Formula 1 2017: General Discussion Thread

meeeeh · 28-03-2017 01:31PM

I liked 12 lap one hour qualifying. F1 is all about sitting around and waiting for something amazing to happen. But I like current format too and wouldn't change it.

Overtaking last few years was not that great. It was not challenging enough and while I do want to see overtaking I think making it harder is not a bad thing. As long as it's not too rare. BTW one of the best races in recent decades was Hungary 98. There was no remarkable overtakes but there were two competitive teams, different strategies and brilliant drive. I am hoping we will get at least two competitive teams this year.

boardsuser1 · 28-03-2017 01:53PM

Qualifying sessions like Austria 1998, France 1999 are needed, we won't get that in the current climate.

When was the last Pole from a team other than Ferrari,Mercedes(Brawn), Red Bull or Williams?

Fisichella in Belgium 2009 for Force India was it?

El_Duderino 09 · 28-03-2017 01:55PM

v3ttel wrote: »

Well no, actually I wouldn't agree at all.

He beat Kimi in 2016 & 2015. He won the title in 2010->2013. He beat Webber in 2009. He beat Bourdais in 2008. He even beat both teammates in 2007 despite having half a season.

Yes, if you exclude his four championship wins, outstanding performance in a Toro Rosso, his 3 wins in a vastly inferior Ferrari in 2015, he has done very little.

Oh yeah I forgot he beat Kimi last season given his general performance.

Before anyone starts crying, I like Seb and I think should be a fairly exclusive group who can be considered top tier. I hope he kicks on and builds on his very good career and confirms his place in the top tier.

skipper_G · 28-03-2017 02:11PM

KC161 wrote: »

Qualifying sessions like Austria 1998, France 1999 are needed, we won't get that in the current climate.

When was the last Pole from a team other than Ferrari,Mercedes(Brawn), Red Bull or Williams?

Fisichella in Belgium 2009 for Force India was it?

That isn't because of the qualifying format though, the big teams get poles and win races because they are big teams. How can a Force India ever really compete with a Mercedes ? The budgets the teams operate on are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Even the most recent rule changes have a visible effect, see how many cars were lapped last weekend. Look at the time difference from the front to the rest. The spread is huge right now because of the rule changes. And that's a bad thing.

Stability in the regulations closes the field, imagine if they had a cost cap as well how close the field would be.

boardsuser1 · 28-03-2017 02:19PM

skipper_G wrote: »

That isn't because of the qualifying format though, the big teams get poles and win races because they are big teams. How can a Force India ever really compete with a Mercedes ? The budgets the teams operate on are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Even the most recent rule changes have a visible effect, see how many cars were lapped last weekend. Look at the time difference from the front to the rest. The spread is huge right now because of the rule changes. And that's a bad thing.

Stability in the regulations closes the field, imagine if they had a cost cap as well how close the field would be.

Max Mosley tried the cost cap plan, it didn't get through.

If it did we would have more interesting racing as you say.

Picture a McLaren Honda in 2017 on pole.

skipper_G · 28-03-2017 02:32PM

KC161 wrote: »

Max Mosley tried the cost cap plan, it didn't get through.

If it did we would have more interesting racing as you say.

Picture a McLaren Honda in 2017 on pole.

Max Mosley promised the cost cap, Bernie and the big teams (mostly Ferrari) didn't care for the idea so gently strangled it to death in the background.
The result was that all the teams who entered F1 on the back of the promised cost cap are now dead.

I'm hopeful that Liberty's way of doing things will be sensible enough, they need a healthy sport to make their business plan succeed.

skipper_G · 28-03-2017 02:48PM

OSI wrote: »

Cost cap plans will never work, far to easy to hide the true cost. The teams have already created separate "research" companies that do all the R&D and then "sell" the end product to the team at a fraction of what it actually cost.

I believe we may have identified a useful purpose for forensic accountants

Apologies if I've offended any forensic accountants among the ranks

H3llR4iser · 28-03-2017 04:09PM

skipper_G wrote: »

That isn't because of the qualifying format though, the big teams get poles and win races because they are big teams. How can a Force India ever really compete with a Mercedes ? The budgets the teams operate on are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Even the most recent rule changes have a visible effect, see how many cars were lapped last weekend. Look at the time difference from the front to the rest. The spread is huge right now because of the rule changes. And that's a bad thing.

Stability in the regulations closes the field, imagine if they had a cost cap as well how close the field would be.

It was exactly because of the qualifying format; The current "reset every 15 minutes" style flatters to deceive, as it will very, very, very rarely produce any upsets - unless a driver has a technical issue or sticks it in the wall, which would be a problem with any format, really

.

With the "open track" format, a driver who'd venture out and post his lap at the right time might end up outqualifying somebody in far more competitive machinery, just like Fisichella, Barrichello and Alesi did in Austria '98 and France '99 by taking advantage of the changing conditions in the final minutes of the session. With the current format, they'd most like have been "eliminated" in Q2 due to their inferior cars; Also, the very short nature of Q3 kind of puts every driver in the very same timeframe on the track and closes down the "window" for odd things to happen.

For example, during the 1 hours session it could happen that there'd be an unpredicted downpour after 20 minutes or so; It sucked for the spectators as nobody would go out anymore, but it could have set up an interesting situation - as many of the front runners left it until late to pump in good times, some of them might have found themselves mid-pack. This is less likely to happen in the 18 minutes window of Q1, as most go out immediately and set a "banker" time; Then Q2 rolls in and resets everything, everyone in the same conditions again.

Similarly, an initially wet (but with no rainfall) session would have initially seen a deserted track, but then everyone would have gone out in the last 10 minutes, with a fast drying track and the opportunity for anyone, even the guy in the woeful Forti, to set a decent time as long as he managed to get on track at the right time.

With the segregated session and the "elimination" nonsense, you need a series of extraordinary circumstances to happen at least three times in a row, in the span of 60-70 minutes, to actually have a real upset. Somehow people seem to think the Q1-Q2-Q3 system to be "great" for backmarkers, while in reality it offers a "safety net" to the faster teams - as long as you get in an half-decent lap, you'll be 10th at worst...

ScumLord · 28-03-2017 04:52PM

OSI wrote: »

Cost cap plans will never work, far to easy to hide the true cost. The teams have already created separate "research" companies that do all the R&D and then "sell" the end product to the team at a fraction of what it actually cost.

If anything the F1 rules have stopped development of all the easy and cheap stuff and forced all the research to be on super expensive stuff, like exotic materials and shapes.

A small teams have to take on the big boys at their own game rather than find alternative routes to speed.

I don't really see a solution, I get why they homologate, it makes for closer racing.

AMKC · 28-03-2017 06:36PM

There is a new F1 Survey out for anyone wanting to do it.

https://f1survey.motorsport.com/

You get 3 months free digital subscription to motorsport.com for doing it and 25% off at there shop.

Cookie_Monster · 28-03-2017 08:18PM

I'd be for trialling a hybrid type idea of what was mentioned above. No eliminations, full hour but anyone who doesn't run at least once within each 15 mins of the hour get penalised somehow, either time or a place per missed 'session'.

And separate quali tyres while we're at it please (and maybe entire drive trains tbh)

g1983d · 28-03-2017 08:34PM

I think what used to make F1 really exciting was the different strategies different teams would have.
Refuelling helped with this because some teams would start in a light fuel load and make up 5 or 6 places off the start line but then would have to start earlier than the cars slower off the line.

Jordan used do it a bit and made it interesting when they were up around the front and hoping they could hold on for the win

Now all teams have pretty much similar strategies as tyres are the only variable and a computer simulation tells them which ones to use

thierry14 · 29-03-2017 12:17AM

g1983d wrote: »

I think what used to make F1 really exciting was the different strategies different teams would have.
Refuelling helped with this because some teams would start in a light fuel load and make up 5 or 6 places off the start line but then would have to start earlier than the cars slower off the line.

Jordan used do it a bit and made it interesting when they were up around the front and hoping they could hold on for the win

Now all teams have pretty much similar strategies as tyres are the only variable and a computer simulation tells them which ones to use

Agree
Can't understand why they don't let teams tune the cars more.
Gear ratio's, wing modifications, more downforce/less downforce, top speed vs downforce, turbo bar pressure etc
You could have Sauber running very little wing and geared for top speed at the front fighting off another geared for acceleration and corner speed
One for all crap we have now kills it.
China with it's long straights next would be geared/winged differently than Australia
Understand cost cutting etc, but surely they could give them a choice of 5 different gear ratio's, wing, turbo bar etc

mickdw · 29-03-2017 12:37AM

They can run whatever downforce they wish race to race. We used to have freedom of gear ratios race to race but not now. I believe they are only allowed a couple of changes of ratio over the season.
Still they should be able to run ratio that let's then run little wing where required.
I agree that more freedom re turbo could be allowed. I think limiting engine from the fuel useage aspect was enough. Give them 100 kg for the race and let them do what they wish in terms of engine. That would be true technology, not this very tight engine format where everything is controlled even max fuel flow. What is the point in that. If they are limited to a race total, why limit short term consumption also?

Slutmonkey57b · 29-03-2017 08:18AM

There's really no point looking back at the glory days where backmarkers could come up with a smart new idea in secret and win races or a championship. Why not?

1. There's no information gap anymore. Either the other teams find out what you're building before you've built it, or it's one of a hundred ideas their hundreds of postgraduates already evaluated, or as soon as you turn up on track they've worked out what you're doing.
1a. In the 70's teams came up with mad ideas, built them, and tried to work out if they worked or not. Now, there's no part of the car that isn't fitted with a hundred sensors feeding back more information than a human can process or understand, in real time. And it's being assessed by machines and algorithms that simply didn't exist 30 years ago. There is no guesswork. Sometimes an estimate can't be nailed down 100 percent but it's a rarity.
2. Manufacturing isn't a challenge. Need a new aero part? Print it at the track. Needs an autoclave? Fly it out on a private jet when it's finished. Need 1,000 man hours to design and build? Your operation is a 24/7 beast that needs feeding anyway.
3. Money's no object. The fundamental change of the Bernie era was the massive inwash of money, and it's totally uneven. The top 4 teams effectively have unlimited budgets. Any problem that can't be solved by the last 2 can be done by throwing money at it, provided you've got enough experience.

McLaren at one point supposedly had 150 PhD's doing nothing except going through the rule book looking for loopholes. *that's* what you're up against. It's not John Barnard sitting in front of his drawing table versus Gordon Murray sitting in front of his drawing table. It's 10 people with limited time and resources versus 250 people who came top of their classes with unlimited resources working round the clock.

eviltimeban · 29-03-2017 09:37AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'd be for trialling a hybrid type idea of what was mentioned above. No eliminations, full hour but anyone who doesn't run at least once within each 15 mins of the hour get penalised somehow, either time or a place per missed 'session'.

And separate quali tyres while we're at it please (and maybe entire drive trains tbh)

I thought of the same thing, an hour long session but drivers must go out in each 15 minute "block". Only downside is that you'd get teams coming out and doing a lap for the sake of it, a slow lap even, and then going back in.

On the other side, it was always great watching them wait for the track to hit the sweet spot / at it's fastest, and then they'd all come out and there'd be a scramble to the end.

I agree that it wasn't great TV to have no cars on track, nor was it great for the audience, but it was probably best for the racing. Which is what it's all about, right?

For one reason or another I didn't get to see the whole of the Oz race, but a whole year of no overtaking sounds like a long year.

H3llR4iser · 29-03-2017 12:38PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

There's really no point looking back at the glory days where backmarkers could come up with a smart new idea in secret and win races or a championship. Why not?

1. There's no information gap anymore. Either the other teams find out what you're building before you've built it, or it's one of a hundred ideas their hundreds of postgraduates already evaluated, or as soon as you turn up on track they've worked out what you're doing.
1a. In the 70's teams came up with mad ideas, built them, and tried to work out if they worked or not. Now, there's no part of the car that isn't fitted with a hundred sensors feeding back more information than a human can process or understand, in real time. And it's being assessed by machines and algorithms that simply didn't exist 30 years ago. There is no guesswork. Sometimes an estimate can't be nailed down 100 percent but it's a rarity.
2. Manufacturing isn't a challenge. Need a new aero part? Print it at the track. Needs an autoclave? Fly it out on a private jet when it's finished. Need 1,000 man hours to design and build? Your operation is a 24/7 beast that needs feeding anyway.
3. Money's no object. The fundamental change of the Bernie era was the massive inwash of money, and it's totally uneven. The top 4 teams effectively have unlimited budgets. Any problem that can't be solved by the last 2 can be done by throwing money at it, provided you've got enough experience.

McLaren at one point supposedly had 150 PhD's doing nothing except going through the rule book looking for loopholes. *that's* what you're up against. It's not John Barnard sitting in front of his drawing table versus Gordon Murray sitting in front of his drawing table. It's 10 people with limited time and resources versus 250 people who came top of their classes with unlimited resources working round the clock.

And that nails it. Same I've been saying for years - technology advancements create the odd situation where the racing is actually closer but the result absolutely predictable due to the near-perfection of simulations, estimates and the abundance of data. Today, we consider 0.5s a lap a "big margin" and "hard to overcome"; 30 years ago, 0.5s were considered nothing and an "anything can happen" situation.

In, say, 1990 Prost's Ferrari would qualify 5th, 3 seconds shy of Senna's McLaren in pole, but then win the race on outright pace; Today the 5th would be 1 second off the pace but we know he stands zero chances in the race, unless a meteorite hits the track...

Frank Bullitt · 30-03-2017 05:35PM

This made me wince, late braking isn't the word. This is what I would imagine it would look like if I took part in an F1 race.

mickdw · 30-03-2017 06:21PM

LIGHTNING wrote: »

He shouldn't have gotten away with that. There is no way he meant that

I don't think anyone would have the neck to attempt such a move on their first gp start. Still he got away with it and I'd be prepared to give him a pass seeing as it was his first start.
I'd say it's a fair surprise when you arrive at the first corner of your first gp and 20 f1 cars have nailed the brakes around you.

vectra · 30-03-2017 07:34PM

LIGHTNING wrote: »

He shouldn't have gotten away with that. There is no way he meant that

Beginners luck.

I wonder was his heart up in his mouth by the time he made the corner ?:p

g1983d · 30-03-2017 07:49PM

vectra wrote: »

LIGHTNING wrote: »

He shouldn't have gotten away with that. There is no way he meant that

Beginners luck.
I wonder was his heart up in his mouth by the time he made the corner ?:p

I wouldn't want to be the one washing his race suit

vectra · 30-03-2017 07:51PM

g1983d wrote: »

I wouldn't want to be the one washing his race suit

After I posted the above, that thought crossed my mind. I am sure he had an unpleasent drive from there on Hahah. :pac::pac:

Frank Bullitt · 30-03-2017 08:11PM

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-survey-latest-alonso-emerges-as-most-popular-driver-887904/

The global fan survey has put Alonso as the most popular driver on the grid, I wasn't expecting that, and even I am a huge fan of his. Its good to see though.

boardsuser1 · 30-03-2017 08:17PM

Gintonious wrote: »

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-survey-latest-alonso-emerges-as-most-popular-driver-887904/

The global fan survey has put Alonso as the most popular driver on the grid, I wasn't expecting that, and even I am a huge fan of his. Its good to see though.

That man deserves the Nobel Peace prize for putting up with going on 3 years of Rubbish McLaren's and then some........................

HighLine · 30-03-2017 08:26PM

Gintonious wrote: »

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-survey-latest-alonso-emerges-as-most-popular-driver-887904/

The global fan survey has put Alonso as the most popular driver on the grid, I wasn't expecting that, and even I am a huge fan of his. Its good to see though.

Fairly shocked to see Lewis is second to be honest. Thought he would be well down.

Frank Bullitt · 30-03-2017 08:31PM

HighLine wrote: »

Fairly shocked to see Lewis is second to be honest. Thought he would be well down.

He is the biggest mover on it as well. I'm as shocked especially considering how much of a moanbag he was last year.

Jordan 199 · 30-03-2017 08:37PM

HighLine wrote: »

Fairly shocked to see Lewis is second to be honest. Thought he would be well down.

It doesn't shock me at all

Mike Litoris · 30-03-2017 09:11PM

HighLine wrote: »

Fairly shocked to see Lewis is second to be honest. Thought he would be well down.

The worlds gone mad! Sure Trump got elected!

PopePalpatine · 30-03-2017 11:32PM

KC161 wrote: »

That man deserves the Nobel Peace prize for putting up with going on 3 years of Rubbish McLaren's and then some........................

boardsuser1 · 31-03-2017 06:04PM

http://www.skysports.com/share/10819731

Formula 1 2017: General Discussion Thread

Comments