Official 2024 Japanese Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Poll: Official 2024 Japanese Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Total Members Polled: 124
Discussion
Kart16 said:
As it seems this one will be the second year out of three that Hamilton will be beaten by Russell. Add to that the anger and envy towards Super Max and Hamilton is in a downward spiral. And next year he will face Leclerc, who is more talented than Russell. I think he should have retired to hang out with his fashion and hip hop friends from the USA.
Please continue to write your thoughts down but on paper. Then pop them in a bin so we can all know they have gone to the correct place. Cheers.Kart16 said:
As it seems this one will be the second year out of three that Hamilton will be beaten by Russell. Add to that the anger and envy towards Super Max and Hamilton is in a downward spiral. And next year he will face Leclerc, who is more talented than Russell. I think he should have retired to hang out with his fashion and hip hop friends from the USA.
You came back/allowed back.Great.
carlo996 said:
Not to mention moved around a fair bit and could race wheel to wheel. Fuel strategy was great, as were different engine configurations. Shame loads will never experience what it once was.
I hated fuel strategy, but the ultimate insult was 'fuel-corrected' qualifying. Hard to believe they came up with something as unacceptable as that.There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
thegreenhell said:
Yes, we're back to the dark days of 2001/2 in terms of competition, and Perez is the new Barrichelo. At least back then the cars were more exciting to watch - light, agile and sounded great.
Indeed, we've got max hype and zero drama/jeopardy and competition, they are serving up fat arsed cars that are too big for the track droning their way round in a 50-60 odd lap parade with endless plastic chat in the driver press pen for pudding, it's lame. Even Sky are getting bored and can't be bothered to pay for a few business class flights and dinner for half the presenting team.
paulguitar said:
I hated fuel strategy, but the ultimate insult was 'fuel-corrected' qualifying. Hard to believe they came up with something as unacceptable as that.
There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
The splash and dash era was entertaining. As was varying levels of fuel consumption and relative pace at different points. I’m sure some drivers are still lighter on fuel than others. There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
carlo996 said:
paulguitar said:
I hated fuel strategy, but the ultimate insult was 'fuel-corrected' qualifying. Hard to believe they came up with something as unacceptable as that.
There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
The splash and dash era was entertaining. As was varying levels of fuel consumption and relative pace at different points. I’m sure some drivers are still lighter on fuel than others. There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
Less fuel = faster car
f
king rocket science for some callow...ffs!I am obviously assuming this is another shallow-callow wind-up...
PhilAsia said:
More fuel = slower car
Less fuel = faster car
fking rocket science for some callow...ffs!
I am obviously assuming this is another shallow-callow wind-up...
What’s your problem? I never said it was rocket science, what I said was it was interesting with differing fuel loads and engine configurations. Perhaps when you go to comment you could think for more than 5 secs before you go off trying to score points on the internet? Less fuel = faster car
f
king rocket science for some callow...ffs!I am obviously assuming this is another shallow-callow wind-up...
Tell me. Have you ever set foot in the paddock, been involved with a race team…outside of sofa racing?
carlo996 said:
entropy said:
Give them a few extra mm in diffuser height?
BoP is the answer no-one wants to hear. F1 is a meritocracy and if it remains so there's always going to be a team(s) doing a job better than the rest and the haves and have nots.
But why penalise a team which had made the best of the regulations? It’s the opposite of what’s needed. Poor old Mercedes are going around in circles all by themselves. It’s tough luck. Get better people…BoP is the answer no-one wants to hear. F1 is a meritocracy and if it remains so there's always going to be a team(s) doing a job better than the rest and the haves and have nots.
paulguitar said:
carlo996 said:
Not to mention moved around a fair bit and could race wheel to wheel. Fuel strategy was great, as were different engine configurations. Shame loads will never experience what it once was.
I hated fuel strategy, but the ultimate insult was 'fuel-corrected' qualifying. Hard to believe they came up with something as unacceptable as that.There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
The fuel-burn era was pure daftness. You started the race with the same quantity of fuel as you started the final part of qualifying. So after qualifying you got to top up the fuel. Of course, you wanted the lowest possible fuel for your quali lap, hence the fuel burn, cars just driving around using fuel for the sole purpose of reducing the amount of fuel they had in the car.
I hated the refuelling era. Nobody bothered making overtakes on track, you just sat behind someone saving fuel and got to jump them by making a shorter pitstop. It was even worse with race-fuel qualifying because they all knew how much fuel was in their opponents' car. I'm not sure I'd agree that fuel strategy was "great" anyway, but the actual racing was dire.
spikyone said:
Fuel-corrected qualifying? What/when was that?
What happened was that the cars had to do their quali laps on the fuel they would start the race with. So you literally didn't know who had been fast or slow until they came into the pits for the first time the next day. Those who came in early had been on a light fuel load. It made quali a farce. It was utterly ridiculous.
PhilAsia said:
carlo996 said:
paulguitar said:
I hated fuel strategy, but the ultimate insult was 'fuel-corrected' qualifying. Hard to believe they came up with something as unacceptable as that.
There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
The splash and dash era was entertaining. As was varying levels of fuel consumption and relative pace at different points. I’m sure some drivers are still lighter on fuel than others. There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
Less fuel = faster car
f
king rocket science for some callow...ffs!I am obviously assuming this is another shallow-callow wind-up...
paulguitar said:
What happened was that the cars had to do their quali laps on the fuel they would start the race with. So you literally didn't know who had been fast or slow until they came into the pits for the first time the next day. Those who came in early had been on a light fuel load. It made quali a farce.
It was utterly ridiculous.
I completely forgot about fuel burning in qualy and I had to Google it! The main problem was Q3 used to be longer and still too long today IMO, just make final quali 5 mins and make it a one lap shoot out for the top four.It was utterly ridiculous.
I actually liked race-fuel Q3 because - importantly - it gave unknowns which made races feel more exciting but it quickly got to the point that you needed a decent amount of fuel onboard because the overcut was powerful in the refuelling era.
Siao said:
PhilAsia said:
carlo996 said:
paulguitar said:
I hated fuel strategy, but the ultimate insult was 'fuel-corrected' qualifying. Hard to believe they came up with something as unacceptable as that.
There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
The splash and dash era was entertaining. As was varying levels of fuel consumption and relative pace at different points. I’m sure some drivers are still lighter on fuel than others. There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
Less fuel = faster car
f
king rocket science for some callow...ffs!I am obviously assuming this is another shallow-callow wind-up...
PhilAsia said:
Siao said:
PhilAsia said:
carlo996 said:
paulguitar said:
I hated fuel strategy, but the ultimate insult was 'fuel-corrected' qualifying. Hard to believe they came up with something as unacceptable as that.
There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
The splash and dash era was entertaining. As was varying levels of fuel consumption and relative pace at different points. I’m sure some drivers are still lighter on fuel than others. There was also that surreal situation where, for some reason or other, the cars went round and round, burning off fuel at about 60% racing speed.
Absolute madness.
Less fuel = faster car
f
king rocket science for some callow...ffs!I am obviously assuming this is another shallow-callow wind-up...
Siao said:
You are dismissing this as being too easy, but fine tuning the "more fuel/less fuel" was the whole point, the theory is obviously known. It had its merits and drawbacks, like everything else in F1 pretty much. And you don't have to be sarcastic to have a conversation.
The point is that teams working out fuel strategies in a spreadsheet doesn't make for entertaining viewing in itself, and the resulting variations in strategy playing out on the track added little to the on track racing, and in fact made drivers less likely to attack if they knew they would soon get an undercut in the pits.thegreenhell said:
Siao said:
You are dismissing this as being too easy, but fine tuning the "more fuel/less fuel" was the whole point, the theory is obviously known. It had its merits and drawbacks, like everything else in F1 pretty much. And you don't have to be sarcastic to have a conversation.
The point is that teams working out fuel strategies in a spreadsheet doesn't make for entertaining viewing in itself, and the resulting variations in strategy playing out on the track added little to the on track racing, and in fact made drivers less likely to attack if they knew they would soon get an undercut in the pits.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff