|
Yeah, what was the thinking on the new tire compounds exactly? If I understand correctly, they've kinda killed undercuts because they take a couple laps to warm up. They last way longer so people can do single stop strategies all the time. What about this was supposed to make the racing better?
I mean, maybe they thought it was a problem that people weren't willing to do exciting risky maneuvers to overtake, because it'll tear up their tires too much, so with more robust tires they could keep doing their two stop strategies and take a lot more risks trying to get past people, but it seems like people will just keep avoiding those risky overtakes and take one stop instead of two.
Is there something I'm missing here? What's the upside?
|
Australia is not enough data for me to comment on how the racing will turn out this season. I enjoyed F1 been back I love that we might have an inter team battle. If overtaking does turn out to be a problem that will be disapointing. But I think we should hold judgement for now.
The most disapointing thing is I won't be going to Shanghai. I failed to get a cheap seat before they all sold out and couldn't really justify spending a fortune on it. I'm not rich.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51331 Posts
Upside is your on the track more, you have tyres that grip for longer so you can overtake at any given point. Last couple of years it been even worst where at best you can get like 10-12 laps out of the fastest compound that aint good for anything. F1 should be about wheel to wheel racing not about who can change a tyre the quickest in the pit.
Next few races should line up the season, however Martin Brundle isn't convinced they have it right at all and is already counting down to when Brawn can influence his changes in the spot by 2021. Who knows though, drivers saying the cars the funniest to drive in years.
|
F1 is so similar to RTS, in that sense. People predict which technologies will make the sport more fun to watch, and which don't. Experts predict, and are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
At least in F1 they had the sense to ban traction control.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51331 Posts
Haha yeah but we just got rid of David Kim (Bernie) and replaced him with Ross Brawn who is fantastic for this sport and will know what needs to be done as he been on both sides of spectrum etc
|
|
I can't believe Honda and McLaren still haven't got their shit together. How long can you continue to be a 'top team' while having a terrible car package. At some point sponsors will get weary right? At least Alonso can't call it GP2 engine anymore since that series is now called F2 lol
Oh well first race was promising, really hope Ferrari and Mercedes are super close speed wise. It would be nice not to know which team will win before it starts.
|
Going to Monza this year !! I'll try to take some nice pictures.
Shame about Grosjean. He had a great qualifying.
He used to be shit but I'm starting to wonder how he'd do in a major team (say replacing raikkonen next year)
|
On March 31 2017 21:43 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I can't believe Honda and McLaren still haven't got their shit together. How long can you continue to be a 'top team' while having a terrible car package. At some point sponsors will get weary right? At least Alonso can't call it GP2 engine anymore since that series is now called F2 lol
Oh well first race was promising, really hope Ferrari and Mercedes are super close speed wise. It would be nice not to know which team will win before it starts. I think McHonda gets most of its huge budget directly from Honda. I mean, they don't have a title sponsor, and their sponsors don't even have their corporate colors on the car. The only way they can have a budget equal to Merc, Red Bull and Ferrari is thus Honda's money.
|
On April 01 2017 03:26 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 21:43 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I can't believe Honda and McLaren still haven't got their shit together. How long can you continue to be a 'top team' while having a terrible car package. At some point sponsors will get weary right? At least Alonso can't call it GP2 engine anymore since that series is now called F2 lol
Oh well first race was promising, really hope Ferrari and Mercedes are super close speed wise. It would be nice not to know which team will win before it starts. I think McHonda gets most of its huge budget directly from Honda. I mean, they don't have a title sponsor, and their sponsors don't even have their corporate colors on the car. The only way they can have a budget equal to Merc, Red Bull and Ferrari is thus Honda's money.
A lot of McLaren's money will come from the hugely successful technology business.
|
On March 29 2017 08:52 ChristianS wrote: Yeah, what was the thinking on the new tire compounds exactly? If I understand correctly, they've kinda killed undercuts because they take a couple laps to warm up. They last way longer so people can do single stop strategies all the time. What about this was supposed to make the racing better?
I mean, maybe they thought it was a problem that people weren't willing to do exciting risky maneuvers to overtake, because it'll tear up their tires too much, so with more robust tires they could keep doing their two stop strategies and take a lot more risks trying to get past people, but it seems like people will just keep avoiding those risky overtakes and take one stop instead of two.
Is there something I'm missing here? What's the upside?
The upside is that drivers can actually push.
Drivers like Alonso were very vocal about it the past few years. Once the following order settled after the first few laps, drivers were not racing but rather managing their fuel and tires. This year's change of regulations partially addressed the fuel limitations and Pirelli can make tires not designed to disintegrate.
At the end, racing won't improve while cars cannot follow closely, and that won't happen while cars are so dependent on aero and produce so much dirty air. With Ross Brawn at the lead, I hope this will be addressed as well.
|
On April 01 2017 12:14 VManOfMana wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2017 08:52 ChristianS wrote: Yeah, what was the thinking on the new tire compounds exactly? If I understand correctly, they've kinda killed undercuts because they take a couple laps to warm up. They last way longer so people can do single stop strategies all the time. What about this was supposed to make the racing better?
I mean, maybe they thought it was a problem that people weren't willing to do exciting risky maneuvers to overtake, because it'll tear up their tires too much, so with more robust tires they could keep doing their two stop strategies and take a lot more risks trying to get past people, but it seems like people will just keep avoiding those risky overtakes and take one stop instead of two.
Is there something I'm missing here? What's the upside? The upside is that drivers can actually push. Drivers like Alonso were very vocal about it the past few years. Once the following order settled after the first few laps, drivers were not racing but rather managing their fuel and tires. This year's change of regulations partially addressed the fuel limitations and Pirelli can make tires not designed to disintegrate. At the end, racing won't improve while cars cannot follow closely, and that won't happen while cars are so dependent on aero and produce so much dirty air. With Ross Brawn at the lead, I hope this will be addressed as well. Interesting. I think Vettel gave an interview to that effect, talking about how you could really throw yourself around corners even several laps in, presumably because of the sturdier tires (although in his case he's also probably just happy to be in a more competitive car). If winning became more about pushing your lap times and less about preserving your tires that would be good in my book.
I don't immediately see what can be done about aero though. Unless you throw jet engines or something on the car, you're gonna get your power from friction with the ground, and friction is a function of normal force times coefficient of friction. So to go faster, you either need more down force (i.e. from aero) or stickier tires.
In general I prefer aero to sticky tires, for safety reasons. Cars with a lot of down force will stay down, even if the driver loses traction, but if sticky tires are what give you the grip to get around corners, then as soon as those tires lift even a little bit you're free to sail through the air. Personally, I think safety should be a top priority in motorsport, considering the inherent risks involved, so I'd rather the cars lean more on aero.
But I don't really know enough about any of this to say if it's possible to lean a bit more on sticky tires while maintaining enough aero that the car will still stay down, or if it's possible to design the aero in such a way that the air behind you isn't quite as torn up. But to my amateur eye, it seems like it's a choice between reducing aero and increasing frictional coefficient (reducing safety), or reducing aero and just letting the cars go slower as a result, or leaving it alone and making drivers try to push through all the bad air.
As with all of my commentary on F1, I'm not an expert on any of this so I could have it completely wrong, but I guess it just seems like you have to make sacrifices somewhere, and I'm not honestly sure where I'd rather put them.
|
On April 01 2017 15:53 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 12:14 VManOfMana wrote:On March 29 2017 08:52 ChristianS wrote: Yeah, what was the thinking on the new tire compounds exactly? If I understand correctly, they've kinda killed undercuts because they take a couple laps to warm up. They last way longer so people can do single stop strategies all the time. What about this was supposed to make the racing better?
I mean, maybe they thought it was a problem that people weren't willing to do exciting risky maneuvers to overtake, because it'll tear up their tires too much, so with more robust tires they could keep doing their two stop strategies and take a lot more risks trying to get past people, but it seems like people will just keep avoiding those risky overtakes and take one stop instead of two.
Is there something I'm missing here? What's the upside? The upside is that drivers can actually push. Drivers like Alonso were very vocal about it the past few years. Once the following order settled after the first few laps, drivers were not racing but rather managing their fuel and tires. This year's change of regulations partially addressed the fuel limitations and Pirelli can make tires not designed to disintegrate. At the end, racing won't improve while cars cannot follow closely, and that won't happen while cars are so dependent on aero and produce so much dirty air. With Ross Brawn at the lead, I hope this will be addressed as well. Interesting. I think Vettel gave an interview to that effect, talking about how you could really throw yourself around corners even several laps in, presumably because of the sturdier tires (although in his case he's also probably just happy to be in a more competitive car). If winning became more about pushing your lap times and less about preserving your tires that would be good in my book. I don't immediately see what can be done about aero though. Unless you throw jet engines or something on the car, you're gonna get your power from friction with the ground, and friction is a function of normal force times coefficient of friction. So to go faster, you either need more down force (i.e. from aero) or stickier tires. In general I prefer aero to sticky tires, for safety reasons. Cars with a lot of down force will stay down, even if the driver loses traction, but if sticky tires are what give you the grip to get around corners, then as soon as those tires lift even a little bit you're free to sail through the air. Personally, I think safety should be a top priority in motorsport, considering the inherent risks involved, so I'd rather the cars lean more on aero. But I don't really know enough about any of this to say if it's possible to lean a bit more on sticky tires while maintaining enough aero that the car will still stay down, or if it's possible to design the aero in such a way that the air behind you isn't quite as torn up. But to my amateur eye, it seems like it's a choice between reducing aero and increasing frictional coefficient (reducing safety), or reducing aero and just letting the cars go slower as a result, or leaving it alone and making drivers try to push through all the bad air. As with all of my commentary on F1, I'm not an expert on any of this so I could have it completely wrong, but I guess it just seems like you have to make sacrifices somewhere, and I'm not honestly sure where I'd rather put them.
The problem is not so much aero downforce but how it is generated. Formulas like WEC LMP1 also generate tons of downforce, but cars can follow each other. Formula 1 got so many restrictions on ground effect and body work that you end with overdeveloped body parts that produce tons of dirty air. The front wings are a good example; they wouldn't look like this if teams were able to use their resources on other parts of the car.
|
The thing is the floor (which is much less affected by dirty air) is extremely restricted by the rules of F1. If teams had more leeway with the floors, then you could reduce the aero generated by the wings without reducing the overall downforce and dirty air would be less of an issue
|
Interesting. Is there a downside to giving teams more leeway with floors? I'm having trouble picturing the changes you guys describe, and certainly have none of the expertise or CFD understanding to know what that entails.
|
I think, but don't quote me on that, that when the floor restrictions were implemented it was because floors generated too much downforce at the time. Tbh if they'd just introduced the tires this year, without any aero change the races would have been really interesting because of the added mechanical grip/longer lasting tires.
|
Time to replace Pascal with Antonio in the OP.
|
Everythig I have seen so far points to Ferrari having the faster race car. China is a power circuit and traditionaly has been good for Mercedes. You could argue that the new regulations make historic tracks been good for certain cars irelevant. But the chat is Ferrari are fast because of the airo package. So I think this is a Mercedes circuit still applies. It is important for Mercedes to win here if things are where I think they are because there will be tracks Ferrari are just too fast.
There is enough excitement and intrigue without rain for me. We normally want rain to mix things up. But right now we aren't really sure where things are anyway. I can't wait. Just dissapointed I am not there.
edit: But rain/wet we have got.
|
Sainz with a brilliant choice to start on soft tires with everyone else on inters.
|
On April 09 2017 15:02 LennX wrote: Sainz with a brilliant choice to start on soft tires with everyone else on inters. Right, they have to make that call so early. It was a gamble but by the time the race started everyone knew he'd made the right choice
|
|
|
|