The Official F1 2021 silly season *contains speculation*
Discussion
vaud said:
MissChief said:
My thoughts exactly. People have rose tinted glasses for ‘the good old days’ when in fact most races were s
t. Yes there was the odd exciting moment once or twice a race but most of it was boring and processional.
With high unreliability, multiple lappings and driver deaths thrown in for good measure.t. Yes there was the odd exciting moment once or twice a race but most of it was boring and processional.Last year (I think) I wrote a long diatribe about how everyone has a major case of rose-tinted glasses about the so called hey day of F1 in the late 80's and early 90's and how it was some sort of amazing product that people lapped up. Believe me it wasn't.
Cars often finished double digit seconds behind each other. 1/3 of the field often retired with mechanical issues. It wasn't unheard of for only three or four cars to be on the lead lap.
Britain 1985. Mansell, Senna, Prost, Rosberg, Lauda. The times people rave about. Prost finished a lap ahead of second. A whole lap! If you don't think Alain was nursing his car like f
king buggery for 3/4 of the race then you don't know F1 at all. Brazil 1989. TWELVE cars retired and 6 were on the lead lap.
Brazil 1992 TWO cars finished on the lead lap. TWO!. The gap? 29.330 seconds. Enthralling I'm, sure you'll agree. SIXTEEN cars retired. That's more than finished the race!
1995 British GP. Five cars finished on the lead lap. The last points paying position, 6th, was a lap down! Farcical!
Lets jump ahead, 2005 British GP. . Cars were getting more reliable it's true, but the gulf in money was also taking it's toll. Nine cars finished on the lead lap.
This year's GP 13 cars finished on the lead lap. There were three retirements. The Hass's crashed into each other (
) and Giovanazzi spun and retired. Reliability is streets ahead of where it used to be compared to even ten years ago. F1 wasn't 'better' then. Some just wear pink glasses and only remember the brief on-track fights that were sporadic in the extreme.F1 wasn't 'better' by any stretch of the imagination back then. It was utter s
t compared to now. Races were more a test of reliability than driver performance. Cars were constantly babied, tyres too. All this talk of 'they raced flat out back then!' is utter horse st. And why does Murray get a free pass for making mistakes (and he made several per race) but when Crofty mixes up a car where the driver is hardly even visible behind the Halo everyone wants to rip him to shreds?Edited by MissChief on Friday 31st January 22:12
Not wanting to be contrary for the sake of it, but I miss the unreliability.
The tell tale whisp of smoke emanating from the rear, which of course the commentators haven't yet spotted. The move to the edge of the seat to reduce that essential foot of distance to the TV to ascertain whether your suspicions are true. Then the triumphal realisation that you were right!
Tens of thousands of pounds of mechanical wonderment ceases to function with a magnificent plume of white smoke, the likes of which the Vatican could only ever pray to produce. The added possibility that one of the following cars might find the consequential oil slick at just the wrong moment.
Ahh, memories.
The possibility that the metronomic leader might self detonate is I'm afraid greatly missed.
The tell tale whisp of smoke emanating from the rear, which of course the commentators haven't yet spotted. The move to the edge of the seat to reduce that essential foot of distance to the TV to ascertain whether your suspicions are true. Then the triumphal realisation that you were right!
Tens of thousands of pounds of mechanical wonderment ceases to function with a magnificent plume of white smoke, the likes of which the Vatican could only ever pray to produce. The added possibility that one of the following cars might find the consequential oil slick at just the wrong moment.
Ahh, memories.
The possibility that the metronomic leader might self detonate is I'm afraid greatly missed.
vaud said:
True but then you push dev costs into exotic materials, high reviving units, etc?
It’s a balance which is clearly wrong at the moment but not an easy fix.
The last generation NA engines were quite limited on tech, the materials used were listed, rpm limited to 2k below their previous peak, no variable cams. They cost a fraction of the current powertrain costs.It’s a balance which is clearly wrong at the moment but not an easy fix.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
The rules are why it's so bleeding expensive. They wanted to save money by using less engines per season without properly considering the dev costs of achieving that.
I bet it would work out cheaper if the PUs only had to last a weekend and they used 21 a year.
Cheaper for who? I bet it would work out cheaper if the PUs only had to last a weekend and they used 21 a year.
The current regs allow engine manufacturers (who, by the way, wanted these engines) to plough vast amounts of money into pioneering and developing technologies at will.
However customer engine deals are cost capped and aren’t a world apart from the V8 era.
The cost of these engines is borne by the organisations who have the money.
HustleRussell said:
Cheaper for who?
The current regs allow engine manufacturers (who, by the way, wanted these engines) to plough vast amounts of money into pioneering and developing technologies at will.
However customer engine deals are cost capped and aren’t a world apart from the V8 era.
The cost of these engines is borne by the organisations who have the money.
And why no other manufacturer will come into the sport. The current regs allow engine manufacturers (who, by the way, wanted these engines) to plough vast amounts of money into pioneering and developing technologies at will.
However customer engine deals are cost capped and aren’t a world apart from the V8 era.
The cost of these engines is borne by the organisations who have the money.
jsf said:
The last generation NA engines were quite limited on tech, the materials used were listed, rpm limited to 2k below their previous peak, no variable cams. They cost a fraction of the current powertrain costs.
I was thinking of the prior generation, apologies.However, very few manufacturers, if any, would commit to a new NA only engine development.
MissChief said:
F1 wasn't 'better' by any stretch of the imagination back then. It was utter st compared to now. Races were more a test of reliability than driver performance. Cars were constantly babied, tyres too. All this talk of 'they raced flat out back then!' is utter horse st.
But there is excitement, or tension, that comes from poor reliability. It can be more interesting watching someone leading by more than 30 seconds if you reckon they have a 65‰ chance of finishing than watching someone leading by 3 seconds who has a 99‰ chance of finishing.t compared to now. Races were more a test of reliability than driver performance. Cars were constantly babied, tyres too. All this talk of 'they raced flat out back then!' is utter horse st.Mr_Thyroid said:
But there is excitement, or tension, that comes from poor reliability. It can be more interesting watching someone leading by more than 30 seconds if you reckon they have a 65‰ chance of finishing than watching someone leading by 3 seconds who has a 99‰ chance of finishing.
It’s not ‘racing’ though, is it? It’s just entertainment for those who like seeing somebody who doesn’t deserve to win get a trophy.
HighwayStar said:
Fundoreen said:
One problem is the cars are so ugly. Whoever rubber stamped rules for abominations like these needs a boot up the arse.
I remember the press reporting excitedly about them just parroting the official line. So before social media had their lunch they were still rubbish.
No overtaking as they are too big and wide for the tracks. Looks slower on tv as well due to the size. Same way a bus looks slow and people step in front of it.
F1 shot themseles in the foot prior to the last race by youtubing an Eifel GP from approx 10 years ago and the cars looked great.
Hope the new rules address this but I doubt it. A longer car will cross the line sooner by a fraction while looking slow. But designers dont care about that. Its just the stopwatch they worry about.
Cant even say F Charlie as it probably wasn't him.
Hmmm... can’t say I agree with much of that. Personally I think the cars look pretty good, certainly a lot better that when they had winglets and other add-ons hung on them.I remember the press reporting excitedly about them just parroting the official line. So before social media had their lunch they were still rubbish.
No overtaking as they are too big and wide for the tracks. Looks slower on tv as well due to the size. Same way a bus looks slow and people step in front of it.
F1 shot themseles in the foot prior to the last race by youtubing an Eifel GP from approx 10 years ago and the cars looked great.
Hope the new rules address this but I doubt it. A longer car will cross the line sooner by a fraction while looking slow. But designers dont care about that. Its just the stopwatch they worry about.
Cant even say F Charlie as it probably wasn't him.
The designers can’t really be blamed... they’re working to the rule book. There have been a few processional races but in the main, a decent amount of overtakes, especially in the midfield battles.
Re the stopwatch. Surely that’s at the very core of the sport. What team is going to give up even a 10th for a slightly more aesthetically pleasing look?
The 2022 cars will bring big changes... 18” wheels, ground effect, a more 21st century look, you maybe happy then
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Paul_M3 said:
It’s not ‘racing’ though, is it?
It’s just entertainment for those who like seeing somebody who doesn’t deserve to win get a trophy.
It's always been part of racing. Jim Clark would be much more highly decorated if his Loti/engine were not made from cheese.It’s just entertainment for those who like seeing somebody who doesn’t deserve to win get a trophy.
Paul_M3 said:
Mr_Thyroid said:
But there is excitement, or tension, that comes from poor reliability. It can be more interesting watching someone leading by more than 30 seconds if you reckon they have a 65‰ chance of finishing than watching someone leading by 3 seconds who has a 99‰ chance of finishing.
It’s not ‘racing’ though, is it? It’s just entertainment for those who like seeing somebody who doesn’t deserve to win get a trophy.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
HustleRussell said:
Yes, but how many do we need to run 10 teams? 3 is enough. 4 is an abundance. The sport needs to be confident it can maintain 3 (which it currently isn’t...)
You saw what happened LMP1, right?thegreenhell said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
HustleRussell said:
Yes, but how many do we need to run 10 teams? 3 is enough. 4 is an abundance. The sport needs to be confident it can maintain 3 (which it currently isn’t...)
You saw what happened LMP1, right?It's not a very attractive proposition is it? It was different at the start when everyone was building a new PU and could progress and refine their designs over the same period of years as each other.. But no one can enter this late on and expect to be successful for a worthwhile length of time before the spec changes again anyway.
They've ended up with a situation in which suppliers may depart, but no new ones will enter.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff