The Official 2012 F1 Thread. Spoilers possible!

[doyle]

Originally Posted by Ragin Rabbi

I believe that if I am honest I felt the same. I don't believe his racing days are over, but F1? I believe he also said he preferred rally over grand prix.

Once the seriousness of his accident was revealed, I thought his F1 days were done. I never really thought he had a chance and now with it having been so long, I just can't see it happening. It's a shame too because I like Kubica as a solid driver that was a bit different from the rest sort of like how Webber is a bit different from the rest but when you have scores of completely fit, talented drivers unable to cut it in F1, why would a team take a chance on a compromised driver? From a purely business perspective, it doesn't make much sense as he's surely lost a lot of backing through his absence.

[g®eg]

Paddy Lowe says McLaren are looking at DDRS and 'may' introduce it later in the year

interesting......

[wxwax]

Originally Posted by doyle

This is what I hate about the current regulations and why Pirelli, or any company for that matter, would agree to showcase an intentional lack of performance is beyond me.

I've wondered about that too.

As for the artificiality of it, I have mixed feelings. There's no denying that the tires are a factor in this season's unpredictability.

[A. T. T-W]

Any rules, by definition, introduce "artificiality". The only way to avoid it is to have a totally open formula and that has never been the case in the modern era (1950 onwards).

I do have some sympathy with the notion that micro-managing detracts from the idea of competition in its purest form and it may turn away the odd purist but F1 (like any other major "sport") is in the business of revenue-generation. It needs the widest possible audience to do so and as history has shown, that means the biggest possible grids with the smallest margin in performance between competitors.

Rules have always been tweaked. The move from slicks to grooved tyres was no more harmful to Bridgestone (despite the same arguments being proffered) than the current compound is for Pirelli.

Few people will be put-off buying Pirelli rubber, just as few people will expect their Renault Twingo to perform like a Red Bull, Lotus or Williams.

[g®eg]

Monaco preparations

[doyle]

Originally Posted by A. T. T-W

Any rules, by definition, introduce "artificiality". The only way to avoid it is to have a totally open formula and that has never been the case in the modern era (1950 onwards).

I do have some sympathy with the notion that micro-managing detracts from the idea of competition in its purest form and it may turn away the odd purist but F1 (like any other major "sport") is in the business of revenue-generation. It needs the widest possible audience to do so and as history has shown, that means the biggest possible grids with the smallest margin in performance between competitors.

Rules have always been tweaked. The move from slicks to grooved tyres was no more harmful to Bridgestone (despite the same arguments being proffered) than the current compound is for Pirelli.

Few people will be put-off buying Pirelli rubber, just as few people will expect their Renault Twingo to perform like a Red Bull, Lotus or Williams.

Yes, but Bridgestone's or Goodyears were never really questioned about their lack of performance or rapid deterioration. Sure race tires are fickle, like the optimal temperature, and have always worn differently on different tracks, but they had a viable service life in proportion to the race. To me, this year isn't much different than the FIA spraying water in one particular corner during the race. It's an artificial change during the race to which drivers can or can't deal.

I see it as a bit different than the rest of the rules which are largely static or at least linear during any one race. Fuel is burned at known rates, aerodynamics (sans damage) perform in a linear fashion for the duration, brakes heat and cool and perform at mostly expected levels, but the tires come and go in too rapid a succession and too unexpectedly.

I've never been a Pirelli fan and perhaps I'm showing too much bias, but I am not a fan of these types of rules, just like I don't like KERS or the adjustable rear wings. I like the technology of it, but it should be open to all teams at all times. For instance, the wing elements should be allowed to be open at any time above a set speed and below a set steering angle. This should be the same for all. Same with KERS and the stupid pass button.

I understand the show and the obsession with the notion that passing, no matter how artificial is real racing, I just disagree with it. I didn't mind the processions of a few years back because it made for honest passes made with balls rather than an extra few HP due to a button push. It made for displays of brilliance in strategic, split second decisions that appeal to my technical side. I don't mind team dominance because to me, that shows technical exception rather than FIA theatrics.

[g®eg]

some classic Monaco shots

very cool

LINK

[g®eg]

one for Ragin'

[Fajita Dave]

Originally Posted by doyle

Yes, but Bridgestone's or Goodyears were never really questioned about their lack of performance or rapid deterioration. Sure race tires are fickle, like the optimal temperature, and have always worn differently on different tracks, but they had a viable service life in proportion to the race. To me, this year isn't much different than the FIA spraying water in one particular corner during the race. It's an artificial change during the race to which drivers can or can't deal.

I see it as a bit different than the rest of the rules which are largely static or at least linear during any one race. Fuel is burned at known rates, aerodynamics (sans damage) perform in a linear fashion for the duration, brakes heat and cool and perform at mostly expected levels, but the tires come and go in too rapid a succession and too unexpectedly.

I've never been a Pirelli fan and perhaps I'm showing too much bias, but I am not a fan of these types of rules, just like I don't like KERS or the adjustable rear wings. I like the technology of it, but it should be open to all teams at all times. For instance, the wing elements should be allowed to be open at any time above a set speed and below a set steering angle. This should be the same for all. Same with KERS and the stupid pass button.

I understand the show and the obsession with the notion that passing, no matter how artificial is real racing, I just disagree with it. I didn't mind the processions of a few years back because it made for honest passes made with balls rather than an extra few HP due to a button push. It made for displays of brilliance in strategic, split second decisions that appeal to my technical side. I don't mind team dominance because to me, that shows technical exception rather than FIA theatrics.

I agree to some extent but I think there's a lot more to it. The tires are to sensitive in my opinion which needs to be dialed back a little bit, however, it shows you who's car and which driver is using those tires most efficiently. They have always managed tire degradation in F1 but now its amplified.

If the rules didn't restrict them I'm sure all F1 teams would have wings that can change angle of attack (flat on straights, upright for braking and corners). The problem is the person following trying to setup a pass on the car in front is at a huge disadvantage because of the aero turbulence under braking and through corners. The car in front is working at optimal as the engineers designed it. So I do like the DRS because it gives the driver trying to make a pass an advantage on one single part of the track while hes still at a massive disadvantage everywhere else. It evens out the odds a little bit in my opinion. KERS is always used in strategic ways whether you're trying to pass someone or if someones trying to pass you. I would like to see them get more time per lap to use it so drivers don't need to be so conservative.

I do think they're getting to be to many restrictions in F1. When Formula 1 started the idea was there are no rules or restrictions. You built the fastest car you possibly could with the technology that you had to work with. I would love to see them open things up at least a little bit more.

[Fajita Dave]

Originally Posted by geode

They have so many restrictions because, imho, the technical development of the cars has progressed to the point where the tracks can't handle the speeds the cars can achieve.

"Back in the day" ... before KERS, before wings, before FI, before aerodynamics / ground effect were understood, before 20,000 RPM engine reliability, the cars were the limiting factor.

Now it is the tracks.

Look at Monaco, it's likely no one will ever get them to stop racing on those narrow twisty roads, but face it, stop at your local dealer and drop $50,000 on a new production sports car and you too could blaze your way around that "track". Who needs a multi-mega-million dollar race team to be able to blitz around those streets in fairly respectable time?

There are a lot of other things that can be done to differentiate teams. Changes that wouldn't make the cars any faster than they are now. Open the rules up for different engine options like diesel (you might get Audi into F1), turbo, or rotary just to name a few. They don't refuel mid race so the more fuel efficient diesels will be lighter at the start of a race, turbos will most likely lag out of low speed corners but have the legs on faster sections. Let some teams use different transmissions or other drive-tran components. There are so many more aspects of F1 that can be opened up for other options and some could even be a lot cheaper while still being competitive.

Just like when KERS came out the teams could choose which direction they wanted to go. Give the teams an option whether they want to use the current aero setup or let them use more ground effects to get down force instead of wings.

Cost is an issue but all of the information and research is already out there... someone just needs to make an effort to put it into F1. Maybe it would be easier to do if the global economy every recovers.

[g®eg]

Whitmarsh defends the tires

"I don't want to be critical of Pirelli in that sense," he said. "If they had made a benign and easy-to-use tire then in a sense, probably all of the teams, drivers, engineers would be much more comfortable in what they do each weekend, but the fans and the show will have been affected detrimentally.

everyone would be moaning about the lack of passing, and how boring the races are...

[HarveyMushman]

Originally Posted by g®eg

Whitmarsh defends the tires

everyone would be moaning about the lack of passing, and how boring the races are...

Whitmarsh, like the rest of them, is being a made a rich man by F1 as it is currently contrived. Of course he's going to defend the stupid tires and every other gimmick that keeps his legion of engineers in work. And until F1 shit-cans the advertisement hoardings wings and drastically, comprehensively reduces the cars' reliance on aerodynamic downforce for their performance, it'll be one gimmick after another propping up the charade.

[A. T. T-W]

Originally Posted by doyle

Yes, but Bridgestone's or Goodyears were never really questioned about their lack of performance or rapid deterioration.

In the sense that they were a backward step as far as grip was concerned and the rule demanding a measurable groove remaining, or the tyre would be deemed illegal (and that was as much compound dependant as the Pirelli rubber is) the grooved tyres were just as much artifice as rapidly degrading compounds are today. Of course it was less noticeable because cars were artificially limited on fuel-cell size which required fuel/tyre stops and the refuelling masked the relatively poor tyre-life performance.

Originally Posted by doyle

For instance, the wing elements should be allowed to be open at any time above a set speed and below a set steering angle. This should be the same for all. Same with KERS and the stupid pass button.

Then there'd be no point in DRS at all. The object is to allow the car trying to pass an opportunity to break-through the aerodynamic "wall". If the car defending has the same DRS opportunity (and we see that when two or more cars are in the DRS zone following another car, both may pass the non-DRS-enabled car but the second cannot get past the leading DRS-enabled car), it negates the whole idea.

You and I are probably in a minority when it comes to the so-called processional races of the recent past. I didn't mind them either but the reality is that the great unwashed were turning away from F1.

Originally Posted by Fajita Dave

There are a lot of other things that can be done to differentiate teams. Changes that wouldn't make the cars any faster than they are now. Open the rules up for different engine options like diesel (you might get Audi into F1), turbo, or rotary just to name a few.

Been there done that (except the diesel option) and the problem it created was that on some circuits, some engine configurations were better than others, yet at a disadvantage in other places. It made a nonsense of things when you knew that cars with certain engine types would win at Spa but be mobile road-blocks at Monaco etc.

Originally Posted by Fajita Dave

Cost is an issue but all of the information and research is already out there... someone just needs to make an effort to put it into F1. Maybe it would be easier to do if the global economy every recovers.

Cost was an issue before the economic crises and to be honest, the crises has had little real effect upon F1, except to try to appear less profligate than it really is.

Cost is an issue only in as much as a free-hand given to the teams would probably price half of the field out of the formula.

The reason why the rules are the way they are is to make it viable for less wealthy, non-manufacturer, teams to compete. Without the rules that constrain spending, we'd eventually see a race between cars of just one team, all the others having fallen by the wayside through financial ruin.

[wxwax]

I agree with everything in ATT-W's original post on this topic.

I'm an "unwashed" who is enjoying this season's competitiveness. The procession racing of yore was bad.

Not just because it was dull, dull, dull.

But because it felt unfair. The faster car didn't always win. The faster car couldn't make a pass if the fate of the planet depended upon it. That was infuriating.

Position ruled everything. Be in front and you ruled. Be behind and tough luck. Nothing to do with pace, everything to do with disturbed air.

That sucked. It wasn't the "pure competition" that some suggest.

One additional thought. Designers will catch-up to the new aero and engine rules and next season one or two teams will begin to dominate. Same as it ever was. IOW, I don't think it's principally the tires.

[HarveyMushman]

Originally Posted by wxwax

I'm an "unwashed" who is enjoying this season's competitiveness. The procession racing of yore was bad.

Not just because it was dull, dull, dull.

But because it felt unfair. The faster car didn't always win. The faster car couldn't make a pass if the fate of the planet depended upon it. That was infuriating.

Position ruled everything. Be in front and you ruled. Be behind and tough luck. Nothing to do with pace, everything to do with disturbed air.

True. And what happens in a formula dominated by aerodynamics (and money).