EPT
Formula 1 - 2013 - Page 86
| Forum Index > Sports |
ToKoreaWithLove
Norway10161 Posts
| ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
I'm betting that a first corner collision will occur, someone will have a spectacular jump over the sausage curb, Lewis Hamilton somehow beats Rosberg, and Raikkonen does not finish in the points  . | ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
On June 22 2014 09:38 Release wrote: He might, but they will get him back on the next straight. I'm betting that a first corner collision will occur, someone will have a spectacular jump over the sausage curb, Lewis Hamilton somehow beats Rosberg, and Raikkonen does not finish in the points .There have been some bad first corner incidents in the past. They have moved the start positions closer to the first corner so the cars will arrive there a bit slower on the first lap this time. | ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
| ||
|
imweakless
757 Posts
Anyway im happy for massa. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
Rosberg slow but consistent (managed his brakes better than Hamilton?). Also had better pit stops than hamilton.HAM>ROS Massa had undercut on Bottas but Bottas beat both HAM and MAS after stop 1. BOT > MAS. ALO > RAI. As usual no question.PER > HUL. Lower start, managed tyres better, defended lead well without losing time. Maybe HUL should have not set a time in Q3 since he's probably slower than everyone else anyways? Hul started on options right? Also, Alonso, what a god driving that garbage into 5th | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
On June 23 2014 08:40 Release wrote: Teammate comparison brain dump. Rosberg slow but consistent (managed his brakes better than Hamilton?). Also had better pit stops than hamilton.HAM>ROS Massa had undercut on Bottas but Bottas beat both HAM and MAS after stop 1. BOT > MAS. ALO > RAI. As usual no question.PER > HUL. Lower start, managed tyres better, defended lead well without losing time. Maybe HUL should have not set a time in Q3 since he's probably slower than everyone else anyways? Hul started on options right? Also, Alonso, what a god driving that garbage into 5th They changed qualifying rules so that if you make the top 10, you start on the tyres you set your Q2 time on. It means there's no incentive to not set a time in Q3. You also get an extra set of tyres just for use in Q3. It also means you can't get top 10 and then choose to not set a time to pick your own tyres, which just hurts people like Hulk. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
| ||
|
loginn
France815 Posts
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/6/16003.html Why less and less testing ? Why Parc Fermé on Practice 3 ? What's the point of practice 3 if you can't change your setups ?? | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
Sensible way: Distribute prize money more evenly. The top teams will spend less because it's their own money they are spending, the lower down teams will spend a bit more, but not all of it because they are used to having no money. Field gets closer, there's less financial strain at the bottom end and you probably reduce costs overall. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
There is not one rule there that sounds good. They are just so arbitrary, and I agree it's a really poor way to control speed and costs. Might be giving up on motorsport after this year if all the bodies in motorsport are like this. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
People might not believe it, but restrictions on engine usage, testing, curfew and wind tunnel actually work! I admit, some years ago, I too thought that 'they will always spend as much as they have'. But it turned out, when the restriction are tight and there really is nothing the rich teams can throw money at, they actually reduced their staff. Lonyo is right, distributing income would be much more effective, but since that will probably never pass through, straight up restrictions are ok. Earlier Parc Fermé might not be all that bad. Team's performances will probably fluctuate more from race to race, plus there is no special qualifying setup anymore. And standing restarts, while more unfair and dangerous, do add more excitement, one has to admit. | ||
|
loginn
France815 Posts
On June 27 2014 09:40 lord_nibbler wrote: In the light of past FIA rule changes, these ones are pretty decent. People might not believe it, but restrictions on engine usage, testing, curfew and wind tunnel actually work! I admit, some years ago, I too thought that 'they will always spend as much as they have'. But it turned out, when the restriction are tight and there really is nothing the rich teams can throw money at, they actually reduced their staff. Lonyo is right, distributing income would be much more effective, but since that will probably never pass through, straight up restrictions are ok. Earlier Parc Fermé might not be all that bad. Team's performances will probably fluctuate more from race to race, plus there is no special qualifying setup anymore. And standing restarts, while more unfair and dangerous, do add more excitement, one has to admit. Yeah they will work, but what's the point of these rules ??? | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On June 27 2014 09:40 lord_nibbler wrote: In the light of past FIA rule changes, these ones are pretty decent. People might not believe it, but restrictions on engine usage, testing, curfew and wind tunnel actually work! I admit, some years ago, I too thought that 'they will always spend as much as they have'. But it turned out, when the restriction are tight and there really is nothing the rich teams can throw money at, they actually reduced their staff. Lonyo is right, distributing income would be much more effective, but since that will probably never pass through, straight up restrictions are ok. Earlier Parc Fermé might not be all that bad. Team's performances will probably fluctuate more from race to race, plus there is no special qualifying setup anymore. And standing restarts, while more unfair and dangerous, do add more excitement, one has to admit. I know that this will decrease costs, but I just don't like the approach. I don't like the idea that the regulation rulebook has to be 1000 pages long, to tell you exactly how every single last piece of your formula must look to be legal. There is too much complexity, where it just doesn't feel like racing. Regulation fuel flow, restricting angle of wings, high of wings, width of wings, how wheels can be attached, how long the nose can be, how low the nose can be, what material can the nose be made out of... There is so many restrictions just for a little component of the vehicle. I'm all for lowering costs, but I want it to be done with as few regulations as possible. Not limiting testing in windtunnels, like what the fuck is that? Their argument for doing the stuff they were doing for the 2014 season was so technology that's applicable to today's cars could be developed (all the KERS and fuel efficiency)... Oh yes, it'll totally help if we cut down on time that teams are allowed to do tests, hell, lets even restrict where they can do tests. Why is a A two-stage wheel fastener retaining system is now compulsory? Why do we restart from standing starts when a safety cars occur? Another artificial way to try and make F1 more interesting, like the double points for last race?! Oh yes, let's limit their processing power when doing computing on processors, that will really improve the sport.... Lets micromanage every little thing that the teams do. At this point I just don't get why they don't take all their bullshit rules, have one company make all the F1 cars and give them to F1 constructors and have them race. Too little leeway in regulation, and too much regulation. It doesn't feel fun to make cars anymore, since you can't let your creativity go wild, you just build there formulas under extremely strict specifications.At this point car manufacturers are so disconnected from F1 (like the applicable technologies for consumer cars), that whether a car manufacturer has a F1 team or not will make no influence whether your buy the car or not. Back in the day, a good F1 car reflected that you had good technology in your own cars, and made them a lot more appealing. There needs to be a better way. | ||
zere
Germany1287 Posts
He drove behind John Surtees, who was in the Ferrari 158, in which Surtees won the 1964 Formula 1 World Championship. Additionally, Kimi Raikkonen was delighted to talk to the media about the current state of F1, and commented about the planned F1 rules for the upcoming years, which have just recently been ratified by the World Motorsport Council: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IiLCQro.jpg) | ||
Yhamm
France7248 Posts
| ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
| ||
|
LennX
4568 Posts
| ||
|
Chewits
Northern Ireland1200 Posts
| ||
|
LennX
4568 Posts
Gap is now down to 4 points. | ||
| ||
