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

vectra

artanevilla wrote: »

Think they are committed to 2025.

Are they commited as Aston martin red bull
or
Red bull Honda racing?
If it were the latter then I assume with no partner they might be able to pullout?

El_Duderino 09

Inquitus wrote: »

Ferrari have arguably had a championship winning car in 1 or 2 of the recent seasons depending on your viewpoint, but have completely effed it up all on their own, between the team and Vettel.

True that they were genuine championship contenders in 2018 but ultimately Hamilton could have not shown up to the last 4 races and still won. The most competitive year of the last 3 was over 4 races from the end. Is that good enough though? Is that so precious that we mustn't interfere with it by trying something new?

El_Duderino 09

vectra wrote: »

Are they commited as Aston martin red bull
or
Red bull Honda racing?
If it were the latter then I assume with no partner they might be able to pullout?

Doesn't matter what it's called or who owns it. They can sell and the new owners can carry on.

ELM327

vectra wrote: »

Are they commited as Aston martin red bull
or
Red bull Honda racing?
If it were the latter then I assume with no partner they might be able to pullout?

The team is committed and the mechanism exists to coerce a "SOLR" (supplier of last resort) to ensure that "no partner" is not a valid reason to terminate.

Harika

Red bull could take over the engine department and by that become their own supplier. Cannot see them magically pulling out another company to develop an engine in the next 15 months.
FIA has to think now strongly what to do further down the road

vectra

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Doesn't matter what it's called or who owns it. They can sell and the new owners can carry on.

I know they can sell.
I was wondering if they could have walked away.
But that has been answered as well

El_Duderino 09

Harika wrote: »

Red bull could take over the engine department and by that become their own supplier. Cannot see them magically pulling out another company to develop an engine in the next 15 months.
FIA has to think now strongly what to do further down the road

Joe Saward says he's always telling red bull and McLaren to make their own engines. If they do it and he's proven correct, he'll sh1t a brick

Lawlesz

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you want to advocate to have the quickest guys race on 3 wheels or wear blindfolds maybe, that's fine but it's not something I'm proposing. Sp if neither of us are advocating for it, then let's leave it aside.

The slowest driver's wouldn't be awarded points. for being slow, they would only start the sprint race at the front. It would place more emphasis on aggressive, decisive overtaking which is good to see, and less emphasis on a solid no. 2 driver like Bottas who can qualify in second/third and bring the car home in second/third.

It would be a great addition to the race weekend and would be genuinely exciting to watch. But some people seem to think there's a nobility in F1 and it's shouldn't sully itself by being fun to watch. I'm reminded of the bit in the Rush movie where yer man Hesketh says he doesn't want any sponsors "No vulgar logos for cigarettes, or condoms. Just plain white. With the Union Jack." There is no nobility in sitting around waiting for F1 to become competitive in 2014 and then realising that it's going to be dominated by one team so starting the wait for 2022. Out of the last 20 years, how many seasons have been genuinely competitive? It happens every now and again but the norm is that we can predict the champions after the first race or 2.

I know F1 fans are a conservative bunch and very adverse to new change, but now they seem to have become wedded to the current formula of knowing the result unless there's a penalty or retirement.

You know what I was getting at. If we want to make changes to make the thing more interesting as a spectacle, where draw the line? It is competitive sport, most sports go through periods where one team dominates, that is just how it is. In football, they don't make the PL champions shoot into smaller goals.

Will you drop the pontificating about nobility in F1 and how nobody is open to change. It's 3 times you have used that word in 2 posts. You are taking peoples opposition to this one issue and using it as something to tar a large portion of the fanbase with, making general statements about people being against change. I can be all for change but at the same time not agree with this one particular idea. They are not mutually exclusive.

I accept that nobody is getting points for last, but surely it is an undeserved advantage to have Latifi sitting on pole at somewhere like Monaco (or any of the handful of 'tough to overtake at tracks') holding everyone up and having a shot of hanging around somewhere near the front?

Should F1 not be about quick cars driving as fast as they can? The reverse grid will bring in a whole other strategical element which will have nothing to do with cars driving balls out, as if the current tyre wear malarky wasn't bad enough.

Something is badly wrong with F1, I agree. I agree there is nothing 'noble' about watching Merc win week in, week out - I never claimed there was. But that's what the periodical reg changes are for.

And FWIW I don't agree that it increases harder racing. The top 2 teams will steam through to the front, the Haas and Williams will fall off a cliff and as usual the interesting battles will be the McLarens, Renaults, RPs and Alpha Tauris. Can anybody get excited about a Merc hammering past Kimi or Latifi on a straight, lap after lap? It offers nothing extra.

For me, it just goes against absolutely everything 'racing' stands for. A handicap system has no place in professional sports, least of all F1. Just get back to basics, stop over complicating it. Cars driving fast. If one team dominates then it is up to everyone else to catch up.

Jordan 199

billybonkers wrote: »

Max probably already on the phone with Toto

Apparently they were talking about rain in Africa

GarIT

vectra wrote: »

Are they commited as Aston martin red bull
or
Red bull Honda racing?
If it were the latter then I assume with no partner they might be able to pullout?

Red Bull demanded that in the new concorde agreement that there would be no penalty for leaving the sport.

GarIT

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Joe Saward says he's always telling red bull and McLaren to make their own engines. If they do it and he's proven correct, he'll sh1t a brick

They might actually have the money to do that now that their car budget of close to £400m is capped at £150m.

El_Duderino 09

Lawlesz wrote: »

You know what I was getting at. If we want to make changes to make the thing more interesting as a spectacle, where draw the line? It is competitive sport, most sports go through periods where one team dominates, that is just how it is. In football, they don't make the PL champions shoot into smaller goals.

Will you drop the pontificating about nobility in F1 and how nobody is open to change. It's 3 times you have used that word in 2 posts. You are taking peoples opposition to this one issue and using it as something to tar a large portion of the fanbase with, making general statements about people being against change. I can be all for change but at the same time not agree with this one particular idea. They are not mutually exclusive.

I accept that nobody is getting points for last, but surely it is an undeserved advantage to have Latifi sitting on pole at somewhere like Monaco (or any of the handful of 'tough to overtake at tracks') holding everyone up and having a shot of hanging around somewhere near the front?

Should F1 not be about quick cars driving as fast as they can? The reverse grid will bring in a whole other strategical element which will have nothing to do with cars driving balls out, as if the current tyre wear malarky wasn't bad enough.

Something is badly wrong with F1, I agree. I agree there is nothing 'noble' about watching Merc win week in, week out - I never claimed there was. But that's what the periodical reg changes are for.

And FWIW I don't agree that it increases harder racing. The top 2 teams will steam through to the front, the Haas and Williams will fall off a cliff and as usual the interesting battles will be the McLarens, Renaults, RPs and Alpha Tauris. Can anybody get excited about a Merc hammering past Kimi or Latifi on a straight, lap after lap? It offers nothing extra.

For me, it just goes against absolutely everything 'racing' stands for. A handicap system has no place in professional sports, least of all F1. Just get back to basics, stop over complicating it. Cars driving fast. If one team dominates then it is up to everyone else to catch up.

It's funny to see people ask questions like "Should F1 not be about quick cars driving as fast as they can?". That's precisely what we have right now. The fastest car and driver gets pole almost every quali, then he drives off and manages the gap to the cars behind him and wins at a canter. That's not what makes F1 interesting to watch. the cars could be 5 seconds a lap faster or slower and it still wouldn't make a difference to the entertainment if there is no, wheel-to-wheel battle for the championship.

The nobility point is genuine. Some people seem to think F1 is not about entertainment - some posters have said exactly that in the last few pages. How often do we see the word 'pure' in association with f1, as if F1 is genuinely important beyond being a game and a bit of fun. F1 is a mixture of sport, business and entertainment. They actually call it the f1 "circus". It needs all three elements to survive. If the business side fails, the sport fails quickly. If the sport side fails the sport would die more slowly. If the entertainment side fails the sport will slowly lose fans to the point that it will fail. All three sides are equally important and the entertainment side is on pause until at least 2022.

Of course 2022 brings no guarantee of entertainment. Mercedes must be odds on to continue their domination. But still the aversion to, even trialing, reverse grids is astonishing. I think the worst thing that would happen is that the reverse grids were trailed and found to be a massive success. Then they would have to embrace change in practice (yuck) and not just giving lip service to being in favour of change and opposing it at every turn (except retrograde change, obvs).

AMKC

If Red Bull and Alpha Tauri do end up with Renault PUs again then it can only be good for Renault because they can charge whatever price they like if Red Bult and Alpha Tauri have no other option and can set terms and çonditions too like no slagging Renault when the going gets tough etc.

Jordan 199

Red Bull - Power by Lada.

Joeface

I'm gona ramble on here for a bit . so sorry in advance .
For Honda they have proved a point after the Mclaren S*** show, they built an engine that could win races . Oddly they have done that with 2 teams thanks to Monza . But for all their spending they really have not been able to match what Mercedes have produced and the risk is high and expensive for 2022 new rules that they could get it right then even with the Price Cap . So walk now and avoid the blow back from Redbull that Renault received when their engine wasn't good enough .

Add to that my belief that the Redbull is actually a poor enough car . Max's version suits him and he can get it to Third maybe Second but Albon Struggles . He is a good driver he should be in the top ten easily but he is not (any driver should be able) . As a second Driver I don't expect him to beat Max but I do expect him to be P4-P6 after qual and that seems difficult. Throw into that the "Sister Team " appears to have a build a better "Race" car. Its not faster over one lap but it is better over a race weekend, meaning both Alpha Tauri can and I would suspect should be running in the top 10 at every track they go to. The car seem good everywhere where as the RedBull does struggle at certain tracks(e.g.Monza) . I am pretty sure every track the Alpha Tauri have been at this year they have got the car to be competitive .

So Good luck to Honda. , its a real shame F1 is losing an engine supplier . if it continues this way it will end up Formula Mercedes ...Ferrari and all using their engines .

quokula

GarIT wrote: »

They might actually have the money to do that now that their car budget of close to £400m is capped at £150m.

The engine formula is staying relatively static though with just some minor changes, so all the previous money spent on current engines will ensure a head start. That means Red Bull would have 150 mill per year (minus all their other costs) to develop an engine to compete with one that Mercedes have already pumped billions into over the last decade.

ELM327

quokula wrote: »

The engine formula is staying relatively static though with just some minor changes, so all the previous money spent on current engines will ensure a head start. That means Red Bull would have 150 mill per year (minus all their other costs) to develop an engine to compete with one that Mercedes have already pumped billions into over the last decade.

+1
They should introduce the cost cap and a regulation change at the same time.

Frank Bullitt

Shows the stupid model F1 has right now with these regs. The complexity that a manufacturer would have to go through to even get a concert going is off putting, and the whole point of this engines was to try get more in like VW, BMW etc. Now, they are totally turned off the whole concept of F1.

These are seriously dark days.

ELM327

Look where most manufacturers that want "green" tech are going - formula E.
So let's leave all the green eco crap there where it belongs and return to a real, engine based formula.

The eco crap in F1 is nonsense anyway, more energy is spent transporting the cars and teams and tech and tools around the world than is spent in the races

El_Duderino 09

Joeface wrote: »

I'm gona ramble on here for a bit . so sorry in advance .
For Honda they have proved a point after the Mclaren S*** show, they built an engine that could win races . Oddly they have done that with 2 teams thanks to Monza . But for all their spending they really have not been able to match what Mercedes have produced and the risk is high and expensive for 2022 new rules that they could get it right then even with the Price Cap . So walk now and avoid the blow back from Redbull that Renault received when their engine wasn't good enough .

Add to that my belief that the Redbull is actually a poor enough car . Max's version suits him and he can get it to Third maybe Second but Albon Struggles . He is a good driver he should be in the top ten easily but he is not (any driver should be able) . As a second Driver I don't expect him to beat Max but I do expect him to be P4-P6 after qual and that seems difficult. Throw into that the "Sister Team " appears to have a build a better "Race" car. Its not faster over one lap but it is better over a race weekend, meaning both Alpha Tauri can and I would suspect should be running in the top 10 at every track they go to. The car seem good everywhere where as the RedBull does struggle at certain tracks(e.g.Monza) . I am pretty sure every track the Alpha Tauri have been at this year they have got the car to be competitive .

So Good luck to Honda. , its a real shame F1 is losing an engine supplier . if it continues this way it will end up Formula Mercedes ...Ferrari and all using their engines .

Fair analysis. Particularly the bit about Max and his teammates. I think Max is actually not good or very good, I think he's excellent and in the very top category of driver with Hamilton (impossible to actually compare them as they're in such different machinery). The way Max beats his team mates and the fact that they go back to back at Alpha demonstrate that they're actually good drivers, suggests that Max is actually excellent. But we can't rule out the possibility that they car suits Max (Albon has credited Max with being able to drive around the problems with the car which is a further feather in his cap).



Honda was very lucky to win a race this year but last year they had a genuinely fast engine towards the end of the season (Gasley genuinely out-dragging Hamilton on that long straight in Brazil). The rumour that they were set back by the FIA -Ferrari engine rule clarification has some plausibility to it. I can imagine the Honda F1 boys making promises to the Honda board based on last year's performances that they would be fighting at the front this year. And when it became clear that they had gone backwards relative to Mercedes and were not near fighting with Mercedes, the Honda board pulled the plug. The global recession is going to be serious for car manufacturers so I'd say the F1 programme that started as such a disaster, and still wasn't looking like competing for wins, was an easy place to save a few quid

El_Duderino 09

ELM327 wrote: »

Look where most manufacturers that want "green" tech are going - formula E.
So let's leave all the green eco crap there where it belongs and return to a real, engine based formula.

The eco crap in F1 is nonsense anyway, more energy is spent transporting the cars and teams and tech and tools around the world than is spent in the races

Yeah but all the manufacturers want that green eco crap so FE is having no trouble getting manufacturers. Your idea of a retro, past based technology is the end of F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport. If reverse grids is too big a change of philosophy, I struggle to see how you could support passing the torch of being the pinnacle of motorsport. Oh no, you're talking about a change that would be retrograde. I get you. That makes sense. Backwards is the way forward!

El_Duderino 09

Gintonious wrote: »

Shows the stupid model F1 has right now with these regs. The complexity that a manufacturer would have to go through to even get a concert going is off putting, and the whole point of this engines was to try get more in like VW, BMW etc. Now, they are totally turned off the whole concept of F1.

These are seriously dark days.

Well, to be fair they had VW (under the Audi brand?) until VW ballsed it up with the emissions scandal. That was bad luck for F1.

And then Porsche was going to join but F1 dillied and dallied for so long that they just went with FE as it's the technology of the future. Imagine a luxury brand like Porsche preferring to develop electronic tech than the petrol based tech. Shows the F1 has lost it's edge as pushing boundaries in the technology of the future.

quokula

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but all the manufacturers want that green eco crap so FE is having no trouble getting manufacturers. Your idea of a retro, past based technology is the end of F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport. If reverse grids is too big a change of philosophy, I struggle to see how you could support passing the torch of being the pinnacle of motorsport. Oh no, you're talking about a change that would be retrograde. I get you. That makes sense. Backwards is the way forward!

You seem to think the pinnacle of motorsport is the same as the pinnacle of what car manufacturers want to advertise.

It's not. The pinnacle of racing technology should be technology that's designed to produce the fastest cars possible, the previous generation of F1 engines still hold that title quite comfortably, and if they'd continued to develop they'd be even faster.

Some day EVs will surpass ICE, and Formula 1 should make the shift when that day comes, but we're currently nowhere near that point over the length of a 2 hour race.

Meanwhile self charging hybrids are the worst of all worlds as a completely dead end technology that never had any place in racing and will soon be made redundant on the road.

El_Duderino 09

quokula wrote: »

You seem to think the pinnacle of motorsport is the same as the pinnacle of what car manufacturers want to advertise.

It's not. The pinnacle of racing technology should be technology that's designed to produce the fastest cars possible, the previous generation of F1 engines still hold that title quite comfortably, and if they'd continued to develop they'd be even faster.

Some day EVs will surpass ICE, and Formula 1 should make the shift when that day comes, but we're currently nowhere near that point over the length of a 2 hour race.

Meanwhile self charging hybrids are the worst of all worlds as a completely dead end technology that never had any place in racing and will soon be made redundant on the road.

Now the bit in bold is interesting. Does the cars going as fast as possible make it the pinnacle of motorsport? and does the cars going as fast as possible make it interesting to watch?

Back in the day, after the war where engine technology made huge bounds in tanks, planes etc., the pinnacle of motorsport happened to be the ICE. The manufacturers and consumers and race fans, all wanted to see bigger, louder, more powerful engines. that was what F1 was providing and it was the pinnacle of motorsport. That continued for ages and F1 was top dog. Now people aren't as impressed by big petrol engines (though i accept the average F1 fan is more conservative and attached to the past than the average punter), and manufacturers and consumers are increasingly attracted to other technology.

I reject the idea that the pinnacle of motorsport is all about making the cars go around the track as fast as possible. It's actually much more interesting than that. But in any case, making car go around the track as fast as possible isn't necessarily entertaining if there's no competition for position, race points and race wins and ultimately championships. Cars could be 10 seconds a lap faster and if the fastest team is as far ahead as Mercedes is currently, then you have fast cars and meritocracy and boring races.

quokula

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now the bit in bold is interesting. Does the cars going as fast as possible make it the pinnacle of motorsport? and does the cars going as fast as possible make it interesting to watch?

Back in the day, after the war where engine technology made huge bounds in tanks, planes etc., the pinnacle of motorsport happened to be the ICE. The manufacturers and consumers and race fans, all wanted to see bigger, louder, more powerful engines. that was what F1 was providing and it was the pinnacle of motorsport. That continued for ages and F1 was top dog. Now people aren't as impressed by big petrol engines (though i accept the average F1 fan is more conservative and attached to the past than the average punter), and manufacturers and consumers are increasingly attracted to other technology.

I reject the idea that the pinnacle of motorsport is all about making the cars go around the track as fast as possible. It's actually much more interesting than that. But in any case, making car go around the track as fast as possible isn't necessarily entertaining if there's no competition for position, race points and race wins and ultimately championships. Cars could be 10 seconds a lap faster and if the fastest team is as far ahead as Mercedes is currently, then you have fast cars and meritocracy and boring races.

So we shouldn't base the formula on whatever is most suitable for racing, in case one team does it better and it turns out not to be competitive, but we should base the formula on what a car manufacturer wants to advertise, which we've already seen has definitely not been competitive?

Frank Bullitt

What the FIA should do (and I often think they missed an open goal with it) was just go back to simple engines. More specifically, adapt a KERS system like before with a basic ICE and slap a turbo on it. Drop the crazy software ERS deployment, reduce the complexity overall which would then make is more accessible to more, F1 doesn't really need huge manufacturers to be in it, it just needs a model to appeal to engineering companies to then create an affordable solution. The amount of money Merc have put into these rules (which they wanted) and the head start just makes this format unworkable.

What other manufacturer would step into this arena with that type of cost?

As some have said, FE looks to be the throne in the side of F1 now, because it is more aligned with where the industry is going, and is a fraction of the cost of F1 overall. Sure, they change cars etc, but that tech is rapidly advancing. I also think the cars look savage as well.

Simple always works, in anything. I am a designer by trade, and getting things simple is always so hard because we often think "more is better", F1 is no different to that. It needs simplicity, and it really has to know that as well.

Frank Bullitt

Thierry12

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now the bit in bold is interesting. Does the cars going as fast as possible make it the pinnacle of motorsport? and does the cars going as fast as possible make it interesting to watch?

Back in the day, after the war where engine technology made huge bounds in tanks, planes etc., the pinnacle of motorsport happened to be the ICE. The manufacturers and consumers and race fans, all wanted to see bigger, louder, more powerful engines. that was what F1 was providing and it was the pinnacle of motorsport. That continued for ages and F1 was top dog. Now people aren't as impressed by big petrol engines (though i accept the average F1 fan is more conservative and attached to the past than the average punter), and manufacturers and consumers are increasingly attracted to other technology.

I reject the idea that the pinnacle of motorsport is all about making the cars go around the track as fast as possible. It's actually much more interesting than that. But in any case, making car go around the track as fast as possible isn't necessarily entertaining if there's no competition for position, race points and race wins and ultimately championships. Cars could be 10 seconds a lap faster and if the fastest team is as far ahead as Mercedes is currently, then you have fast cars and meritocracy and boring races.

For me anyway if you want to watch a good race, go watch go karts :pac:

I want the pinnacle of racing and tire technology

I want cars that are so quick in a straight line and in corners that it's human limitations that slows them down, no driver should be asking for more power like they do today.

Cars so quick that drivers are scared of them

I found it embarrasing Porsche's 919 Hybrid LMP1 beat the F1 lap record in Spa a few years ago, this is F1 baby, what the hell.

It saddens me that F1 2022 will be slower again

They should have scrapped the fuel flow limit and let those engines rev, breath, race, and get rid of that 33 seconds ERS limit per lap

Worrying about mpg is ridiculous

donspeekinglesh

Gintonious wrote: »

Sure, they change cars etc, but that tech is rapidly advancing.

They don't anymore. The cars last the race now.

Joeface

This just adds to my disappointments , I wait nearly three months for my Renault F1 masks cause they didn't expect the volume of interest ...only for them to rebrand as Alpine F1 the day before they arrived ..and now Honda are leaving . I was on on the hunt for some Alpha Tauri Honda merchandise.