where the best drivers are pitted against each other in the fastest cars.
Why not increase the entertainment value,by giving the driver more to do in the cockpit,i.e manual gearchange, resulting in more mistakes therefore more overtaking.
Similarly,carbon brakes have no relevance to everyday motoring. A change back to steel,results in longer braking distance and again more chance of overtaking.
And lets go back to watching snooker in black and white and driving model t fords shall we. Pounds pence and shillings take anyones fancy?Entertainment,where the best drivers are pitted against each other in the fastest cars.
Why not increase the entertainment value,by giving the driver more to do in the cockpit,i.e manual gearchange, resulting in more mistakes therefore more overtaking.
Similarly,carbon brakes have no relevance to everyday motoring. A change back to steel,results in longer braking distance and again more chance of overtaking.
nickboazracing said:
bakker110 said:
FourRingedDonuts said:
Can you stop calling it Motorsport on Monday please. I like F1 as much as the next person but enjoy other Formulas and race series as well.
I always like to read MOM but feel the title suggests a round up of Motorsport not just an F1 rant.
I agree. There was not only F1 on this weekend but also world endurance cars and rally cross - one of the motorsports PH seemed so keen to promote yet I have barely seen an article on it since the first event of the season. I always like to read MOM but feel the title suggests a round up of Motorsport not just an F1 rant.
nickboazracing said:
sideways man said:
Formula 1.
Entertainment,where the best drivers are pitted against each other in the fastest cars.
Why not increase the entertainment value,by giving the driver more to do in the cockpit,i.e manual gearchange, resulting in more mistakes therefore more overtaking.
Similarly,carbon brakes have no relevance to everyday motoring. A change back to steel,results in longer braking distance and again more chance of overtaking.
And lets go back to watching snooker in black and white and driving model t fords shall we. Pounds pence and shillings take anyones fancy?Entertainment,where the best drivers are pitted against each other in the fastest cars.
Why not increase the entertainment value,by giving the driver more to do in the cockpit,i.e manual gearchange, resulting in more mistakes therefore more overtaking.
Similarly,carbon brakes have no relevance to everyday motoring. A change back to steel,results in longer braking distance and again more chance of overtaking.
Didn't think so.
sideways man said:
Formula 1.
Entertainment,where the best drivers are pitted against each other in the fastest cars.
Why not increase the entertainment value,by giving the driver more to do in the cockpit,i.e manual gearchange, resulting in more mistakes therefore more overtaking.
Similarly,carbon brakes have no relevance to everyday motoring. A change back to steel,results in longer braking distance and again more chance of overtaking.
Contradicting yourself in the same post - how can they be the fastest cars (and the pinnacle of (non-endurance) car motorsport) if you're deliberately slowing them down and sticking "old" tech gearboxes in? Entertainment,where the best drivers are pitted against each other in the fastest cars.
Why not increase the entertainment value,by giving the driver more to do in the cockpit,i.e manual gearchange, resulting in more mistakes therefore more overtaking.
Similarly,carbon brakes have no relevance to everyday motoring. A change back to steel,results in longer braking distance and again more chance of overtaking.
F1 is about entertainment, yes, but also about pushing the limits of technology and showcasing new things that may then trickle down into road cars. Carbon brakes are part of that. And do of course appear on (high-end) road cars. Paddle-shift gearboxes are the same.
Personally I think the drivers have an awful lot to do in the cockpit - a multitude of diff and other settings, using DRS, using KERS, fuel saving, different engine modes etc etc.
For me at least I don't find that paddle shift 'boxes detract from F1 - in fact the speed of the shifts is astonishing, and there's no denying how skilled all the drivers are, whether they use a clutch or not.
Putting the communication that there is between the pits and driver on the TV adds to the evet but is has shown how much of the race was managed from the pits. So righly Eccles stepped in to ban it.
The driver is there to drive. He does not need and the fans do not want to see a remote R2D2 interdicting the whole time.
Now that the cars have less downforces etc, then they should do away with DRS. If there is not enough overtaking, keep reducing downforce or adding ballast.
Launch control should also be dropped. It has no real world benefit, except at traffic lights in Essex.
The PH competition (Motor Sport Mag) have a couple of very interesting podcasts from Pat Symonds and Gordon Murray about sensible changes that could be made.
However I have not watch a full F1 race for at least 5 years and this season is proving to be great. With Honda back next year it will be even
better.
The driver is there to drive. He does not need and the fans do not want to see a remote R2D2 interdicting the whole time.
Now that the cars have less downforces etc, then they should do away with DRS. If there is not enough overtaking, keep reducing downforce or adding ballast.
Launch control should also be dropped. It has no real world benefit, except at traffic lights in Essex.
The PH competition (Motor Sport Mag) have a couple of very interesting podcasts from Pat Symonds and Gordon Murray about sensible changes that could be made.
However I have not watch a full F1 race for at least 5 years and this season is proving to be great. With Honda back next year it will be even
better.
Ban all radio traffic from team to driver and only allow radio traffic with race control for safety issues .
I would also try to make the qualification spec of the car the race spec of the car as far as possible, especially with regards to weight , ie the weight at the end of the qualification lap would be the race start weight and no refuelling during the race .
I would also try to make the qualification spec of the car the race spec of the car as far as possible, especially with regards to weight , ie the weight at the end of the qualification lap would be the race start weight and no refuelling during the race .
How about removing the DRS zones? Give the drivers a fixed amount of DRS time for the whole race - say 30 seconds. They could use it at the beginning to gain some clear air, or save it until later to monster the guys whose tyres were going off. It removes the situation where a decent driver in a slow car is out driving a supposedly faster driver/car combo behind him. He works hard to stay ahead, knowing that as soon as they reach the DRS zone the car behind gets an artificial advantage to pass him - that's not racing. I'd argue it's external assistance, as the availablility of DRS is controlled by someone other than the driver...
totally agree.
motor racing should not have any radio comms or car-pit telemetry. end of. it all takes away from the driver's job and winds up making the manufacturer's championship the true F1 title. which would be all well and good, if the public came to watch engineers looking at graphs and doing simulations. but, speaking as an engineer myself, i have to say, sadly, this is not the reason people watch F1.
the public comes to see Lewis, Kimi, Fernando, Nico, etc. they are marketed as the best drivers in the world, so let them prove it in the way drivers of a previous generation had to - by out-thinking, out-driving, out-smarting their opponents.
radio and telemetry should be put in the bin of history and left there.
motor racing should not have any radio comms or car-pit telemetry. end of. it all takes away from the driver's job and winds up making the manufacturer's championship the true F1 title. which would be all well and good, if the public came to watch engineers looking at graphs and doing simulations. but, speaking as an engineer myself, i have to say, sadly, this is not the reason people watch F1.
the public comes to see Lewis, Kimi, Fernando, Nico, etc. they are marketed as the best drivers in the world, so let them prove it in the way drivers of a previous generation had to - by out-thinking, out-driving, out-smarting their opponents.
radio and telemetry should be put in the bin of history and left there.
The real issue I think is that it's very hard for the general public to relate to what it's like as a driver. Even in club racing, your team/dad/best mate are giving you 'technical information' in some form or another. Many people have said 'the drivers should be just left to get on a drive' which is largely true.....this is actually what the point of the radio communications is. It takes the technical load off the driver.
As we've seen, whether the drivers make use of the info or not is up to them, and always has been. And the effort they put in to the cars engineering over the weekend helps to separate the champions from the could have beens. People like Schumacher and Vettel do well because they understand the cars. This will continue to be the case whether there are radio communications or not....however, it will likely tend to more situations where one drivers wins everything, or one team win everything. Being unable to tell the driver to manage certain things will put people like Vettel at a big advantage. Do we really want to do this?
As we've seen, whether the drivers make use of the info or not is up to them, and always has been. And the effort they put in to the cars engineering over the weekend helps to separate the champions from the could have beens. People like Schumacher and Vettel do well because they understand the cars. This will continue to be the case whether there are radio communications or not....however, it will likely tend to more situations where one drivers wins everything, or one team win everything. Being unable to tell the driver to manage certain things will put people like Vettel at a big advantage. Do we really want to do this?
And we are again back to this idea that F1 is about the drivers. It's not. Its about the whole team. Trying to take the engineers out is like trying to ban players from passing to strikers in football, because they are normally the known faces, but they are not the whole team.
For me F1 is about the whole team working to bring the best package to win the race over the weekend, over the buildup and over the season, not who goes fastest on the Sunday.
For me F1 is about the whole team working to bring the best package to win the race over the weekend, over the buildup and over the season, not who goes fastest on the Sunday.
RenOHH said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
Also, ban the different compounds of tyres as this is just complicated for the sake of it.
F1 should be glamorous, not a lecture that feels as if it has started before I got there.
Removing the 2nd compound would completely ruin any chance of close racing.F1 should be glamorous, not a lecture that feels as if it has started before I got there.
F1 is not that difficult to understand in 2014; it's probably easier than ever. The commentators still explain things every week, and they run features on the technology during the race build up/post race. There are also things like teds notebook, which is free to watch on Sky F1's website. F1 cannot ever be as accessible as football, because it's always going to be more complicated than kicking a ball into a net. That's just the way it is. Football is so popular because any idiot understands it.
If F1 was easy to understand there would be no need for commentators to explain it each week. If the teams themselves get it wrong (Ferrari-Silverstone) then surely it is not easy to understand. Tyre compounds have no relevance to road cars either.
You have also missed my point entirely about football being better and more 'human'. I don't see players wearing a headset with constant instructions from the manager, such as "kick it a bit harder/use your other foot/defend better/stop running so fast" etc. F1 is 'just' driving around in circles, like football is 'just' kicking a ball into a net, as you state. Right?
BlimeyCharlie said:
How would not having 2 compounds ruin the racing? I didn't see much 'racing' yesterday? Maybe if it is so easy to understand you could predict what tyres will be used and for how long at the next race on Rosberg's car? Easy...
If F1 was easy to understand there would be no need for commentators to explain it each week. If the teams themselves get it wrong (Ferrari-Silverstone) then surely it is not easy to understand. Tyre compounds have no relevance to road cars either.
You have also missed my point entirely about football being better and more 'human'. I don't see players wearing a headset with constant instructions from the manager, such as "kick it a bit harder/use your other foot/defend better/stop running so fast" etc. F1 is 'just' driving around in circles, like football is 'just' kicking a ball into a net, as you state. Right?
I meant that F1 could not be made any simpler for a new fan to understand because we have the best coverage we've ever had, we have online videos to explain the technology, and even some of the tactics used. At some stage every F1 fan had to learn stuff about it so that we could enjoy it. I don't believe it could be made any simpler, and certainly, when it was on ITV in the early 2000s it was far less accessible than it is now.If F1 was easy to understand there would be no need for commentators to explain it each week. If the teams themselves get it wrong (Ferrari-Silverstone) then surely it is not easy to understand. Tyre compounds have no relevance to road cars either.
You have also missed my point entirely about football being better and more 'human'. I don't see players wearing a headset with constant instructions from the manager, such as "kick it a bit harder/use your other foot/defend better/stop running so fast" etc. F1 is 'just' driving around in circles, like football is 'just' kicking a ball into a net, as you state. Right?
Don't use yesterday as your only sample. There is no denying that two compounds produces more racing that 1 compound. Split strategies has given us countless fantastic closing laps as the strategies play out.
Football... I meant it's easier to understand, easier to enjoy instantly than F1. Like I said, F1 is complex by nature. To simplify it wouldn't make it F1. F3 is simple and a darn sight easier to extract enjoyment from for someone new to motorsport.
canucklehead said:
totally agree.
motor racing should not have any radio comms or car-pit telemetry. end of. it all takes away from the driver's job and winds up making the manufacturer's championship the true F1 title. which would be all well and good, if the public came to watch engineers looking at graphs and doing simulations. but, speaking as an engineer myself, i have to say, sadly, this is not the reason people watch F1.
the public comes to see Lewis, Kimi, Fernando, Nico, etc. they are marketed as the best drivers in the world, so let them prove it in the way drivers of a previous generation had to - by out-thinking, out-driving, out-smarting their opponents.
radio and telemetry should be put in the bin of history and left there.
F1 began as a manufacturers championship, not a competition between desperately overpaid, characterless primadonnas.motor racing should not have any radio comms or car-pit telemetry. end of. it all takes away from the driver's job and winds up making the manufacturer's championship the true F1 title. which would be all well and good, if the public came to watch engineers looking at graphs and doing simulations. but, speaking as an engineer myself, i have to say, sadly, this is not the reason people watch F1.
the public comes to see Lewis, Kimi, Fernando, Nico, etc. they are marketed as the best drivers in the world, so let them prove it in the way drivers of a previous generation had to - by out-thinking, out-driving, out-smarting their opponents.
radio and telemetry should be put in the bin of history and left there.
I have supported the banning of ship to shore for years. And to take it a stage further to improve both the spectacle of F1 and the safety, ban artificially induced 'downforce' altogether. Make the cars aerodynamically neutral so they can follow each other closely through corners and allow proper slipstreaming down the straight without the need of stupid DRS systems. Corner speeds would be slower increasing driver safety and run off areas would be smaller so spectators can actually see the cars.
Re introducing manual gearboxes is just a bit silly though. The example is of an 'H' pattern, but whats wrong with sequential? However, I still think it a non starter.
And the smokescreen of safety banning refuelling is nothing more than the tyre companies demanding more promotion time, which includes multiple compounds etc. so the commentators are continually reminding the public what make of tyres are on the cars. WEC etc. manage to refuel cars quite safely, why not F1? The whole point of F1 is to get a car round a track as quickly as possible, so re introduce refuelling as well as tyre changes to allow the drivers to knock the blazes out the car over, perhaps, 3 stints with minimum fuel, instead of nursing it because it handles like a bus for the first 30 laps and only starts to go quickly when the fuel load has dropped.
And what's wrong with qualy spec. for the cars with changes being allowed for the race like tyres and suspension setting changes? It allows everyone to take advantage of their own cars positive qualities and might help the runners at the back move up a bit further. On the other hand, it might not, so no loss then, but at least it's not a compromise setup during qualy.
And stop the stupid football like salaries, every one of the drivers would participate for a lot less than they are getting, and if not, there are plenty of young guns in lower formulas who would do it for next to nothing.
The whole point of the new hybrid engines and technology is to make F1 more relevant to road car tech, and helping the future. Going back to Manual, clutch, no ECU is... backwards, and no modern road car doesn't use ECUs to increase power, and in turn increase power when necessary. Auto boxes + hybrid drive train is the future. There aren't many of these cars now, but in the near future, I'm pretty sure most cars will have some form of that.
At the end of the day, I REALLY enjoyed the Singapore grand prix. I didn't tune in to watch 800hp analog monsters go around in circles, ie Nascar. And it really makes sense why Nascar only functions on a loop. It wouldn't make sense to need to drive real race tracks "at the top level" with old fart technology.
Olympians don't use heavy mountain bikes on road courses, and Usain bolt doesn't run in his jeans.
At the end of the day, I REALLY enjoyed the Singapore grand prix. I didn't tune in to watch 800hp analog monsters go around in circles, ie Nascar. And it really makes sense why Nascar only functions on a loop. It wouldn't make sense to need to drive real race tracks "at the top level" with old fart technology.
Olympians don't use heavy mountain bikes on road courses, and Usain bolt doesn't run in his jeans.
RenOHH said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
How would not having 2 compounds ruin the racing? I didn't see much 'racing' yesterday? Maybe if it is so easy to understand you could predict what tyres will be used and for how long at the next race on Rosberg's car? Easy...
If F1 was easy to understand there would be no need for commentators to explain it each week. If the teams themselves get it wrong (Ferrari-Silverstone) then surely it is not easy to understand. Tyre compounds have no relevance to road cars either.
You have also missed my point entirely about football being better and more 'human'. I don't see players wearing a headset with constant instructions from the manager, such as "kick it a bit harder/use your other foot/defend better/stop running so fast" etc. F1 is 'just' driving around in circles, like football is 'just' kicking a ball into a net, as you state. Right?
I meant that F1 could not be made any simpler for a new fan to understand because we have the best coverage we've ever had, we have online videos to explain the technology, and even some of the tactics used. At some stage every F1 fan had to learn stuff about it so that we could enjoy it. I don't believe it could be made any simpler, and certainly, when it was on ITV in the early 2000s it was far less accessible than it is now.If F1 was easy to understand there would be no need for commentators to explain it each week. If the teams themselves get it wrong (Ferrari-Silverstone) then surely it is not easy to understand. Tyre compounds have no relevance to road cars either.
You have also missed my point entirely about football being better and more 'human'. I don't see players wearing a headset with constant instructions from the manager, such as "kick it a bit harder/use your other foot/defend better/stop running so fast" etc. F1 is 'just' driving around in circles, like football is 'just' kicking a ball into a net, as you state. Right?
Don't use yesterday as your only sample. There is no denying that two compounds produces more racing that 1 compound. Split strategies has given us countless fantastic closing laps as the strategies play out.
Football... I meant it's easier to understand, easier to enjoy instantly than F1. Like I said, F1 is complex by nature. To simplify it wouldn't make it F1. F3 is simple and a darn sight easier to extract enjoyment from for someone new to motorsport.
It would be a lot simpler/easier to understand to anyone if it were not so complicated in the first place.
There must be a lot more people leaving/losing interest in the sport then being newly attracted to it. I agree coverage is there if you want to understand what you are seeing, but I could do something a lot more rewarding with my time instead.
It is a sport, obviously a business too. But if people/sponsors/their customers don't understand a lot of what they see they'll spend their money somewhere else-like football, for example, or Moto GP (BMW did) and TT Racing etc.
Tyres-we don't need different compounds when we have no perception of what that actually means. Either tyres are new, good, or worn out. Why not just have the same compound and change to newer ones if that is the best way forward? It has worked before, and as I said previously there is no road car benefit from these compounds running now. It is a gimmick. Yes, we've had some good races, but also when it rains it is good, when on the same tyre...
And I know it is one of 'those' things, but Rosberg (title leader at the time) retired because his car had an electronic issue, in this 'modern' world we live in? The team couldn't sort it out or whatever? That is like Ronaldo not playing because he only has one boot lace. People want to see Hamilton and Rosberg racing, not that sh*t. It was poor for the sport (yet again). Hardly a positive talking point, was it?
As discussed by many people around the world, the sport is seriously out of touch and I'm quite happy to act as a paid consultant if my services are required by Mr Todt, Mr Ecclestone etc.
I'll await the call/email/carrier pigeon message...
RenOHH said:
nickboazracing said:
bakker110 said:
FourRingedDonuts said:
Can you stop calling it Motorsport on Monday please. I like F1 as much as the next person but enjoy other Formulas and race series as well.
I always like to read MOM but feel the title suggests a round up of Motorsport not just an F1 rant.
I agree. There was not only F1 on this weekend but also world endurance cars and rally cross - one of the motorsports PH seemed so keen to promote yet I have barely seen an article on it since the first event of the season. I always like to read MOM but feel the title suggests a round up of Motorsport not just an F1 rant.
Letting the drivers do the racing is what F1 should be about. We all know that the tech side of the sport has become totally dominant. Banning all radio traffic except safety messages would be better.
If Mercedes had cracked the reliability issues, this year would have been even more of a three pointed star steam roller. I mean Lewis pulling more than 2 seconds a lap after the safety car? Crazy situation around a Go-Kart track like Singapore. Lets hope next year we have a real contest with more competitive teams.
If Mercedes had cracked the reliability issues, this year would have been even more of a three pointed star steam roller. I mean Lewis pulling more than 2 seconds a lap after the safety car? Crazy situation around a Go-Kart track like Singapore. Lets hope next year we have a real contest with more competitive teams.
I really don't see what is so hard to follow about F1 rules, even if you are new just watching a couple of races will be enough to understand.
Anyway, dual compounds do work, it created the only bit of excitment in the last GP, so quite why anyone would say it doesn't work and then cite the last GP is beyond me. Hamilton went on to another set of super softs and because of the mandate to run both compounds meant that after the saftey car he was on the back foot because he had to stop whereas the others who'd already swapped to the other compound didn't need to stop. He had to get the hammer down, pull out a gap and then when switching to the other compound (soft) hope he had enough in hand to get back to the front. Which he did very well. If there was only 1 compound then after the saftey car restart it would have just been the begining of the race again, very boring indeed.
I would presonally remove all the wings and gubbins but reintroduce ground effect aero. This would maintain the high speed racing the sport is renowned for, but as I understand it, wouldn't create anywhere near the same levels of 'dirty' air that stops close racing in the corners. Could then ditch DRS which is just a fudge frankly.
Reduced info coming from the pit's should also be enforced, as someone else nicely put it in this thread, we want to see the drives out-thinking and out-smarting their opponents.
Anyway, dual compounds do work, it created the only bit of excitment in the last GP, so quite why anyone would say it doesn't work and then cite the last GP is beyond me. Hamilton went on to another set of super softs and because of the mandate to run both compounds meant that after the saftey car he was on the back foot because he had to stop whereas the others who'd already swapped to the other compound didn't need to stop. He had to get the hammer down, pull out a gap and then when switching to the other compound (soft) hope he had enough in hand to get back to the front. Which he did very well. If there was only 1 compound then after the saftey car restart it would have just been the begining of the race again, very boring indeed.
I would presonally remove all the wings and gubbins but reintroduce ground effect aero. This would maintain the high speed racing the sport is renowned for, but as I understand it, wouldn't create anywhere near the same levels of 'dirty' air that stops close racing in the corners. Could then ditch DRS which is just a fudge frankly.
Reduced info coming from the pit's should also be enforced, as someone else nicely put it in this thread, we want to see the drives out-thinking and out-smarting their opponents.
sideways man said:
nickboazracing said:
sideways man said:
Formula 1.
Entertainment,where the best drivers are pitted against each other in the fastest cars.
Why not increase the entertainment value,by giving the driver more to do in the cockpit,i.e manual gearchange, resulting in more mistakes therefore more overtaking.
Similarly,carbon brakes have no relevance to everyday motoring. A change back to steel,results in longer braking distance and again more chance of overtaking.
And lets go back to watching snooker in black and white and driving model t fords shall we. Pounds pence and shillings take anyones fancy?Entertainment,where the best drivers are pitted against each other in the fastest cars.
Why not increase the entertainment value,by giving the driver more to do in the cockpit,i.e manual gearchange, resulting in more mistakes therefore more overtaking.
Similarly,carbon brakes have no relevance to everyday motoring. A change back to steel,results in longer braking distance and again more chance of overtaking.
Didn't think so.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff