F1 has become farcical hasnt it
Discussion
Jon39 said:
E30M3ZONE said:
..... if you can manage to pretend DRS isn't happening.
Obviously DRS is an artificial overtaking aid, to benefit the car which is following.
Let us consider two cars with almost identical lap times. After a pass has been achieved, it might be expected that the car which has just been overtaken would then have the advantage on the following lap and be able to regain the original position.
It rarely seems to work like that though. Why is that?
Vaud said:
Jon39 said:
Obviously DRS is an artificial overtaking aid, to benefit the car which is following.
Let us consider two cars with almost identical lap times. After a pass has been achieved, it might be expected that the car which has just been overtaken would then have the advantage on the following lap and be able to regain the original position.
It rarely seems to work like that though. Why is that?
For one car to move close enough to the car in front for DRS to be activated, it will have an advantage over the course of the lap and is naturally the faster car (and / or faster driver) so by the time the reach the next DRS zone, the passing car will have pulled out sufficient space to prevent the car it passed from retaking the place.
DRS isn't designed to make slow cars fast, just to eliminate some of the aero wake that made it difficult for a fast car to pass a slower one.
I swear Formula 1 is just the latest target for serial whiners. If you want 100% apples to apples racing then try other motorsports. Those who understand and appreciate F1 can then be left in peace without the ill-informed piping up and constantly muddying the waters with complaints about stuff that has been going in the sport since forever, but has apparently now only just become an issue. And all during one of the most entertaining seasons in recent memory 
In short, listen to the sage advice in the music credits of ‘Why Don’t You” [go and do something less boring instead].
In short, listen to the sage advice in the music credits of ‘Why Don’t You” [go and do something less boring instead].
I have to be honest, I don;t follow Prem matches, but I do support a lower league team and have NEVER heard racist chanting.
Homophobic stuff used to be a bit more common but in a fun, daft way, not a serious one as no football players will ever admit to being gay.
Chanting at games is fun, it needs to happen in more sport, booing etc all makes the atmosphere amazing, same as things like cricket.
What I cannot stand is the vehement shouting some fans give to players, it is relentless and rather sad, that has no place.
Homophobic stuff used to be a bit more common but in a fun, daft way, not a serious one as no football players will ever admit to being gay.
Chanting at games is fun, it needs to happen in more sport, booing etc all makes the atmosphere amazing, same as things like cricket.
What I cannot stand is the vehement shouting some fans give to players, it is relentless and rather sad, that has no place.
billybob1971 said:
Homophobic stuff used to be a bit more common but in a fun, daft way, not a serious one as no football players will ever admit to being gay.
Read that back.It "used to be a bit more common but in a fun, daft way"
No players came out. I contest that it was ever "fun, daft".
Fast forward to today.
No players have come out.
What is the underlying cultural issue that football has? Either outward homophobia or a culture and climate of fear for those that are gay. Statistically a % of premiership (and other leagues) players will be gay.
The latest "racist" chant - cant remember which team it was - was "I'd rather be a louse than a scouse". Sure its tribal and unintelligent playground noise. But racist? No way.
Anyway, back to the topic.
Why 95 ocane pump petrol? Because the likes of Ferrari are using exotic chemicals at great expense supplied by Shell. Where is the "racing" in that? Where is the interest in that except perhaps to an organic chemist?
Why 100kg limit - apart from the eco / PR side of things, because that prevents the simple approach of building a humungous 16 litre V24 engine as a way of winning. The engineers have to be efficient.
Why a fixed budget - because that gives 6 or 8 teams a chance of winning rather than just the big car manufacturers.
No fixed tyre choices - to encopurage tyre development and competition
No other rules - thats there to stop the likes of Ferrari rigging the races using the FIA
As for le Man - what exactly is the purpose of LMP1? And why on earth have the balance of performance to rig th sports car results - why not have every driver in identical cars instead?
Anyway, back to the topic.
Why 95 ocane pump petrol? Because the likes of Ferrari are using exotic chemicals at great expense supplied by Shell. Where is the "racing" in that? Where is the interest in that except perhaps to an organic chemist?
Why 100kg limit - apart from the eco / PR side of things, because that prevents the simple approach of building a humungous 16 litre V24 engine as a way of winning. The engineers have to be efficient.
Why a fixed budget - because that gives 6 or 8 teams a chance of winning rather than just the big car manufacturers.
No fixed tyre choices - to encopurage tyre development and competition
No other rules - thats there to stop the likes of Ferrari rigging the races using the FIA
As for le Man - what exactly is the purpose of LMP1? And why on earth have the balance of performance to rig th sports car results - why not have every driver in identical cars instead?
Edited by bordseye on Saturday 10th August 13:08
bordseye said:
... 100kg limit ... prevents the simple approach of building a humungous 16 litre V24 engine ...
I think teams should be able to build 'humungous 16 litre V24 engines' if they want to. No engine restrictions at all, I say."The car should always have more power than the driver can handle" - Stirling Moss.
bordseye said:
The latest "racist" chant - cant remember which team it was - was "I'd rather be a louse than a scouse". Sure its tribal and unintelligent playground noise. But racist? No way.
Anyway, back to the topic.
Why 95 ocane pump petrol? Because the likes of Ferrari are using exotic chemicals at great expense supplied by Shell. Where is the "racing" in that? Where is the interest in that except perhaps to an organic chemist?
Why 100kg limit - apart from the eco / PR side of things, because that prevents the simple approach of building a humungous 16 litre V24 engine as a way of winning. The engineers have to be efficient.
Why a fixed budget - because that gives 6 or 8 teams a chance of winning rather than just the big car manufacturers.
No fixed tyre choices - to encopurage tyre development and competition
No other rules - thats there to stop the likes of Ferrari rigging the races using the FIA
As for le Man - what exactly is the purpose of LMP1? And why on earth have the balance of performance to rig th sports car results - why not have every driver in identical cars instead?
Even with the 100KG fuel limit the cars are rarely filled to capacity anyway as more fuel means more weight which means a slower lap time. They have simulations that show the fastest way to get to the finish is to under fuel the car and conserve throughout the race when you can. You’re not always fighting and can turn the wick down or lift and coast to help save fuel.Anyway, back to the topic.
Why 95 ocane pump petrol? Because the likes of Ferrari are using exotic chemicals at great expense supplied by Shell. Where is the "racing" in that? Where is the interest in that except perhaps to an organic chemist?
Why 100kg limit - apart from the eco / PR side of things, because that prevents the simple approach of building a humungous 16 litre V24 engine as a way of winning. The engineers have to be efficient.
Why a fixed budget - because that gives 6 or 8 teams a chance of winning rather than just the big car manufacturers.
No fixed tyre choices - to encopurage tyre development and competition
No other rules - thats there to stop the likes of Ferrari rigging the races using the FIA
As for le Man - what exactly is the purpose of LMP1? And why on earth have the balance of performance to rig th sports car results - why not have every driver in identical cars instead?
Edited by bordseye on Saturday 10th August 13:08
MissChief said:
Even with the 100KG fuel limit the cars are rarely filled to capacity anyway as more fuel means more weight which means a slower lap time. They have simulations that show the fastest way to get to the finish is to under fuel the car and conserve throughout the race when you can. You’re not always fighting and can turn the wick down or lift and coast to help save fuel.
I thought this logic held credence until we saw Max and Lewis giving it full beans for much of the race, last week.Though Lewis did admit to some “lift and cruise” to conserve his brakes - not fuel. Now that Mercedes can be threatened by either RB, or Ferrari, depending on the circuit, I no longer think they have the luxury of short fuelling massively.- it certainly won’t be the case at Spa or Monza.
Nothing wrong with "full beans". In fact that should be the objective. But what we dont want is the easy American style solution of just building a bigger engine. We want a better engine. A more efficient one as indeed the current 100kg limit has encouraged.
By the same logic, there should be no minimum weight for the car itself. "Adding lightness" should be the objective to give better performance.
By the same logic, there should be no minimum weight for the car itself. "Adding lightness" should be the objective to give better performance.
Winning in the slowest time possible has always been an objective in motorsport. That’s why the gap to the car behind is so important.
Max effectively lost it last week because RB didn't tell him how to respond in Lewis’s undercut in the first two sectors. He should have been going flat out when Lewis was changing tyres.
Adding lightness these days just means ramping up the cost using exotic materials. Chapman’s philosophy produced fragile cars, they either won, or broke - ask Martin Donnelly.
Max effectively lost it last week because RB didn't tell him how to respond in Lewis’s undercut in the first two sectors. He should have been going flat out when Lewis was changing tyres.
Adding lightness these days just means ramping up the cost using exotic materials. Chapman’s philosophy produced fragile cars, they either won, or broke - ask Martin Donnelly.
rdjohn said:
Winning in the slowest time possible has always been an objective in motorsport. That’s why the gap to the car behind is so important.
Max effectively lost it last week because RB didn't tell him how to respond in Lewis’s undercut in the first two sectors. He should have been going flat out when Lewis was changing tyres.
Adding lightness these days just means ramping up the cost using exotic materials. Chapman’s philosophy produced fragile cars, they either won, or broke - ask Martin Donnelly.
Without being Picky I think Chapman was long gone by the time Martin had his crash, they just made a poor car as they had little cashMax effectively lost it last week because RB didn't tell him how to respond in Lewis’s undercut in the first two sectors. He should have been going flat out when Lewis was changing tyres.
Adding lightness these days just means ramping up the cost using exotic materials. Chapman’s philosophy produced fragile cars, they either won, or broke - ask Martin Donnelly.
rdjohn said:
MissChief said:
Even with the 100KG fuel limit the cars are rarely filled to capacity anyway as more fuel means more weight which means a slower lap time. They have simulations that show the fastest way to get to the finish is to under fuel the car and conserve throughout the race when you can. You’re not always fighting and can turn the wick down or lift and coast to help save fuel.
I thought this logic held credence until we saw Max and Lewis giving it full beans for much of the race, last week.Though Lewis did admit to some “lift and cruise” to conserve his brakes - not fuel. Now that Mercedes can be threatened by either RB, or Ferrari, depending on the circuit, I no longer think they have the luxury of short fuelling massively.- it certainly won’t be the case at Spa or Monza.
rdjohn said:
Eric Mc said:
Chapman died in 1982. Donnely’s
crash was in 1990.
His philosophy lived on. Ballasting a light car was preferable to building a strong one.crash was in 1990.
My opinion is that a minimum weight and FIA crash testing the tub are essential parts of regulations. A view not shared by the OP.
Also going back to his original post. Though I disagree with many of his points, I whole heartedly support getting rid of DRS. The concept of a boost button makes overtakes so artificial. It should have no place in the world’s premier motorsport. This will require successfully solving the dirty air problem, I know, but I want to see drivers fight for the overtake.
It is a misconception that more overtaking means more excitement. Stewart and Rindt at Silverstone ‘69 changing places on every straight wasn’t what built the excitement. If anything, with the far improved TV coverage these days, the audience would see what was going on very quickly and it would become predictable. It was the close racing which meant no one knew who would come out on top which made it so exciting. What builds excitement is anticipation... “will they won’t they?” You can have that with a long battle that may or may not result in an overtake, as long as the audience believe that the overtake is reasonable possibility, or in the case of last week, one car making a big charge from behind, where it’s not clear whether he will catch the leader in time and then whether he can make the overtake when he does.
It is a misconception that more overtaking means more excitement. Stewart and Rindt at Silverstone ‘69 changing places on every straight wasn’t what built the excitement. If anything, with the far improved TV coverage these days, the audience would see what was going on very quickly and it would become predictable. It was the close racing which meant no one knew who would come out on top which made it so exciting. What builds excitement is anticipation... “will they won’t they?” You can have that with a long battle that may or may not result in an overtake, as long as the audience believe that the overtake is reasonable possibility, or in the case of last week, one car making a big charge from behind, where it’s not clear whether he will catch the leader in time and then whether he can make the overtake when he does.
Nampahc Niloc said:
rdjohn said:
Eric Mc said:
Chapman died in 1982. Donnely’s
crash was in 1990.
His philosophy lived on. Ballasting a light car was preferable to building a strong one.crash was in 1990.
My opinion is that a minimum weight and FIA crash testing the tub are essential parts of regulations. A view not shared by the OP.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff