|
On April 07 2014 08:29 RowdierBob wrote:
I can see Manni's point. F1 competition has been stifled by metagame engineering wars between teams. Not that this wasn't always so but it's really pronounced now. Drivers have seemingly become very much secondary to the engineers behind the scenes. Races have become very predictable as a result.
There was good racing in Bahrain but a Merc win was never in doubt bar driver error.
Does it even matter if merc win, as long as its a fight all the way between Nico and Lewis (hopefully Lewis coming out on top.) It's not like Vettel domination because Webber never challenged.
|
On April 07 2014 08:29 RowdierBob wrote:
Drivers have seemingly become very much secondary to the engineers behind the scenes.
'Seemingly' is such an important word here, because factually the engineers influence has been turned back considerably!
This is a typical 'crime is rampart' case. Just because you hear more about something does not mean it actually increased.
Back in the days the cars were actually controlled by the pits. Active suspension and remote traction control were real.
Since the standard electronic control has been introduced, the driver is the only one who can actively change a few predefined parameters on car while in motion. So naturally, whenever the crews sees something in their data they have to go through the driver via radio, which in turn gets broadcasted in TV.
Just because they talk more about 'engine maps' or 'tire status' on the radio does not mean they have more control over it than they used to in the past, like I said, in reality it is the opposite.
|
We need refueling. Differences in strategy entail overtaking. The cost of fuel usage is less when it is carried only for a fraction of the race (although the fuel limit is still a problem). The balance of the cars will be more consistent. The undercut will be less pronounced (nonexistant at some tracks) and will compromise fuel strategy. Encourages drivers to overtake on track instead of through stops. Less problems due to improper tire stop.
Since cars may become "dangerously" quick, reduce aero, so less dirty air. Or do something about weights since it is a hot topic at the moment.
|
On April 07 2014 09:15 Release wrote:
We need refueling. No, we definitively do not need it. You simply prefer it.
Differences in strategy entail overtaking. The cost of fuel usage is less when it is carried only for a fraction of the race (although the fuel limit is still a problem). The balance of the cars will be more consistent. And why is that a good thing?
I argue, varying balance is part of the challenge for drivers and engineers. To eliminate that means to 'dumb down the sport'.
The undercut will be less pronounced (nonexistant at some tracks) and will compromise fuel strategy. Encourages drivers to overtake on track instead of through stops. Not true! Do you have such a short memory?
Back then, 90% of all overtaking was through the pit lane. It was horrible. Fans actively rallied against it.
Less problems due to improper tire stop. And much more problems due to the tank nozzle. At least one poor fucker run into refuel problems each race.
Red Bull's issue about the flow sensor in Australia are nothing compared the old FIA regulated tank system we once had. Back then some teams could pump in fuel up to 7% faster than others and it was still within the rules...
|
On April 07 2014 09:15 Release wrote:
We need refueling. Differences in strategy entail overtaking. The cost of fuel usage is less when it is carried only for a fraction of the race (although the fuel limit is still a problem). The balance of the cars will be more consistent. The undercut will be less pronounced (nonexistant at some tracks) and will compromise fuel strategy. Encourages drivers to overtake on track instead of through stops. Less problems due to improper tire stop.
Since cars may become "dangerously" quick, reduce aero, so less dirty air. Or do something about weights since it is a hot topic at the moment.
Not sure what sport your talking about... F1 is much better without refueling.
|
On April 07 2014 07:52 ManniBender wrote:
Seriously, people who think this was a great race probably haven't watched Formula 1 five years ago. The last 3 years were all terrible. The rule-changes made the Drivers way to passive.
Hahahahaha ok troll confirmed! Passive drivers > just had one of the most constant number of same team battles in any race I can remember and yes I've been watching F1 for more than 5 years.... Because 5 years is such a long time...
But yeah the 2009 season was totally different to this season, no one team came out and dominated the sport...
|
On April 07 2014 15:35 baldgye wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2014 09:15 Release wrote:
We need refueling. Differences in strategy entail overtaking. The cost of fuel usage is less when it is carried only for a fraction of the race (although the fuel limit is still a problem). The balance of the cars will be more consistent. The undercut will be less pronounced (nonexistant at some tracks) and will compromise fuel strategy. Encourages drivers to overtake on track instead of through stops. Less problems due to improper tire stop.
Since cars may become "dangerously" quick, reduce aero, so less dirty air. Or do something about weights since it is a hot topic at the moment. Not sure what sport your talking about... F1 is much better without refueling.
I disagree with you, with fueling they fight at their 100%. Now is just a bunch of cars taking car of not going too fast not to waste fuel... Those fights of Alonso vs Schumacher in Monza of 10 laps trying to overtake eachother can't happen today. After 3 laps you should slow down 
|
On April 07 2014 09:44 lord_nibbler wrote:No, we definitively do not need it. You simply prefer it. Fair enoughShow nested quote +Differences in strategy entail overtaking. The cost of fuel usage is less when it is carried only for a fraction of the race (although the fuel limit is still a problem). The balance of the cars will be more consistent. And why is that a good thing? I argue, varying balance is part of the challenge for drivers and engineers. To eliminate that means to 'dumb down the sport'. Yes, varying balance is a challenge, but it mostly just causes everyone to run slower to protect tyres and fuel consumption. It's probably one of the biggest reasons (next to the tyres ofc) we have maintain the gap (e.g. suzuka 2013). Drivers and teams always act cautious in uncertainty. However, choosing the correct fuel strategy adds the challenge of choosing the correct fuel load (Suzuka 1997, France 1999, Nurburgring 1999, Britain 2000, Hungary 2003) and, during inclement conditions, adds the challenge of choosing between being on the correct tyre or opting for a better fuel window (France 1997, Nurburgring 1999, Belgium 2000), or even hoping that rain will stop and staying on dry tyres when wets are unequivocally the faster tyre (Nurburgring 1999, Germany 2000, USA 2000) Show nested quote +The undercut will be less pronounced (nonexistant at some tracks) and will compromise fuel strategy. Encourages drivers to overtake on track instead of through stops. Not true! Do you have such a short memory? Back then, 90% of all overtaking was through the pit lane. It was horrible. Fans actively rallied against it. Back then, no DRS or ERS existed. Back then, the turbulence from dirty air was much more pronounced. However, differences in fuel strategy produces amazing on track battles since track position (fewer stops) and ultimate pace (more stops, heavier starting fuel load) are both important in a race. (Britain 1995, Hockenheim 1997, Argentina 1998, Austria 1998, Hungary 1998, Italy 1999, Malaysia 1999, Brazil 2000). And much more problems due to the tank nozzle. At least one poor fucker run into refuel problems each race. Red Bull's issue about the flow sensor in Australia are nothing compared the old FIA regulated tank system we once had. Back then some teams could pump in fuel up to 7% faster than others and it was still within the rules... iirc the most frequent and salient problems occurred to williams in the early 2000's and it only caused minor damage; didn't really affect WDC/WCC
|
On April 10 2014 08:42 SpaNiarD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2014 15:35 baldgye wrote:On April 07 2014 09:15 Release wrote:
We need refueling. Differences in strategy entail overtaking. The cost of fuel usage is less when it is carried only for a fraction of the race (although the fuel limit is still a problem). The balance of the cars will be more consistent. The undercut will be less pronounced (nonexistant at some tracks) and will compromise fuel strategy. Encourages drivers to overtake on track instead of through stops. Less problems due to improper tire stop.
Since cars may become "dangerously" quick, reduce aero, so less dirty air. Or do something about weights since it is a hot topic at the moment. Not sure what sport your talking about... F1 is much better without refueling. I disagree with you, with fueling they fight at their 100%. Now is just a bunch of cars taking car of not going too fast not to waste fuel... Those fights of Alonso vs Schumacher in Monza of 10 laps trying to overtake eachother can't happen today. After 3 laps you should slow down
That is because of tyres, not fuel.
|
On April 07 2014 15:35 baldgye wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2014 09:15 Release wrote:
We need refueling. Differences in strategy entail overtaking. The cost of fuel usage is less when it is carried only for a fraction of the race (although the fuel limit is still a problem). The balance of the cars will be more consistent. The undercut will be less pronounced (nonexistant at some tracks) and will compromise fuel strategy. Encourages drivers to overtake on track instead of through stops. Less problems due to improper tire stop.
Since cars may become "dangerously" quick, reduce aero, so less dirty air. Or do something about weights since it is a hot topic at the moment. Not sure what sport your talking about... F1 is much better without refueling.
Not sure if serious or just trolling...
|
France7248 Posts
Gene Haas has secured a Formula 1 team entry for the 2015 season.
The American NASCAR team owner confirmed on Friday that he had been informed by the FIA his application to join the F1 grid had been successful.
|
On April 12 2014 01:28 Yhamm wrote:Show nested quote +Gene Haas has secured a Formula 1 team entry for the 2015 season.
The American NASCAR team owner confirmed on Friday that he had been informed by the FIA his application to join the F1 grid had been successful.
That is some wonderful news. About time we have an American team back in F1.
|
On April 12 2014 01:54 lilwisper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 01:28 Yhamm wrote:Gene Haas has secured a Formula 1 team entry for the 2015 season.
The American NASCAR team owner confirmed on Friday that he had been informed by the FIA his application to join the F1 grid had been successful. That is some wonderful news. About time we have an American team back in F1.
They are not in F1 yet  I will remain doubtful until I see them on the grid.
|
Magic Woods9326 Posts
On April 12 2014 01:28 Yhamm wrote:Show nested quote +Gene Haas has secured a Formula 1 team entry for the 2015 season.
The American NASCAR team owner confirmed on Friday that he had been informed by the FIA his application to join the F1 grid had been successful.
Do you know if it will be in collaboration with Tony Stewart?
|
On April 12 2014 03:59 Epoxide wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 01:28 Yhamm wrote:Gene Haas has secured a Formula 1 team entry for the 2015 season.
The American NASCAR team owner confirmed on Friday that he had been informed by the FIA his application to join the F1 grid had been successful. Do you know if it will be in collaboration with Tony Stewart?
What we know so far is:
- Haas brings in the money and expertise from his 'Haas Racing Development' firm
- former Red Bull technical chief Günther Steiner is on board
- first year's base chassis will come from Dallara (Italy), further development from Haas itself
- Ferrari is expected to supply the engines
- they aim at starting next year, but it is understood they could wait till 2016
(- rumor has it that we might sadly lose 2 teams at the end of the year)
|
Estonia4644 Posts
On April 12 2014 05:12 lord_nibbler wrote:
(- rumor has it that we might sadly lose 2 teams at the end of the year)
source please?
|
On April 12 2014 07:55 fusefuse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 05:12 lord_nibbler wrote:
(- rumor has it that we might sadly lose 2 teams at the end of the year) source please?
Well, mostly I read www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news.html which is in German and not that great journalistic-ally, but it aggregates / translates nearly every single press release, interview and article there is about F1.
So, I can't get you the exact news with the actual quotes.
But, for example this article: http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news/2014/04/kostensenkung-in-der-formel-1-treffen-am-1-mai-14041118.html
It talks about how Caterham, Force India, Lotus, Marussia and Sauber have serious budget problems.
And than Todt said this: "I hear that Sauber has problems and Williams as well. Lotus has allegedly not paid one of their drivers. That can't go on. I fear that we're losing teams. Many screaming for help. Our job is to hear these cries for help. Formula one is in intensive care. We need a solution to this problem until the end of June. The time is short."
Also, Marussia just recently ended it's sports cars production. They assure that the F1 team is not affected, but how could it not in the long turn?
|
France7248 Posts
Stefano Domenicali has stepped down as team principal of the Ferrari Formula 1 team.
After a disappointing start to the season, that has left Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen without a podium finish, Domenicali has shouldered the blame for the team's lack of form.
He has moved aside with immediate effect, and will be replaced for now by Marco Mattiacci, the president and CEO of Ferrari North America.
:o
|
That is bad news, everyone loves Steve Sunday
|
Estonia4644 Posts
thats a damn shame, he was always a great guy around the paddock, despite the team's actual performance :c
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
