Official 2019 Spanish Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***

[paulguitar]

janesmith1950 said:

Biggest travesty for me was Hamilton on KR at Spa. That penalty was the ultimate insult to motor racing.

I completely agree. To me, that was the darkest day I can recall for F1, accidents aside.

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

cb1965 said:

Eric Mc said:

Trying to justify F1 as some sort of "technology proving ground" for family runabouts is a nonsense

Aside from all the road car technology that has been developed form motorsport, of which there is plenty, you are spot on

Go ahead and list them - especially technology that first appeared in F1 and ended up in my Ford Focus.

Motorsport invents some technologies and hones others.

A few that are becoming commonplace in road cars:

Paddle shift gearboxes
Lubricant technology to increase fuel efficiency
Energy recovery systems
Adaptive suspension
Traction control
Carbon fibre
Safety cells
Tyre technology
Computer control systems

Things like disc brakes and turbocharging were not invented by motorsport, but their use in motorsport and research into the technologies saw them becoming cheaper and therefore commonplace on road cars.

Even the humble rear view mirror comes from motor racing.

[Eric Mc]

cb1965 said:

Motorsport invents some technologies and hones others.

A few that are becoming commonplace in road cars:

Paddle shift gearboxes
Lubricant technology to increase fuel efficiency
Energy recovery systems
Adaptive suspension
Traction control
Carbon fibre
Safety cells
Tyre technology
Computer control systems

Things like disc brakes and turbocharging were not invented by motorsport, but their use in motorsport and research into the technologies saw them becoming cheaper and therefore commonplace on road cars.

Even the humble rear view mirror comes from motor racing.

I see you are using the more generic term "motorsport" rather than F1 - which is a slight deviation from the argument. I would agree that other forms of motorsport have often been ahead of F1 when it comes to innovation. However, I would still argue that virtually every item you have listed above came in ORDINARY motoring development or even aviation rather than F1.

Paddle shift gearboxes - not exclusive to F1 and not really taken up for ordinary motoring

Lubricant technology to increase fuel efficiency - happens anyway and little to do with F1 specifically

Energy recovery systems - used on buses and trains way before F1

Adaptive suspension - in existence before F1 and when it was used in F1, it got banned

Traction control - as above.

Carbon fibre - invented for aerospace purposes and introduced into F1 a good decade after it started being used in aviation

Safety cells - again, not exclusively derived from F1. And the safety cells on road cars have little to do with how safety cells are designed and work in F1 or other open wheel series

Tyre technology - F1 tyres feed very little to road tyres. Years after most road tyres went to radials, F1 was still running on crossply tyres

Computer control systems - again, not something specifically invented by F1. Computer controlled ignition systems.

[Vaud]

Eric Mc said:

Paddle shift gearboxes - not exclusive to F1 and not really taken up for ordinary motoring

Other than by Audi (tiptronic), Mercedes, Porsche, Volvo etc in many auto versions.

Plenty of ordinary motoring has flappy paddles as an option or standard, and has for 15 years.

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

cb1965 said:

Motorsport invents some technologies and hones others.

A few that are becoming commonplace in road cars:

Paddle shift gearboxes
Lubricant technology to increase fuel efficiency
Energy recovery systems
Adaptive suspension
Traction control
Carbon fibre
Safety cells
Tyre technology
Computer control systems

Things like disc brakes and turbocharging were not invented by motorsport, but their use in motorsport and research into the technologies saw them becoming cheaper and therefore commonplace on road cars.

Even the humble rear view mirror comes from motor racing.

I see you are using the more generic term "motorsport" rather than F1 - which is a slight deviation from the argument. I would agree that other forms of motorsport have often been ahead of F1 when it comes to innovation. However, I would still argue that virtually every item you have listed above came in ORDINARY motoring development or even aviation rather than F1.

Paddle shift gearboxes - not exclusive to F1 and not really taken up for ordinary motoring

Lubricant technology to increase fuel efficiency - happens anyway and little to do with F1 specifically

Energy recovery systems - used on buses and trains way before F1

Adaptive suspension - in existence before F1 and when it was used in F1, it got banned

Traction control - as above.

Carbon fibre - invented for aerospace purposes and introduced into F1 a good decade after it started being used in aviation

Safety cells - again, not exclusively derived from F1. And the safety cells on road cars have little to do with how safety cells are designed and work in F1 or other open wheel series

Tyre technology - F1 tyres feed very little to road tyres. Years after most road tyres went to radials, F1 was still running on crossply tyres

Computer control systems - again, not something specifically invented by F1. Computer controlled ignition systems.

I used the term motorsport originally, you chose to ignore it.

As for your assertion that everything I listed came from somewhere else I would argue you're wrong.

Let's take a few examples:

Paddle shift gearboxes - invented by John Barnard for the 1989 Ferrari and by 1995 no more manual gearboxes were used. Now featured on a vast amount of automatics using various shift technologies derived from the original F1 semi auto gearboxes.

Lubricant tech - using low viscosity synthetic oils to reduce friction owes much to F1 development. Teams have employed the tech not only to increase engine speed and reliability, but to eke out more efficiency from a tank of fuel.

Energy Recovery - systems like regenerative braking may not have been invented by F1, but their development within F1 has led to their suitability and subsequent introduction in road cars, in electric vehicles as well as those with traditional drive systems.

I'll not post again on the subject as I'm sure you'll have a contrary answer and I'm busy, but I work in the field of engineering innovation so am writing from a position of genuine knowledge rather than speculation or conjecture.

[HardtopManual]

cb1965 said:

Paddle shift gearboxes - invented by John Barnard for the 1989 Ferrari

The paddles were actually Piero Lardo Ferrari's idea. Barnard was originally going to put buttons on the front of the steering wheel</pedantry>

[Benrad]

entropy said:

You have to be wheel to wheel into and through Turn 2 to make it stick. That's why you have drivers backing out, cut across the Esses, go round the cone then rejoin the circuit. Inexperience at racing in Spain and less for Norris to worry about as it won't be needed in a few years time ...maybe even the stewards knew Zandvoort was a done deal!

Seems like I'm a lone voice here, but it was 100% Stroll's fault to me. He turned in on a car already established alongside him. Lando had realised Stroll was going to turn in and tried to back out of it to avoid contact which made it look like he wasn't as far alongside, not that it matters in my mind. It's foolish to poke a nose in, but if you allow people to turn in with impunity then you're pretty much insisting all overtaking must happen in a straight line!

Edited for typos that meant I made even less sense than usual

Edited by Benrad on Wednesday 15th May 09:08

[Derek Smith]

paulguitar said:

janesmith1950 said:

Biggest travesty for me was Hamilton on KR at Spa. That penalty was the ultimate insult to motor racing.

I completely agree. To me, that was the darkest day I can recall for F1, accidents aside.

Good grief! That's a strange thing to post. I remember a one-car race, albeit with three cars in it. I can remember outrageous decisions by 'the management' that were partial and unfair. I can remember a team being allowed to cheat in pit stops, gaining an advantage for the drivers, but no one got anything more that a mild tutt, despite nearly burning down Germany. I can remember lots of times when motor racing was not only insulted but kicked when it was down.

The 2008 Spa race incident was arguable at best. KR pushed LH wide, in fact off the circuit, but he had a certain amount of justification to take the racing line. LH dropped back as far as anyone else did previously but he was faster along the home straight. I'm a fan of LH, although not exclusively, and yet I reckon that LH should have given the place back.

So arguable.

I could quote many instances that were, quite clearly, insults to F1.

I don't know what Todt's like. I don't know if he's a fair bloke. I don't know if he's in it for the money. What I do know is that F1 has changed for the better since he's been in charge. He's not kicked F1 in the teeth.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

vdn said:

We can all agree; a big shake up wouldn’t hurt.

I can disagree with that. If one thing is guaranteed to create a walkover for one team it's a big rule change.

Keep things the same and parity follows. Always has, always will.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Eric Mc said:

cb1965 said:

Motorsport invents some technologies and hones others.

A few that are becoming commonplace in road cars:

Paddle shift gearboxes
Lubricant technology to increase fuel efficiency
Energy recovery systems
Adaptive suspension
Traction control
Carbon fibre
Safety cells
Tyre technology
Computer control systems

Things like disc brakes and turbocharging were not invented by motorsport, but their use in motorsport and research into the technologies saw them becoming cheaper and therefore commonplace on road cars.

Even the humble rear view mirror comes from motor racing.

I see you are using the more generic term "motorsport" rather than F1 - which is a slight deviation from the argument. I would agree that other forms of motorsport have often been ahead of F1 when it comes to innovation. However, I would still argue that virtually every item you have listed above came in ORDINARY motoring development or even aviation rather than F1.

Paddle shift gearboxes - not exclusive to F1 and not really taken up for ordinary motoring

Lubricant technology to increase fuel efficiency - happens anyway and little to do with F1 specifically

Energy recovery systems - used on buses and trains way before F1

Adaptive suspension - in existence before F1 and when it was used in F1, it got banned

Traction control - as above.

Carbon fibre - invented for aerospace purposes and introduced into F1 a good decade after it started being used in aviation

Safety cells - again, not exclusively derived from F1. And the safety cells on road cars have little to do with how safety cells are designed and work in F1 or other open wheel series

Tyre technology - F1 tyres feed very little to road tyres. Years after most road tyres went to radials, F1 was still running on crossply tyres

Computer control systems - again, not something specifically invented by F1. Computer controlled ignition systems.

As usual Eric, you're muddying the waters to try and win the internet (even if no one's interested).

F1 in particular of motorsport, may not be the bleeding edge of invention for the car industry but it is the proving ground. Yes all of the technologies pilfered by the teams to try and steal an advantage have their philosophies based in other industries but it is F1 that makes it appear on your car.

Like it or not (and you clearly don't, we all get the "pleasure" of reading your distaste on the sport foisted upon us by being fellow members of this site) F1 technology sells, no matter how far removed.

The same reason a 17 year old sticks on vinyl fake carbon fibre to his Fiesta is the same reason BMW put a V10 in a 5 series. Or Ferrari put an indicator button on a steering wheel

[TheDeuce]

Eric Mc said:

Paddle shift gearboxes - not exclusive to F1 and not really taken up for ordinary motoring

Adaptive suspension - in existence before F1 and when it was used in F1, it got banned

Paddle shift is hugely popular in road cars now. even in cars that really do not need them, simply because it's a cute selling point. Since about 2010 ZF have been selling an 8 speed box designed to deliver shifts on demand almost as fast as DSG, and the number of auto makers that have adopted it and added the paddles is insane. the advancement in auto-boxes speed this last decade, combined with the paddles, has bought drivers all the benefits of manual combined with all the benefits of auto. On the paddles it's easily quicker to swap cogs than having to change manually, the extra ratio's bring improved economy, the gearbox will always shift perfectly so no significant wear and tear. And you get paddles, which obviously appeals to a lot of passionate drivers! Paddle shift has been a huge success story in the industry - and in many cases it has genuinely improved the cars driving credentials.

Adaptive suspension is also on the up and up in terms of popularity. In automotive terms it's used to avoid the traditional compromise between solid handling and a reasonable level of comfort. In F1 it was used to keep the car riding at the optimum height in order to enhance ground effect - so two very different purposes. But it was a technology showed off to great effect via F1. Today it remains a high tech blagging right for cars that have it. It's a very neat addition to any road car and F1 really can take some of the credit. Initially it was sports/super cars that utilised adaptive damping in order to increase performance and also to blag 'F1 tech'. Then the real life benefits filtered through and it became an option on just about any mid range or upward car you can buy today.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 14th May 22:30

[paulguitar]

Derek Smith said:

Good grief! That's a strange thing to post.

Well, perhaps I was a little melodramatic.

Derek Smith said:

he 2008 Spa race incident was arguable at best. KR pushed LH wide, in fact off the circuit, but he had a certain amount of justification to take the racing line. LH dropped back as far as anyone else did previously but he was faster along the home straight. I'm a fan of LH, although not exclusively, and yet I reckon that LH should have given the place back.

He did give the place back, that’s the thing. The issue was that he subsequently had the totally legitimate win taken from him which was outrageous, Niki Lauda, at that time nothing to do with Hamilton, said it was the worst decision he had ever seen made by a steward.

[Zoobeef]

paulguitar said:

He did give the place back, that’s the thing. The issue was that he subsequently had the totally legitimate win taken from him which was outrageous, Niki Lauda, at that time nothing to do with Hamilton, said it was the worst decision he had ever seen made by a steward.

He gave him it back and was going slower the Kimi as they crossed the line.

[Eric Mc]

Derek Smith said:

Good grief! That's a strange thing to post. I remember a one-car race, albeit with three cars in it. I can remember outrageous decisions by 'the management' that were partial and unfair. I can remember a team being allowed to cheat in pit stops, gaining an advantage for the drivers, but no one got anything more that a mild tutt, despite nearly burning down Germany. I can remember lots of times when motor racing was not only insulted but kicked when it was down.

The 2008 Spa race incident was arguable at best. KR pushed LH wide, in fact off the circuit, but he had a certain amount of justification to take the racing line. LH dropped back as far as anyone else did previously but he was faster along the home straight. I'm a fan of LH, although not exclusively, and yet I reckon that LH should have given the place back.

So arguable.

I could quote many instances that were, quite clearly, insults to F1.

I don't know what Todt's like. I don't know if he's a fair bloke. I don't know if he's in it for the money. What I do know is that F1 has changed for the better since he's been in charge. He's not kicked F1 in the teeth.

The Indy GP debacle where only a few cars ran a few laps was a disgrace.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Eric Mc said:

The Indy GP debacle where only a few cars ran a few laps was a disgrace.

Wasn't that the good old days that we want back?

[TobyTR]

rdjohn said:

vdn said:

Martin says:

“...firstly, let's not pretend it was way better years or decades ago, a quick check of most results sheets underlines that.“

So yes, I agree with that. I disagree that it should only be about the drivers. There are other series to watch if one wants that. F1 should be the technical pinnacle of motorsport otherwise, it loses one of the main things that sets it apart: the fastest cars with the best drivers. Simple as that.

30-years ago Jordan put a very handy car on the grid with a team of 20 people and computers running Windows 3.1. The cars were state of the art and not over complex.

Mercedes and Ferrari have pushed those numbers to 1000 staff and Terabytes of supercomputers to put two competitive cars on the grid for 21 races. And Ferrari are looking like Donkeys.

What is currently happening is completely illogical - especially with tyre managment. Running a competitive F2 car, costs about £3million per year.

There has to be a better compromise where there are 26 competitive cars on the grid. I am certain that Liberty and Ross know exactly what needs to be done. But the big teams just need to get a sense of proportion and go with it. If it does not meet their corporate marketing budget, they just need to relax their grip - and move on. Racing Point are saying that the limit that is being suggested by Liberty is still too much for their team to live with.

Edited by rdjohn on Tuesday 14th May 12:33

nails it and Brundle is spot on with everything he said in that column too. Especially this:

"And this is why 2021 is so important for F1, but we've probably missed the optimum moment or maybe they should delay it a year. We must recreate the days when a Jordan, Stewart, or Force India might, just might, win the race. And create the environment where they can exist in the first place.

And while I'm ranting, I saw a number of interviews with these privileged drivers at the weekend which were reluctant, dismissive and grumpy. You are F1 drivers living the ultimate dream, it's not the dentist's waiting room on a wet Monday morning."

In 2004 when F1 cars were at their fastest, budgets seemingly insane and they were going through engines every weekend, the lower teams could still campaign a full year significantly cheaper. Jordan's budget was US$79m per year, and Minardi (albeit bottom of the pack) US$46m... Williams budget last year was US$150m - all those 'cost-cutting' measures and hybridisation over the last decade has had the opposite affect.

They need to find the balance again of racing/engineering. If the balance tips in favour of engineering then the racing will suffer and vice-versa, but F1 needs to be simpler, imo. DRS should've gone years ago and the cars should've been made 100+kgs lighter with reduced/simpler aero going into 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwcSaayPy7w

[kambites]

Maybe they should keep the formula as it is but force all the teams to release full CAD drawings and all CFD and wind-tunnel results at the end of each season. That wouldn't stifle innovation but would provide something of a level in performance.

[Derek Smith]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Eric Mc said:

The Indy GP debacle where only a few cars ran a few laps was a disgrace.

Wasn't that the good old days that we want back?

Play nicely, now.

That was down to one man,whom I thought of as the enemy of the sport. He accused McLaren of bringing the sport into disrepute, but then he should have known. The main problem with having a dictator in charge of F1 was when the tator became superfluous.

That race, well it wasn't a race, was it; that farce was so extreme that it should be as forgotten as the idiot who orchestrated it. The good old days were probably about as good as these good new days. There were some fabulous weekends. There were some dire ones. Some people are complaining about the state of the sport just two races after Bahrain, one of the most eventful and thrilling races ever. It even had pathos thrown in.

Spain and Monaco are often uneventful so in the grand scale of things, this was one of the better Spanish GPs. Let's look at the races post Monaco before reading the last rites. (Are they read? You'd think these vicars should remember them.)

[Vaud]

kambites said:

Maybe they should keep the formula as it is but force all the teams to release full CAD drawings and all CFD and wind-tunnel results at the end of each season. That wouldn't stifle innovation but would provide something of a level in performance.

Wouldn't that just create a two tier formulae?

The leaders would innovate.
The followers would build a copy of last years winner.
Plus there is the complexity of fuels, engine modes, etc - how the whole package comes together.

Might as well just allow teams to licence a n-1 car from the leaders.

[TheDeuce]

Gad-Westy said:

The green angle pees me off. You could make the cars run on fairy dust but whilst they're still being flown backwards and forwards across the Atlantic and to Asia or other parts of Europe every other week along with the enormous circus of people and kit, that follows them, then precisely what fuel and how much of it the cars themselves use seems trivially irrelevant. It's a shame really as I know, it's about the overall image of the sport, but it's such a wafer thin 'green' veil that it annoys me that it's given any credibility at all and yet here we are five years into the hybrid, 100l per race era.

I get your logic, but it's really more about the message than the fact. F1 wants to be seen as cutting edge, so wants to reflect the trend in road cars at the moment.

I also understand the frustration. But, having given this a lot of thought, I think there probably was no other option than to go hybrid when they did. It's essentially a stepping stone to full electric (as is the case for road cars) and at some point F1 will go electric. Otherwise, what will the kids watching in 20 years time make of it? It's going to be a bit much for them to see the pinnacle of motorsport using ICE when mum and dad's car already ditched such an old technology for electric power.

If F1 had started in the age of steam, would it have moved on to petrol when the rest of the world did? I think so.