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

ELM327

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. If F1 was just a sport and wasn't also a business, then that might be valid.

It's a sport, the business is secondary.

Are all sports businesses? Then if so why do we watch?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah there is probably more to it than the basic maths of people who attend the city for the race weekend. But if you remove people attending the city for the weekend then you're removing a lot of the incentive to host a race. Street circuits cause huge disruption to the host city. So they need some pretty immediate money in the form of hundreds of thousands of tourists. So I'd say city races are out for the time being. But as you said, other tracks might be interested in hosting races. I'd like to see who else would out themselves forward

But if this year has shown anything it's that the brand name tracks don't necessarily produce better races than the smaller venues. Melbourne is an example of a track that has prestige for reasons apart from the quality of the race. Same with Monaco - great location, terrible race. I haven't missed it this year when you have options like two Austrias, Portimao and Marinello.

The smaller tracks are better than most of the alleged prestige tracks. If I had my way I would cut half the tracks from the current calendar (ie '20 pre covid) and add Imola, Portimao, Mugello, Nurburgring, (aspirationally also pre '01 hockenheim), china, as well as a few others.


I'd keep Bahrain, Brazil, Monza, Spa, Silverstone, Montreal, Paul Ricard, Baku, Barcelona, maybe Sochi and remove the rest of the desert tracks like abu dhabi and the crap.

El_Duderino 09

ELM327 wrote: »

It's a sport, the business is secondary.

Are all sports businesses? Then if so why do we watch?
...

Not all sports are business. I don't think there's much business involve in my local U10s rugby club. Most GAA is more about community and competition than anything else. But i dont claim all sports are businesses. F1 is a sport, a business and an entertainment - it literally calls itself a circus.

We watch it because of the combination of sport and entertainment. We see little of the business side as fans. But it exists.

What's your point anyway? F1 can market itself whatever way suits itself.

flazio

Serious question, if you were told you could only have one Grand Prix in Italy, would you hold it in Monza, Imola or Mugello?

ELM327

Monza every time

SMC92Ian

Anyone that thinks sports comes before business are kidding themselves, it's all money money money, they don't care about entertainment or sports as long as the mulah is flying in. They're taking Saudi blood money sure.

RustInPeace90

Lads/ladies

Don’t concern yourselves with business or money etc etc, just focus on the quality of racing.

Yes it may be a one horse race but in 10/15 years time we’ll look back at the dominance and think “wow, that was an incredible achievement”

El_Duderino 09

RustInPeace90 wrote: »

Lads/ladies

Don’t concern yourselves with business or money etc etc, just focus on the quality of racing.

Yes it may be a one horse race but in 10/15 years time we’ll look back at the dominance and think “wow, that was an incredible achievement”

Yeah absolutely. When nostalgia has time to kick in, the narrative will switch to the amazing achievement of reaching such a position of dominance. Who remembers Schumacher breaking the title of most wins and the conversation being caveated by the increased number of races per season compared to the past, dominant car, compliant teammate etc. Now people apply the same caveats to Hamilton when he beat Schumacher's records. It's just the tricks the mind plays.

It would be hard to argue that this is an interesting championship to follow though

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah there is probably more to it than the basic maths of people who attend the city for the race weekend. But if you remove people attending the city for the weekend then you're removing a lot of the incentive to host a race. Street circuits cause huge disruption to the host city. So they need some pretty immediate money in the form of hundreds of thousands of tourists. So I'd say city races are out for the time being. But as you said, other tracks might be interested in hosting races. I'd like to see who else would out themselves forward

Ah yeah I wasn't suggesting that with the current situation (and likely another 18 months+) that it would be worthwhile for the big cities to keep paying what they currently pay but more than as re-opening happens that other cities would be interested if things could move quickly. It's all academic really though.

But if this year has shown anything it's that the brand name tracks don't necessarily produce better races than the smaller venues. Melbourne is an example of a track that has prestige for reasons apart from the quality of the race. Same with Monaco - great location, terrible race. I haven't missed it this year when you have options like two Austrias, Portimao and Marinello.

As far as Monaco goes the problem is that cars are far too big now. Picture below shows that from the early 90s til 2007 the cars barely got bigger which I have to say I was surprised by.


I can still enjoy a boring Spa race and I used to enjoy Monaco races more. I think the size of the cars and the halo both contribute to reducing the enjoyment of just watching a race without accounting for the result or overtaking. Til the mid-90s the drivers were more exposed, you'd see them bouncing around even without a lovely clear HD feed. As they got lower and the sides surrounded them you could see them less but they were still there and you could see them steering and wrestling the cars. Now they're just the top of a helmet in a huge piece of machinery and even that view of them is further obscured by the halo. Even when LMP cars are almost as fast as F1 they don't have the same mystique to watch because they're machines being operated. F1 had the driver front and centre like a kart. It's moved further from that which I think takes away from the viewing experience.

Hijpo

Vietnam dropped for political reasons apparently

Infoanon

Hijpo wrote: »

Vietnam dropped for political reasons apparently

Hanoi decided last week (4th ) that it was not economically viable to hold the race and for the future of the Vietnamese economy it made no sense for the event.to.go.ahead with huge losses.

AMKC

Infoanon wrote: »

Hanoi decided last week (4th ) that it was not economically viable to hold the race and for the future of the Vietnamese economy it made no sense for the event.to.go.ahead with huge losses.

Maybe they got lucky. It probably would have been loss making with no to very little fans at the track even in normal times anyway and end up been dropped in a couple of years anyway.

Burkie1203

Ben Edwards quitting CH4 F1 coverage.

muckwarrior

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Ben Edwards quitting CH4 F1 coverage.

That's a shame. If you look at the list of current and recent british commentators, he's certainly near the top.

Jordan 199

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Ben Edwards quitting CH4 F1 coverage.

That's a shame, I always liked his commentating. He was great alongside John Watson on Eurosport.

Cork Trucker

Please Lord sky sports sign him up alongside Martin Brundle

AMKC

Awe that's a pity.
Maybe he got on over to go to Sky the fu,ackers lol.

flazio

His commentary is the main reason I stuck around with Setanta and Eir for so long. A very under appreciated voice of Formula 1 and quite probably a gentleman of paddock.
One of his best commentaries here in my opinion.
https://youtu.be/dx9aH-HfYxo

donspeekinglesh

flazio wrote: »

His commentary is the main reason I stuck around with Setanta and Eir for so long. A very under appreciated voice of Formula 1 and quite probably a gentleman of paddock.
One of his best commentaries here in my opinion.
https://youtu.be/dx9aH-HfYxo

This was always my favourite: https://youtu.be/twROX0iXZUY

Along with the previous race in Detroit.

His CART commentary after Eurosport lost the F1 coverage was great.

H3llR4iser

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah yeah I wasn't suggesting that with the current situation (and likely another 18 months+) that it would be worthwhile for the big cities to keep paying what they currently pay but more than as re-opening happens that other cities would be interested if things could move quickly. It's all academic really though.


As far as Monaco goes the problem is that cars are far too big now. Picture below shows that from the early 90s til 2007 the cars barely got bigger which I have to say I was surprised by.


I can still enjoy a boring Spa race and I used to enjoy Monaco races more. I think the size of the cars and the halo both contribute to reducing the enjoyment of just watching a race without accounting for the result or overtaking. Til the mid-90s the drivers were more exposed, you'd see them bouncing around even without a lovely clear HD feed. As they got lower and the sides surrounded them you could see them less but they were still there and you could see them steering and wrestling the cars. Now they're just the top of a helmet in a huge piece of machinery and even that view of them is further obscured by the halo. Even when LMP cars are almost as fast as F1 they don't have the same mystique to watch because they're machines being operated. F1 had the driver front and centre like a kart. It's moved further from that which I think takes away from the viewing experience.

Only one caveat - that photo compares refueling era cars, with their weird "all nose" shape and inherently shorter length created by the small fuel thanks,

to a car that needs to carry all of tha fuel for the race.



For a more "apples to apples" comparison, check this out...






The McLaren is an Mp4/2c from 1986, the Ferrari is the SF70H from 2017. I've double checked - they're actually the same scale.



So, while cars have CERTAINLY gone up in size, it's not as simple as it might seem - they're much longer and more importantly, have a longer wheelbase, but the aero work made them "slimmer". Then all the electronics and hybrid stuff made them heavier.

vectra

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Please Lord sky sports sign him up alongside instead of Martin Brundle

FYP :pac:

mickdw

vectra wrote: »

FYP :pac:

Never liked edwards. Just cant stand his voice.

Coultard and brundle partnership was my favourite in recent times.

vectra

mickdw wrote: »

Never liked edwards. Just cant stand his voice.

Coultard and brundle partnership was my favourite in recent times.

I can't stand Brundle mainly the way his head is so far up Hamiltons Ar$e :mad:

elperello

I will miss Ben.

Brundle is a class act, he makes Sky bearable.

mickdw

elperello wrote: »

I will miss Ben.

Brundle is a class act, he makes Sky bearable.

Brundle was arguably better in his earlier years.
He is still good but he almost comes across as the authority on all matters F1 now when he talks. To be fair he is generally on the money and nearly always calls everything right at first glimpse during the race. Crofty i notice this season has even made a few intelligent comments about race strategy.

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

So, while cars have CERTAINLY gone up in size, it's not as simple as it might seem - they're much longer and more importantly, have a longer wheelbase, but the aero work made them "slimmer". Then all the electronics and hybrid stuff made them heavier.

I always wonder when people mention electronics adding weight to car, though usually it's in the context of road cars. Are they still using desktops from the 90s? :pac:
The fuel tank will have an effect I hadn't considered. Though weren't there cars in the mid-2000s that could do ~80% of a race on a "tank"? Struggling to find anything concrete and YouTube is down so I can't check starting weights though I'm pretty sure the midfield would start with 70ish kg of fuel in most races.
This link from 2007 has people reckoning the fuel tanks were at least as big as they are now.
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3981

EDIT: On this link https://forums.autosport.com/topic/109526-f1-fuel-tank-sizes-historic-2009-2010/ someone mentions the 1993 cars were 220 litres. So overall I think with the current cars the issue of size is only slightly impacted by no re-fueling.

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

I always wonder when people mention electronics adding weight to car, though usually it's in the context of road cars. Are they still using desktops from the 90s? :pac:
The fuel tank will have an effect I hadn't considered. Though weren't there cars in the mid-2000s that could do ~80% of a race on a "tank"? Struggling to find anything concrete and YouTube is down so I can't check starting weights though I'm pretty sure the midfield would start with 70ish kg of fuel in most races.
This link from 2007 has people reckoning the fuel tanks were at least as big as they are now.
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3981

EDIT: On this link https://forums.autosport.com/topic/109526-f1-fuel-tank-sizes-historic-2009-2010/ someone mentions the 1993 cars were 220 litres. So overall I think with the current cars the issue of size is only slightly impacted by no re-fueling.

1993 had no refueling but didnt have all the electrical gubbins.


If you move to the late 90's and early 00's most cars were optimised to run on less than half that fuel. Indeed, some struggled to make the min weight

H3llR4iser

Deleted User wrote: »

I always wonder when people mention electronics adding weight to car, though usually it's in the context of road cars. Are they still using desktops from the 90s? :pac:
The fuel tank will have an effect I hadn't considered. Though weren't there cars in the mid-2000s that could do ~80% of a race on a "tank"? Struggling to find anything concrete and YouTube is down so I can't check starting weights though I'm pretty sure the midfield would start with 70ish kg of fuel in most races.
This link from 2007 has people reckoning the fuel tanks were at least as big as they are now.
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3981

EDIT: On this link https://forums.autosport.com/topic/109526-f1-fuel-tank-sizes-historic-2009-2010/ someone mentions the 1993 cars were 220 litres. So overall I think with the current cars the issue of size is only slightly impacted by no re-fueling.

Current tanks are probably whereabouts of 140 liters - the maximum allowed 105kg of petrol are roughly 142 liters, and we know all the cars run short of fuel to save some weight.

Back during the refueling era the size of the tanks varied from car to car; in time however, they all converged towards smaller and smaller ones as race strategies took the "cookie cutter" approach, having become obvious that running lighter and faster always beat carrying fuel around and hoping to gain positions when the others stopped. By the end of the "refueling era", f1 cars were truly misshapen "all nose" contraptions that looked like they came out of a cartoon. This is how the 2009 and 2010 McLarens differed in terms of proportions:



Now, current engines are absurdly efficient and rather compact being V6s, so the size of the tank has shrunk since 2010 - but you have other components in there such as the energy store, MGUs, intercooler and obviously turbocharger taking up the space.

As for all of the electronics adding weight, in the case of an F1 car it's mostly in the PU department nowadays; With road cars, a lot of people fall prey of looking at something like a smartphone and think the same technology can be applied 1:! in automotive. It's not the case, unless you're talking about the satnav/"infotainment" system.

The issue is that technology in cars is be exposed to water, dirt, grime, wild temperature swings, vibration and g-forces in a way our iPhone or Playstation never will. It needs to work reliably, time and again for 15-20 years...or longer. For this reason, it needs to be relatively simple and rugged; In five years time my smartphone and laptop will be in a landfill, while a car of the same age will still be considered relatively fresh.

Also, people always forget all the gizmos need actuators, conduits and wiring looms to work - for example, an ABS control unit will be useless without sensors and pumps; All of this stuff is again made of relatively ruggerized, heavy and thick materials - pick up a simple automotive wiring loom and it will be surprisingly heavy for being just a bunch of cables.

Now one single system won't make a huge difference on the scale, but when you start counting, it all adds up. It's like when I tell myself "oh sure, one doughnut can't make a difference!" - but I fail to consider the pizza I had last night as well

muckwarrior

Dunno if it's been mentioned already, but one of the main factors in cars being so long these days is aerodynamic performance. They're longer because it's faster. Not because they have more fuel or electronics to fit in. Cars have gotten longer since 2014 when they had the same PUs.

Jordan 199

Looks like the Brazilian Grand Prix will remain at Interlagos until 2025.

Burkie1203

Perez. Wonder will Red Bull snap him up.

Albon just threading water