Formula 1 2020 - General Discussion Thread (See MOD warning on first post)

afatbollix

Your completly right Gintonious. We should kick out Ferrari, Stop Merc from making AMG cars and get rid of McLaren since they now only make cars for rich people..


We should only have Red bull as I can only afford to buy a can of Red Bull or a Honda lawnmower. :rolleyes:

**** the manufacturers. What's everyone's favorite time period in F1? Benetton/Williams in the 90s? McLaren before that? Ferrari almost ruining it in the early 00s? Mercedes ruining it now?

As I've said before the tech argument is complete and utter nonsense. KERS came in and the limit was set so ****ing low that anyone who used it had it maxed from the start. There was no cutting-edge development with that. Hell road cars are starting to use things not allowed in F1 like movable bodywork to save fuel at high/medium speed when less cooling is required.

It's all corporate nonsense and it's weird to see people falling for it. In the 90s and early 2000s there could be big rule changes between any season. "Oh but it would annoy the manufacturers". So. ****ing. What?

Frank Bullitt

afatbollix wrote: »

Your completly right Gintonious. We should kick out Ferrari, Stop Merc from making AMG cars and get rid of MaClaren since they now only make cars for rich people..


We should only have Red bull as I can only afford to buy a can of Red Bull or a Honda lawnmower. :rolleyes:

Oh very good yeah, clever response.

What we should have is a rule set made by the governing body, not influenced by a company looking to increase their market value through total dominance with a technology they have had a head start on since the beginning.

Do you really think someone makes a decision to buy a road car based on how an F1 team is doing? If the rules are set independently, then these manufacturers should adhere to them, not influence them as they have been. The switch to hybrid has been a total failure in my eyes, we have less exciting racing, predictable outcomes and a championship decided by testing. The cars are fast but the racing is rubbish, all because one manufacturer threw their weight behind a thread to leave in order to get their preferred tech involved.

Of course publicity/advertising has an impact and success is the best advertising there is but that's the manufacturers' problem, not the FIA and not the fans'.

g1983d

A huge cause of the boring racing in my opinion is the unbelievable job strategists are doing with the support of super computers, this leads to engineers talking the drivers through every corner.
Cut back on the computers predicting the race outcomes and let drivers make decisions themselves and you may end up with some interesting racing

tigerboon

g1983d wrote: »

A huge cause of the boring racing in my opinion is the unbelievable job strategists are doing with the support of super computers, this leads to engineers talking the drivers through every corner.
Cut back on the computers predicting the race outcomes and let drivers make decisions themselves and you may end up with some interesting racing

Also the perfect design of the newer circuits by Tilke etc make this very easy. More natural tracks that aren't as designed throw a lot of variables into the mix. It's probably why the drivers liked Mugello so much. They weren't been schooled so much because the data wasn't there.

SMC92Ian

The newer tracks are a big issue, yes they looks nice bladdy blah but bring back the beaching and then we'll see how brave lads are with going wide.

El_Duderino 09

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Its already got gimmicks such as drs , minimum no of tyres, kers etc. I dont see what wrong with trying out sprint races or reverse grids etc. What's it going to do, make for boring races and annoyed fans. Whelan we already have that

I complete agree. The whole sport is a made up gimmick. There's nothing natural about it racing cars around a track. DRS, battery boosts, front and rear wings, defusers, engine modes, shifting break balance between corners. F1 is full of gimmicks, what people mean is it's a NEW gimmick. And if I know anything about f1 fans, it's: new=bad.

The entire sport is supposed to be about entertainment and thats heavily reliant on overtaking which is sorely lacking at the moment.

Reverse grids would be great to watch. I really hope it happens. If they brought it in then fans would forget they were ever opposed to it.

El_Duderino 09

ELM327 wrote: »

I just don't see why we can't go back to the old days where F1 was the pinnacle of motorsport. Now it's just another series where engineers are limited by rules. Other cars are faster. Even a porsche hybrid without restrictions lapped spa faster than a current day f1 car.

That's one of uh peoblems with wanting to be the pinnicle of motors port is that you can't go backwards.

Back then the pinnicle of motoring was about raw engine power and people were impressed by engine power and that's what manufacturers wanted because it was the pinnicle of motoring technology. Now engine power has been done and it's not the pinnicle of motoring technology anymore.

If f1 ever stops trying to be the pinnicle of motoring technology, then it will start the timer on its own demise.

What you're proposing is for f1 to diverge from being the pinnicle of motoring technology and instead become some kind of 80s nostalgia roadshow convention. There's a very short lifespan in that. Sounds great but it wouldn't hold people's attention for any length.

El_Duderino 09

ELM327 wrote: »

So in the FW18 williams vs benetton vs ferrari, there was still that R and D for road cars (2 constructors/customer teams and ferrari who dont really sell hybrids except the $1m+ laferrari)? Or is that a recent development as a result of chasing more money?

If it filters down to road cars, please show me a 1.6 V6 turbo hybrid road car?

Do you know what car group owns Ferrai?

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.how-f1-technology-has-supercharged-the-world.6Gtk3hBxGyUGbNH0q8vDQK.html

Here na article that should answer some of your questions.

Mercedes has a v6 hybrid supercar. But the real technological advances are in other fields. Kers used in urban busses. Flywheel used in wind energy, McLaren's electronics technology in 5G networks, commercial refrigeration units. Not to mention the simple fuel efficiency gains which trickle down into road cars.

But I'm sure none of that is what you were looking for.

the_pen_turner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's one of uh peoblems with wanting to be the pinnicle of motors port is that you can't go backwards.

Back then the pinnicle of motoring was about raw engine power and people were impressed by engine power and that's what manufacturers wanted because it was the pinnicle of motoring technology. Now engine power has been done and it's not the pinnicle of motoring technology anymore.

If f1 ever stops trying to be the pinnicle of motoring technology, then it will start the timer on its own demise.

What you're proposing is for f1 to diverge from being the pinnicle of motoring technology and instead become some kind of 80s nostalgia roadshow convention. There's a very short lifespan in that. Sounds great but it wouldn't hold people's attention for any length.

if the rules wernt so narrow and restrictive then f1 could be the pinale of innovation.

the rules are way to restricive, the only gains are miniscule and costa fortune to get
if they have a very strict set of rules that were comletely open to all kinds of inovation we would have very different carsusing all kinds of new and crazy ideas. the beauty of this is that the cars would be better ate some tracks than others rather than being the same level everywhere. allow them to do what ever they like withing set rules. use what ever engine you want, allow all the difusers etc they want, just give them x amount of fuel and let them do what they want with it

the_pen_turner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I complete agree. The whole sport is a made up gimmick. There's nothing natural about it racing cars around a track. DRS, battery boosts, front and rear wings, defusers, engine modes, shifting break balance between corners. F1 is full of gimmicks, what people mean is it's a NEW gimmick. And if I know anything about f1 fans, it's: new=bad.

The entire sport is supposed to be about entertainment and thats heavily reliant on overtaking which is sorely lacking at the moment.

Reverse grids would be great to watch. I really hope it happens. If they brought it in then fans would forget they were ever opposed to it.

i would like to see reverse grids trialed along with sprint races etc. what have we got to lose. its already boring and predictable.

duploelabs

the_pen_turner wrote: »

if the rules wernt so narrow and restrictive then f1 could be the pinale of innovation.

the rules are way to restricive, the only gains are miniscule and costa fortune to get
if they have a very strict set of rules that were comletely open to all kinds of inovation we would have very different carsusing all kinds of new and crazy ideas. the beauty of this is that the cars would be better ate some tracks than others rather than being the same level everywhere. allow them to do what ever they like withing set rules. use what ever engine you want, allow all the difusers etc they want, just give them x amount of fuel and let them do what they want with it

There's still room for innovation currently. Ok, not of the level of the Brabham fan car. But there's the brawn rear diffuser, the redbull exhaust gasses, the ferrari oil burning, and the Mercedes DAS off the top of my head in recent memory

flazio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I complete agree. The whole sport is a made up gimmick. There's nothing natural about it racing cars around a track. DRS, battery boosts, front and rear wings, defusers, engine modes, shifting break balance between corners. F1 is full of gimmicks, what people mean is it's a NEW gimmick. And if I know anything about f1 fans, it's: new=bad.

The entire sport is supposed to be about entertainment and thats heavily reliant on overtaking which is sorely lacking at the moment.

Reverse grids would be great to watch. I really hope it happens. If they brought it in then fans would forget they were ever opposed to it.

It's a big part but I wouldn't say it's the entire point of the sport or any motor sports. You mightn't think it but we are a lot safer in our road cars because of Sennas death. It forced teams and the FIA to come up with ways to make cars safer without losing performance, a few misteps along the way but the materials used in F1 cars made their way into road cars so now people are confident in demanding higher speed limits on our roads. Formula one has always been about seeing how far we can go. May that never change.

the_pen_turner

duploelabs wrote: »

There's still room for innovation currently. Ok, not of the level of the Brabham fan car. But there's the brawn rear diffuser, the redbull exhaust gasses, the ferrari oil burning, and the Mercedes DAS off the top of my head in recent memory

are they all not banned

vectra

GarIT wrote: »

I don't think Alfa can drop Gio. It was reported when they became Alfa that the sponsorship deal gives up any choice they have on their second seat. Ferrari pick Alfa's second driver without consulting Alfa.

Rumors getting stronger with Alfa going for Kimi and Mick next season.

Rodney Bathgate

the_pen_turner wrote: »

are they all not banned

The poster means there may be undiscovered loopholes / interpretations within the current rules that a team has yet to spot and take advantage of.

When it happens the FIA will choose to ban it or not.

Mercedes gets the benefit of DAS (for what it’s worth) for a season, but it has been banned for next year. Is the cost of development justified for the benefits in a single season? Only they know.

the_pen_turner

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

The poster means there may be undiscovered loopholes / interpretations within the current rules that a team has yet to spot and take advantage of.

When it happens the FIA will choose to ban it or not.

Mercedes gets the benefit of DAS (for what it’s worth) for a season, but it has been banned for next year. Is the cost of development justified for the benefits in a single season? Only they know.

i understand that. no problem with loop holes at all. perfectly legal and should be incouraged

my point is that they were closed off as soon as they could be, .
these things should be normal, . dont ban any innovation , encourage it.

duploelabs

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i understand that. no problem with loop holes at all. perfectly legal and should be incouraged

my point is that they were closed off as soon as they could be, .
these things should be normal, . dont ban any innovation , encourage it.

By putting restrictions in place promotes innovation, that's their purpose. To develop a system that beats the laws, whether those be laws of a governing body or the laws of physics, is pretty much what engineering in a nutshell. Bans happen because of safety too, Look at the lotus type 88, it's side skirts that maintained the venturi tunnels were too flimsy (they couldn't produce them stronger at the time) which meant if they broke mid corner you could get a catastrophic loss of downforce resulting in a serious crash, niki lauda describes driving in that car very well. Now that material engineering has improved, we will see the return of the venturi tunnels in 2022, so that innovation over 30 years ago was not in vain

GarIT

Gintonious wrote: »

Do you really think someone makes a decision to buy a road car based on how an F1 team is doing?

Yes. Maybe not the decision to buy but Mercedes success made me walk into a Mercedes garage to have a look. Without Mercedes success I wouldn't have noticed their cars have been quite nicely modernised.

GarIT

vectra wrote: »

Rumors getting stronger with Alfa going for Kimi and Mick next season.

My point was Alfa can't drop Gio, Ferrari can.

the_pen_turner

duploelabs wrote: »

By putting restrictions in place promotes innovation, that's their purpose. To develop a system that beats the laws, whether those be laws of a governing body or the laws of physics, is pretty much what engineering in a nutshell. Bans happen because of safety too, Look at the lotus type 88, it's side skirts that maintained the venturi tunnels were too flimsy (they couldn't produce them stronger at the time) which meant if they broke mid corner you could get a catastrophic loss of downforce resulting in a serious crash, niki lauda describes driving in that car very well. Now that material engineering has improved, we will see the return of the venturi tunnels in 2022, so that innovation over 30 years ago was not in vain

i agree there needs to be some restriction. your right about that, it does make designeds come up with ways around the issues
but as soon as someone comes up with something they are banning it and tightening the rules to stop that inovation.

El_Duderino 09

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i would like to see reverse grids trialed along with sprint races etc. what have we got to lose. its already boring and predictable.

I think sprint races would be a bit of a waste of time. They can't overtake when they're ranked by quali speed. 20 lap sprint race Sounds like any 20 laps from the full race. A few overtakes at the start and then settle into a procession.

Frank Bullitt

GarIT wrote: »

Yes. Maybe not the decision to buy but Mercedes success made me walk into a Mercedes garage to have a look. Without Mercedes success I wouldn't have noticed their cars have been quite nicely modernised.

Having a look doesn't really help their profits though...

GarIT

Gintonious wrote: »

Having a look doesn't really help their profits though...

It does, they sell more cars if they get more customers in the door.

flazio

I think the impact of Motorsports has lessened in car sales overall though. Nobody buys Skoda Fabias, Hyundai i30s or Toyota Yarises because they do well in the World Rally Championship like they used to buy Imprezas and Lancers. I think Jeremy Clarkson used to say Ferrari road cars were good while the F1 team were bad.
Supercar sales are a whole different ball game so the battle between Ferrari, Aston Martin and McLaren are of no significance, just a 10 minute piece on Top Gear and a Stig lap.
Honda, Renault and Mercedes-Benz don't really tie in with F1 anymore. Remember the Jordan Civic? Or the Williams Clio? Or the Michael Schumacher edition Fiat Stilo (or was it a Brava?) I've seen sporty Renaults but nothing that says "We make F1 cars too"
Will Alpine come out with an Alonso edition car?
Have Mercedes-Benz ever slapped Hamilton branding on any of their cars?
The most I've seen Alfa Romeo do is use Kimi for their sponsorship of Sky Sports F1.
F1 doesn't sell cars to the common man anymore.

quokula

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's one of uh peoblems with wanting to be the pinnicle of motors port is that you can't go backwards.

Back then the pinnicle of motoring was about raw engine power and people were impressed by engine power and that's what manufacturers wanted because it was the pinnicle of motoring technology. Now engine power has been done and it's not the pinnicle of motoring technology anymore.

If f1 ever stops trying to be the pinnicle of motoring technology, then it will start the timer on its own demise.

What you're proposing is for f1 to diverge from being the pinnicle of motoring technology and instead become some kind of 80s nostalgia roadshow convention. There's a very short lifespan in that. Sounds great but it wouldn't hold people's attention for any length.

This is wrong on so many levels. Many, many times in the past has F1 taken a step backwards technologically for the benefit of the series as a sport. See the banning of active suspensions, traction control etc.

And the point of F1 technology has always, and should always, be to push the limits of what is possible in the pursuit of speed. The hybrid era went backwards on that. The new engines are more expensive, more complicated and more "advanced", but they're also heavier, slower and less suited for racing than what came before. This was proven out when the all conquering Mercedes in 2014 was setting slower laptimes than a 10 year old backmarker Minardi on comparable tracks. The headline peak power means nothing when they can only deploy that for a limited time, and it doesn't come close to making up for the increase in weight that aside from the weaker power to weight ratio also slows them down in corners and requires more durable tyres and much more tyre management.

They've tried to hide that in recent years by dramatically increasing downforce, and giving the cars much wider slick tyres, which has made the laptimes respectable again but which has also made it harder for cars to follow eachother and race. And they've also made sure the headline laptimes really flatter the cars by letting them qualify on fumes with disposable qualifying tyres, where previous eras in recent decades always had to qualify with race fuel and / or race tyres. So, yes, they finally have caught up to the trajectory laptimes were on previously. But they'd be easily as fast if not faster if they hadn't taken that huge backwards step in 2014, and had just continued to evolve from what they had.

There's a famous Colin Chapman quote saying that the key to a great racing car had always been to “simplify, then add lightness”, but Formua 1's motto i recent years seems to be "complicate, and add weight".

Mercedes has a v6 hybrid supercar. But the real technological advances are in other fields. Kers used in urban busses. Flywheel used in wind energy, McLaren's electronics technology in 5G networks, commercial refrigeration units. Not to mention the simple fuel efficiency gains which trickle down into road cars.

Kers and the flywheel technology Williams developed and used for commercial applications predate the hybrid era. McLaren's comms tech has absolutely nothing to do with the tech in the car. Simple fuel efficiency gains have always been in F1 since the beginning as extra fuel means extra weight. None of these have come out of the marketing exercise to the detriment of the sport that is the hybrid formula.

El_Duderino 09

quokula wrote: »

This is wrong on so many levels. Many, many times in the past has F1 taken a step backwards technologically for the benefit of the series as a sport. See the banning of active suspensions, traction control etc.

And the point of F1 technology has always, and should always, be to push the limits of what is possible in the pursuit of speed. The hybrid era went backwards on that. The new engines are more expensive, more complicated and more "advanced", but they're also heavier, slower and less suited for racing than what came before. This was proven out when the all conquering Mercedes in 2014 was setting slower laptimes than a 10 year old backmarker Minardi on comparable tracks. The headline peak power means nothing when they can only deploy that for a limited time, and it doesn't come close to making up for the increase in weight that aside from the weaker power to weight ratio also slows them down in corners and requires more durable tyres and much more tyre management.

They've tried to hide that in recent years by dramatically increasing downforce, and giving the cars much wider slick tyres, which has made the laptimes respectable again but which has also made it harder for cars to follow eachother and race. And they've also made sure the headline laptimes really flatter the cars by letting them qualify on fumes with disposable qualifying tyres, where previous eras in recent decades always had to qualify with race fuel and / or race tyres. So, yes, they finally have caught up to the trajectory laptimes were on previously. But they'd be easily as fast if not faster if they hadn't taken that huge backwards step in 2014, and had just continued to evolve from what they had.

There's a famous Colin Chapman quote saying that the key to a great racing car had always been to “simplify, then add lightness”, but Formua 1's motto i recent years seems to be "complicate, and add weight".



Kers and the flywheel technology Williams developed and used for commercial applications predate the hybrid era. McLaren's comms tech has absolutely nothing to do with the tech in the car. Simple fuel efficiency gains have always been in F1 since the beginning as extra fuel means extra weight. None of these have come out of the marketing exercise to the detriment of the sport that is the hybrid formula.

1 I was responding to a poster who wanted f1 to be the pinnicle of motorsport technology and it is the pinnicle of motorsport technology. The technology demands aren't the same as they were in the past. Raw power has been done, it's boring now. Only old people want to hear about a 10L v20 engine. Now the pinnicle of motoring is about other things such as thermal efficiencym and reliability.

2 so we're agreed that the cars are faster now and setting lap records most weeks?

3 the new technology is always going to be expensive. If it wasn't new, innovative and rare, the it would be easy and cheap to make.

The notion that f1 was cheap back in the old days is a total fallacy. With all that cigarette and booze money flowing, Ferrari were bringing multiple disposable engines to each weekend and using disposable wheel nuts supposedly at $12,000 a pitstop. It takes a lot of rose tint in your glasses to suggest they were cheap days in f1 terms.

AMKC

flazio wrote: »

I think the impact of Motorsports has lessened in car sales overall though. Nobody buys Skoda Fabias, Hyundai i30s or Toyota Yarises because they do well in the World Rally Championship like they used to buy Imprezas and Lancers. I think Jeremy Clarkson used to say Ferrari road cars were good while the F1 team were bad.
Supercar sales are a whole different ball game so the battle between Ferrari, Aston Martin and McLaren are of no significance, just a 10 minute piece on Top Gear and a Stig lap.
Honda, Renault and Mercedes-Benz don't really tie in with F1 anymore. Remember the Jordan Civic? Or the Williams Clio? Or the Michael Schumacher edition Fiat Stilo (or was it a Brava?) I've seen sporty Renaults but nothing that says "We make F1 cars too"
Will Alpine come out with an Alonso edition car?
Have Mercedes-Benz ever slapped Hamilton brand

It was a Stilo edition and there was a Schumacher Seciento edition too.
Renault futures there o5 and 06 F1 wins in there own magazine back then as all car companies had back then well the big ones like Renault, Ford, Audi, Mercedes etc.

Man with broke phone

Any word on where checo will drive next year?