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

Gaoth Laidir

quokula wrote: »

It was actually faster than the fastest race lap. A bit slower than the qualifying times, but considering it was just a demo run and had no proper setup time, and it was on tyres it wasn't designed for, I'd suggest it would be well capable of matching or beating them with a little bit of optimisation.

Don't forget the R25 is around 150 kg lighter than the current cars.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you think there was ever a time when the sport wasn’t also about developing technology?


This is the fundamental misunderstanding about f1. It used to be all about the technology of the future which attracted all ages who could look at F1 for a glimpse of a possible future. Now it’s becoming more of nostalgia formula for old men, which shuns the future and harks back to the 80s when every race was brilliant and Laura and Hunt spent the whole race side by side around every corner.

F1 will die if it doesn’t look to the future and might die anyway. But if it looks backwards then it’s giving up on life.

Except that nowadays "the future" is slower than the past. A 15 year old car with no proper set up time, on tyres it wasn't designed for got within a few seconds of the pole lap on a track with 2 1km-long straights.
The only way to make "the future" faster is to leave "the past" hamstrung, banning refuelling and big engines.
Everyone's obsessed with electric stuff right now and at some point it will likely be quickest but what's the quickest way to travel 300km right now (and for the next 10 years)? Fill up, go slowly and mind the tyres? Or would it be to have a much lighter car which can take 30 seconds to refill twice in the 300km distance while belting around?

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except that nowadays "the future" is slower than the past. A 15 year old car with no proper set up time, on tyres it wasn't designed for got within a few seconds of the pole lap on a track with 2 1km-long straights.
The only way to make "the future" faster is to leave "the past" hamstrung, banning refuelling and big engines.
Everyone's obsessed with electric stuff right now and at some point it will likely be quickest but what's the quickest way to travel 300km right now (and for the next 10 years)? Fill up, go slowly and mind the tyres? Or would it be to have a much lighter car which can take 30 seconds to refill twice in the 300km distance while belting around?

There’s no need to put the future in quotation marks. The objective of the future technology has changed because time changed. Back when road car engines were relatively new, the objective was to make them more and more powerful as that was the boundary. Now that has been cracked. We have stepped limits for road cars and all cars can comfortably achieve those speeds. We have trucks and cargo ships and airplanes with powerful engines. That’s not the tech you the future because it’s already the technology of now.

The future technology is much more about efficiency. There’s no point being afraid of the future. If f1 can’t develop the technology of the future then you have your answer, F1 has outlived it’s usefulness and will fade into irrelevance.

We’ll see what the 2025 engine rules bring. They will probably go a long way towards determining the future of the sport.

Peanut Butter Jelly

The engine isn't the limiting factor in F1 today. Whether it was an NA V12 or a TC inline-4 hybrid, the tyres are the current limiting factor. If you push them even slightly past their limit, you're paying it back for the rest of your stint

El_Duderino 09

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

The engine isn't the limiting factor in F1 today. Whether it was an NA V12 or a TC inline-4 hybrid, the tyres are the current limiting factor. If you push them even slightly past their limit, you're paying it back for the rest of your stint

You’re right, but part of that is the energy they put through them because of the weight of the cars.

They ultimate objective of the tyres from my point of view, would be to create tyres where they can push for the whole race and pit twice or even three times and be faster than simply minding the tyres and not pitting.

MadYaker

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

The engine isn't the limiting factor in F1 today. Whether it was an NA V12 or a TC inline-4 hybrid, the tyres are the current limiting factor. If you push them even slightly past their limit, you're paying it back for the rest of your stint

If the cars weren't hybrids they'd be a lot lighter and the tires would last longer. The nonsensical rules are the real limiting factor.

ELM327

Cars today are 150+ kg heavier than back in the day because of the hybrid nonsense too.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There’s no need to put the future in quotation marks. The objective of the future technology has changed because time changed. Back when road car engines were relatively new, the objective was to make them more and more powerful as that was the boundary. Now that has been cracked. We have stepped limits for road cars and all cars can comfortably achieve those speeds. We have trucks and cargo ships and airplanes with powerful engines. That’s not the tech you the future because it’s already the technology of now.

The future technology is much more about efficiency. There’s no point being afraid of the future. If f1 can’t develop the technology of the future then you have your answer, F1 has outlived it’s usefulness and will fade into irrelevance.

We’ll see what the 2025 engine rules bring. They will probably go a long way towards determining the future of the sport.

Here's a good way to get better efficiency, cut weight.
Anyway F1 wasn't about the future, it was about going faster. That's no longer the case and it's inevitable that it's going to slide more into being a niche interest. People didn't watch because maybe a manufacturer had used a new alloy on a wheel or anything like that. And besides, I've made the point that I believe there is way too much information available as it is and that overexposure is an issue all by itself.
Is it efficient to have 3 engines a year yet the development costs mean that overall it costs more to run those engines?
If we want efficiency give them 100kg of fuel and see who can go furthest, put a 24 hour limit on it. It'll be boring as **** but it's all about "the future" right?

They've tried to push that the hybrid stuff can make the cars faster when in reality it barely makes a difference but at the cost of intensity of racing and massively increased expense and complexity.

The future of road cars has basically zero to do with F1 because it's batteries, simple as. Until batteries weighing ~300kg can propel an F1 car at F1 speeds for 2 hours they have little relevance to F1.

weisses

I just want a screaming v10 or v8 who gives you a punch in the stomach with that downshift noise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu3K6KtaySs

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here's a good way to get better efficiency, cut weight.
Anyway F1 wasn't about the future, it was about going faster. ...

That’s just a misunderstanding of the history of the sport. It grew out of the technologies that were advanced during the Second World War. They suddenly had engine technologies available that they put in cars and started racing them. They future of the technology and the future of f1 overlapped perfectly as they wanted more power, more speed. They didn’t have road speed limits because it wasn’t an issue. The uk and Ireland only introduced speed limits in the mid-late 60s. But now they have more power then they need so the future technology isn’t just about more speed and more power.

The sport arose in the climate. People proudly call it the “pinnacle” of motorsport but I don’t think most people have a clue what that means. It means pushing the boundaries into the future. Not just more speed. More speed has been done. The cheapest car on the road can achieve the speed limit. Boring. F1 has to push the boundaries of future technology if it’s to survive (and it doesn’t have to survive)

How do you think the sport came about?

MadYaker

People were racing cars long before WW2. There is no one pinnacle of motorsport because there are too many different types of motorsport. You can't compare the WRC to F1 and say one is the pinnacle of motorsport and the other isn't. At the end of the day it's supposed to be entertainment and if pushing the boundaries of science and technology makes the sport less entertaining then it should be abandoned or else audiences will continue to dwindle and more big teams will fold.

ELM327

MadYaker wrote: »

People were racing cars long before WW2. There is no one pinnacle of motorsport because there are too many different types of motorsport. You can't compare the WRC to F1 and say one is the pinnacle of motorsport and the other isn't. At the end of the day it's supposed to be entertainment and if pushing the boundaries of science and technology makes the sport less entertaining then it should be abandoned or else audiences will continue to dwindle and more big teams will fold.

Agree
It all stems from rich aristocrats in the late 1890s in france, not ww2

Frank Bullitt

I don't think fans look at a Formula 1 car go by and think "thank god that tech is helping road cars".

IEC engines are going the way of the dinosaur, but the efficiency in the current V6 ICE is incredible. But as I have said before, we got to where we are because the rules were more or less set my manufacturers. Merc would have left had the hybrid tech they were invested in not be introduced (which they had a big start on). The ICE they were using a a test bed is in some of their road cars now.

My only hope now is for some clever group to 3D print cars and engines and make an affordable, louder, variant to F1.

That demo run at the weekend probably did more damage than good.

Burkie1203

Infoanon wrote: »

Another year done and dusted - unfortunately the championship was done and dusted early on with a huge gap between Mercedes and everyone else. Closer mid field battles was good to see but there were too many snore fests.

My Top 3 drivers - Lewis / Max / Perez
Underperformers Top 3:- Latifi / Stroll / Vettel

2021 looks like another walk in the park for Mercedes given the gap

Stroll had a pole and 2 podiums?
Hardly an underperformance. Inconsistent maybe but I think that's harsh.

barryribs

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Stroll had a pole and 2 podiums?
Hardly an underperformance. Inconsistent maybe but I think that's harsh.

I thought he's driven very well, he's matured into a good solid driver.

I find it hard enough to pick top 3 drivers, given that it seems to have been either really close between team mates or completely lop sided. Underperforming is easier, Vettel by miles followed by Bottas, Albon, Ocon, Haas, in any order you like. I don't think Latifi underperformed, I think thats about where he/the car is.

Parsnips

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

what a sh1te race.

Infoanon

barryribs wrote: »

I thought he's driven very well, he's matured into a good solid driver.

I find it hard enough to pick top 3 drivers, given that it seems to have been either really close between team mates or completely lop sided. Underperforming is easier, Vettel by miles followed by Bottas, Albon, Ocon, Haas, in any order you like. I don't think Latifi underperformed, I think thats about where he/the car is.

If you compare team mate to teat mate Stroll under performed ,granted Perez was 'genuinely brilliant ' to quote Autosport. The Haas boys could hardly do anything with the equipment they had.
I found choosing under performing tougher - Albon ,Bottas ,Ocon could as easily be in the top 3 as Vettel,Stroll and Latifi.

Btw Marko saying decision on Red Bull driver line up due within days.

muckwarrior

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Stroll had a pole and 2 podiums?
Hardly an underperformance. Inconsistent maybe but I think that's harsh.

Either Stroll and Perez suddenly became better drivers this year, or the RP was an excellent car capable of getting results in the hands of just about any driver, including a previously average unemployed driver that basically walked in off the street and hopped in the car. I suppose it could be a bit of both.

flazio

What I'll say for Stroll is he's a dark horse in wet conditions.

mickdw

flazio wrote: »

What I'll say for Stroll is he's a dark horse in wet conditions.

Yep. Usually the sign of a top notch driver. Strange one.
I think he is better than he gets credit for.

Harika

mickdw wrote: »

Yep. Usually the sign of a top notch driver. Strange one.
I think he is better than he gets credit for.

Some drivers just enjoy it, see Thierry Boutson who won most of his races in wet conditions.

Parsnips

muckwarrior wrote: »

Either Stroll and Perez suddenly became better drivers this year, or the RP was an excellent car capable of getting results in the hands of just about any driver, including a previously average unemployed driver that basically walked in off the street and hopped in the car. I suppose it could be a bit of both.

I think people are jumping on the Perez bandwagon.
IMO he is a dangerous driver, has no respect for him team or team mate and has made some bad errors in the past.

1 win does not change that.

Infoanon

Parsnips wrote: »

I think people are jumping on the Perez bandwagon.
IMO he is a dangerous driver, has no respect for him team or team mate and has made some bad errors in the past.

1 win does not change that.

Not a bandwagon - look at his performance across the season ,look at the race reports and race reviews - he has had an excellent season.

Stroll had a chance to win and fluffed it and was dominated by his team mate for most of the season.

Again to quote Autosport - 'genuinely brilliant ' and his win was no surprise to seasoned observers.

Infoanon

Harika wrote: »

Some drivers just enjoy it, see Thierry Boutson who won most of his races in wet conditions.

Great story about Thierry Bousten - he was staying at Frank Williams home and Franks wife Virginia asked Frank ' who is the driver staying here ?', 'he made his bed ' - 'he will never be champion '

MadYaker

Feels wrong for Perez not to have a seat next year. I felt really sorry for him when he to withdraw. Talk about highs and lows.

HighLine

weisses wrote: »

I just want a screaming v10 or v8 who gives you a punch in the stomach with that downshift noise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu3K6KtaySs

It was at the beginning of this straight that I first ever experienced the energy and noise from a glorious V10 back in 2001. The level of noise from the downshifting was something I didn't anticipate... monstrous rumbles of thunder reverberating through the forest.

When these cars passed you at 20k revs, you felt it rattle your insides. It's a shame that it will only ever be a memory of what a proper race car was.

Le Mans is still pretty good for it. Some of the V10s sounded better than the V8s in F1 tbh.

H8GHOTI

Stroll, I’m not sure about. I think he proved he’s not useless anyway. Of the 17 races, there were only 8 that both he & Perez finished and of those 8, it was actually 4-4.

Of the 11 races he finished, he got points in 10 of them, with two 3rds & two 4ths. He did get 50 points less than Perez overall but had a few more retirements than him. Now I can’t remember how many of his 5 retirements were his fault, when he crashed rather than mechanical failures. And finishing 11th in the championship in the 3rd fastest car, admittedly isn’t great but he missed a race with covid, plus the 5 retirements, had an impact on that.

In qualifying he was beaten 10-4 by Perez but did get pole in difficult conditions in Turkey. Shame he didn’t win the race, would have put a whole different complexion on his season. I think he does get a bit more criticism than he deserves and not as bad as some make out.

Peanut Butter Jelly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You’re right, but part of that is the energy they put through them because of the weight of the cars.

They ultimate objective of the tyres from my point of view, would be to create tyres where they can push for the whole race and pit twice or even three times and be faster than simply minding the tyres and not pitting.

MadYaker wrote: »

If the cars weren't hybrids they'd be a lot lighter and the tires would last longer. The nonsensical rules are the real limiting factor.

ELM327 wrote: »

Cars today are 150+ kg heavier than back in the day because of the hybrid nonsense too.

Since the topic of weight has come up, just going to have a comparison between today's cars and the ones from 2008, the last year of the short wheelbase, nimble cars that everyone found sexy. Not making any cases for anything, just looking at the weight increase over the years.

The fuel regulations in 2010 changed to prevent refuelling mid-race. To compensate for this, the cars fuel tanks had to hold more fuel. In today's cars, the fuel tank needs to hold 110kg of fuel which is about 50kg more than in 2008. There is then also the increase in size of the fuel tank, roughly 50 to 60 litres more volume which has added to the length of the car, and adds weight in terms of material needed in the construction of the car. Today's cars are some 500mm longer than the 2008 spec cars.

On the topic of the engine (or a power unit nowadays), in 2008 it had to weigh a minimum of 95kg, compared to 145kg today. The 145kg includes all the batteries, motors and such.

There is also the halo which according to F1 weighs approximately 7kg, but in the regulation changes for 2018 when it was introduced, only 5kg was allowed for its addition to the car and all its ancillaries.

|2008 Cars|2020 Cars|Difference
Minimum Weight|605kg|746kg|+141kg
Power Unit|95kg|145kg|+50kg
Fuel Tank (Full)|60kg|110kg|+50kg
Halo|-|7kg|+7kg


So that's a total of 107kg (ish) in terms of engine and fuel additions, and the halo. The other 34kg likely comes from the additional length of the car, wider tyres and other little bits in the 12 years since.

The ban on refuelling has affected the cars just as much as the introduction of the hybrid engines. Infact, due to the efficiency of the hybrid engines, the size of the fuel tanks has reduced since the refuelling ban was introduced in 2010. Back then the tanks could hold 210 litres (160kg) of fuel, a full 50kg more than they need to do today.

2022 slightly worries me a bit, because we will have cars weighing 775kg (+29kg) with a reduction in aero performance so I don't think we'll be much happier with the cars then if the hope for closer racing doesn't work out. Why the increase, I don't understand. The car will be shorter and there's no engine changes so I don't see the need for the major weight addition. I know the wheels are going to be heavier but not that much.

If I remember correctly, 10kg = roughly 3 tenths of a second, so that alone means the cars alone will be a second slower per lap. Then add the loss of downforce and you're looking at much slower cars, so I hope the intended benefits of closer racing are achieved, otherwise we have a very rough couple of years waiting for changes to be made

Frank Bullitt

Love these photos, look at everyone out looking at it. And the Ferrari mechanic giving it some.