Formula 1 2012: General Discussion Thread

[Deleted User] · 06-08-2012 3:38pm

I don't see the problem with the medals system other than the name. Most wins = champion, surely that makes a win even more valuable like some people seem in favour of?

[Deleted User] · 06-08-2012 4:40pm

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Its a pants idea the medal system, if I came out I wouldn't watch F1 any-more.

Fair enough, but when people are saying wins should be more heavily rewarded but don't want a most wins = champion I fail to see their point. Either most wins or best average finishing spot are the only two "fair" ways to decide a champion.

counterlock · 06-08-2012 4:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough, but when people are saying wins should be more heavily rewarded but don't want a most wins = champion I fail to see their point. Either most wins or best average finishing spot are the only two "fair" ways to decide a champion.

The 10-6-4 is a balance between the two. The medal idea is ridiculous

[Deleted User] · 06-08-2012 4:55pm

counterlock wrote: »

The 10-6-4 is a balance between the two. The medal idea is ridiculous

How is the person who wins the most races being champion ridiculous? Is that not the point of a race, to win?

counterlock · 06-08-2012 5:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

How is the person who wins the most races being champion ridiculous? Is that not the point of a race, to win?

If thats the case, why give any points for any other position?

The point system should reward both winning and consistency, not one completely over the other.

Jordan 199 · 06-08-2012 6:11pm

7 F1 teams to forget.

What dafuq like? What a badly researched article that is.

[Deleted User] · 06-08-2012 6:41pm

counterlock wrote: »

If thats the case, why give any points for any other position?

The point system should reward both winning and consistency, not one completely over the other.

If there's a tie for 1st places then it's most 2nd places as a tie breaker etc. The trouble with anything in between is that it's arbitrary.

counterlock · 06-08-2012 6:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If there's a tie for 1st places then it's most 2nd places as a tie breaker etc. The trouble with anything in between is that it's arbitrary.

It was Bernie trolling the media, there was never any chance of it coming in. If it did, you'd probably end up with 5 or 6 teams. You'd have three or four drivers level on wins by the end and you'd be counting back to see how many seconds and thirds they have.

I think you are actually just arguing the point for the sake of it, if not, we'll just have to move on as we will never agree.

vectra · 06-08-2012 7:35pm

the culture of deference wrote: »

I may join you on that bet.kimi not too far off, 2 or 3 wins and Grosjean up their with him and Mclaren getting 3rd and 4th's could make the 2nd half of season interesting.

Bookies would not take that double bet.

Went €10 on Kimi @ 6/1 win for spa

Did another €10 on Kimi to win at Spa and win the WDC @ 40/1 :P

[Deleted User] · 06-08-2012 7:42pm

counterlock wrote: »

It was Bernie trolling the media, there was never any chance of it coming in. If it did, you'd probably end up with 5 or 6 teams. You'd have three or four drivers level on wins by the end and you'd be counting back to see how many seconds and thirds they have.

How do you figure that? In 2006 only 5 drivers won any races and 4 in 2007. Despite 2nd being worth 80% as many points as 1st. Having a single win taking on so much more value could also lead to teams developing in a particular direction rather than having "all-round" cars and have teams pop up on the podium for a couple of races per season.

Jordan 199 · 07-08-2012 3:12am

More info about the Lotus double DRS.

From f1zone.net

Technical boss James Allison has confirmed speculation Lotus intends to debut its so-called ‘double DRS’ system in Belgium next month.

On British broadcaster Sky’s ‘F1 Show’, television pundit Ted Kravitz explained that – unlike Mercedes’ pioneering device – the Lotus version is in fact not attached to the rear wing DRS.

He said Lotus actually calls it the “F-duct”.

“(In a race) you can only use DRS at one point on the circuit, where they’ll have this straightline speed boost at pretty much any point over 150mph,” said Kravitz.

That will be a big advantage on the long straights and sweeping curves at fabled Spa-Francorchamps.

“And they (Lotus) say it’s about 4 or 5 kilometres per hour (benefit) — that’s a huge advantage,” said former Toyota driver and pundit Allan McNish.

An extra benefit of 4 or 5 km/h. Incredible.

[Deleted User] · 07-08-2012 3:22am

It's not as big an increase as I would have thought but with how good they generally are at the top end it could make the difference if they need to make up places.

Fingers crossed in Belgium there'll be other teams pitting after 3 laps. :pac:

Jordan 199 · 07-08-2012 3:43am

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not as big an increase as I would have thought but with how good they generally are at the top end it could make the difference if they need to make up places.

And that's the thing. 4 or 5 km/h, small figures which can and will make a big difference imo.

Cookie_Monster · 07-08-2012 3:45am

Jordan 191 wrote: »

An extra benefit of 4 or 5 km/h. Incredible.

Jordan 199 · 07-08-2012 4:03am

^ No, I'm not being sarcastic. An extra 4 to 5 km/h will benefit Lotus.

counterlock · 07-08-2012 10:17am

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you figure that? In 2006 only 5 drivers won any races and 4 in 2007. Despite 2nd being worth 80% as many points as 1st. Having a single win taking on so much more value could also lead to teams developing in a particular direction rather than having "all-round" cars and have teams pop up on the podium for a couple of races per season.

Right. Last year if you had that scoring method in place, Vettel would have been won the championship from Hamilton and Button after 13 rounds. The score would have been 8-2. Would you really expect casual viewers to tune in to watch the remaining rounds?
The year before, both Vettel and Alonso both finish on the same number of wins. Same number of 2nd places and same number of 3rds. How do you determine the winner then?

Why would half the field continue to compete when they know that they have absolutely no chance of winning a race?

[Deleted User] · 07-08-2012 12:27pm

counterlock wrote: »

Right. Last year if you had that scoring method in place, Vettel would have been won the championship from Hamilton and Button after 13 rounds. The score would have been 8-2. Would you really expect casual viewers to tune in to watch the remaining rounds?
The year before, both Vettel and Alonso both finish on the same number of wins. Same number of 2nd places and same number of 3rds. How do you determine the winner then?

Why would half the field continue to compete when they know that they have absolutely no chance of winning a race?

I really can't believe people don't get how it would work, if there's the same number of 1sts, 2nds and 3rds then it goes to 4th place finishes, then 5th place finishes etc. In 2010 Vettel had one more 4th place finish so would get the title and going into the last race the requirements to win the title would have been thus:
Vettel needed to win and have Alonso below 3rd.
Any win for Alonso.
Any win for Webber.

Pretty similar to how it was.

As for last season, it wasn't "over" until the 15th round but it was as good as over and at that stage required all wins for one and all retirements, whereas going on firsts and seconds you could be less likely to depend on other results. Big surprise, in a tight year most systems keep it tight while in a year when one driver blows the field away it's over early.

Why does half the team compete now? Look at the 3 stupid teams, they chase ~13th spot in races because without scoring a point that's how the standings are determined. It's really not that complicated.

EDIT: I went ahead and did a couple more:

2007 going into the last race:
rai 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 8 r r
ham 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 9 r
alo 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 7 7 r

A win for any of the 3 would have won them the title and a win for none would give Kimi the title.

2008 going into the last race:
ham 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 7 10 12 13 Ret
mas 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 6 7 13 13 17 ret ret

Again, a win for either and they won the title. Without a win Massa could only win the title by finishing 2nd with Hamilton not winning.

counterlock · 07-08-2012 12:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I really can't believe people don't get how it would work, if there's the same number of 1sts, 2nds and 3rds then it goes to 4th place finishes, then 5th place finishes etc. In 2010 Vettel had one more 4th place finish so would get the title and going into the last race the requirements to win the title would have been thus:
Vettel needed to win and have Alonso below 3rd.
Any win for Alonso.
Any win for Webber.

Pretty similar to how it was.

As for last season, it wasn't "over" until the 15th round but it was as good as over and at that stage required all wins for one and all retirements, whereas going on firsts and seconds you could be less likely to depend on other results. Big surprise, in a tight year most systems keep it tight while in a year when one driver blows the field away it's over early.

Why does half the team compete now? Look at the 3 stupid teams, they chase ~13th spot in races because without scoring a point that's how the standings are determined. It's really not that complicated.

You got trolled by Bernie too. Don't take him too seriously, he likes to have his name in the papers.

Lewis Hamilton wrote:

"Out of the many ideas that have come out, this is potentially one of the worst -- I would say it's not his greatest idea.

Jenson Button wrote:

"The problem is also for the smaller teams. If it is a medal system then there have probably been four or five teams this year that would have got a medal, and that is really tough for a lot of teams on the grid. "

[Deleted User] · 07-08-2012 1:03pm

counterlock wrote: »

You got trolled by Bernie too. Don't take him too seriously, he likes to have his name in the papers.

I don't really give a **** who suggested it to be perfectly honest and I think it's the people who say they'd stop watching if it had happened are the ones who got trolled. :rolleyes: The smaller teams would be competing the same as they always would except that for the really ****ty ones a 5th place would be a massive achievement and couldn't be caught up to with a handful of 9th places. For the middling/inconsistent teams they'd know a win would put them ahead of a load of teams and we wouldn't have had Sauber playing it safe in Malaysia for example. Someone in 4th would know that getting a 3rd could put them ahead of the majority of the midfield for the entire season. For the crap teams they'll still be trying to get the best place over a season like they do now.

Jordan 199 · 10-08-2012 1:41pm

Mercedes confident there will be enough engines for all teams in 2014.

By reading that article, they may just be 3 engine suppliers in 2014. Ferrari, Renault & Mercedes Benz. PURE had to suspend their operation over finances and no word from Cosworth about their plans.

Jordan 199 · 13-08-2012 12:54pm

OSI wrote: »

Wasn't there rumours of McLaren starting to build their own engines?

Yeah, there were rumours going around that McLaren would build their own engines, but McLaren have said it won't be happening.

frostie500 · 13-08-2012 4:16pm

For anyone interested here's my mid-season review

Jordan 199 · 13-08-2012 8:52pm

Jordan 191 wrote: »

Mercedes confident there will be enough engines for all teams in 2014.

By reading that article, they may just be 3 engine suppliers in 2014. Ferrari, Renault & Mercedes Benz. PURE had to suspend their operation over finances and no word from Cosworth about their plans.

That would suck if there was just 3 engine suppliers in 2014.

The question I would like to ask the posters here is: if you were a car maker/engine builder, would you choose to go into F1 or would you get involved in LeMans instead?

counterlock · 13-08-2012 9:09pm

Jordan 191 wrote: »

That would suck if there was just 3 engine suppliers in 2014.

The question I would like to ask the posters here is: if you were a car maker/engine builder, would you choose to go into F1 or would you get involved in LeMans instead?

If I was an engine manufacturer - F1, Car and engine - Le mans.

frostie500 · 13-08-2012 9:37pm

I think that the new generation powertrains for F1 will be the same spec as Le Mans so that there can be crossover between the two

Jordan 199 · 14-08-2012 12:35am

frostie500 wrote: »

I think that the new generation powertrains for F1 will be the same spec as Le Mans so that there can be crossover between the two

The engines rules for the LMP1 category in 2014 are going to be relaxed. It means that there will be no limitations when it comes to cylinders, turbo pressure and restrictors.

[Deleted User] · 14-08-2012 2:56am

Jordan 191 wrote: »

The engines rules for the LMP1 category in 2014 are going to be relaxed. It means that there will be no limitations when it comes to cylinders, turbo pressure and restrictors.

What will there be limitations on? That sounds pretty damn quick.

Grim. · 14-08-2012 3:09am

Deleted User wrote: »

What will there be limitations on? That sounds pretty damn quick.

i believe it will be based on the energy they can use per lap, not sure what sort of numbers we're talking about though.

but basically use any layout you want as long as it uses less than the maximum permitted energy to complete the lap or something like that.

very tired so could be talking bollox.

Jordan 199 · 14-08-2012 1:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What will there be limitations on? That sounds pretty damn quick.

Here's a few articles about the 2014 LMP1 regulations.

Autosport LeMans.org

Jordan 199 · 14-08-2012 7:05pm

Super Maldonado Kart

Formula 1 2012: General Discussion Thread

Comments