The Official 2012 F1 Thread. Spoilers possible!

Discussion in 'Racing' started by shrineclown, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,008
    Location:
    41.655984,-71.302657
    Whitmarsh defends the tires

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

    HarveyMushman .

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Oddometer:
    16,420
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    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 <s>advertisement hoardings</s> 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.
  3. A. T. T-W

    A. T. T-W Can't be bothered.

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Oddometer:
    4,422
    Location:
    Centre of my universe
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  4. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    82,628
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    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.
  5. HarveyMushman

    HarveyMushman .

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Oddometer:
    16,420
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    True. And what happens in a formula dominated by aerodynamics (and money).
  6. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,008
    Location:
    41.655984,-71.302657
    well this could suck...

    Student protests threaten 2012 Canada GP

    LINK

    Bahrain comes to Canada?

    as a Canadian living in exile if they get in the way of me having fun at my first live in person GP I am gonna be well pissed!

    :ddog
  7. Ragin Rabbi

    Ragin Rabbi Semper Fidelis

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Oddometer:
    5,115
    Location:
    Western Maryland
    But you'll be polite, right?
  8. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,008
    Location:
    41.655984,-71.302657
    LOL....

    I even say thank-you to bank machines....

    :rofl
  9. Ragin Rabbi

    Ragin Rabbi Semper Fidelis

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Oddometer:
    5,115
    Location:
    Western Maryland
    It is funny, Canada and Canadians are supposedly so polite, except to one another when holding a "protest". More like mini riots...

    Or are they riots in which protests break out?

    All I know, they goofed up my moto-trip plans a bit...

    Bastards. Excuse me, eh?
  10. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,008
    Location:
    41.655984,-71.302657
    Monaco Grand Prix 2012: McLaren set to offer Lewis Hamilton a new £20m contract

    McLaren are ready to offer Lewis Hamilton a new contract worth around £20 million per year in an effort to tie down the future of a driver who has been with them since the age of 13.



    The Telegraph
  11. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,008
    Location:
    41.655984,-71.302657
    well... it is the French element after-all.
  12. FreeTheBeast

    FreeTheBeast Shunpiker

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Oddometer:
    3,074
    Location:
    +1.603
    I'll be at the race, too. Don't need no stinking protests...other than Massa protesting Hamilton's driving.
  13. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    82,628
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    After Sergio Perez concussed himself on the barrier coming out of the Monaco tunnel last year (it seems longer ago than that, for some reason) the track announced it would move the barrier back 20 meters.

    At the time, I thought that 20 meters wasn't much.

    But watching practice, it really does look like a big difference. It gives the drivers much more time to make an adjustment if they blow the chicane. If they're out of control, it's 20 more meters of pavement dragging on tires to slow the car down.
  14. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    82,628
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    It rained in P2 and Senna went into an overrun area. Then he put the car in reverse and backed out.

    Reverse?!

    Maybe somewhere in the back of my mind I knew these things had reverse, but if I did, it was buried. Very cool.
  15. A. T. T-W

    A. T. T-W Can't be bothered.

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Oddometer:
    4,422
    Location:
    Centre of my universe
    For most of its history, F1 cars had a reverse gear. At some stage the rule was introduced that reversing on the track (and once the race begins, that includes the pit-lane) was an automatic disqualification. IIRC Mansell overshot his box in a race, reversed back in the pit-lane and was then red-flagged.

    Taken together with the introduction of gravel run-off areas (where no amount of reversing would un-stick a beached car), most teams stopped including reverse in their gearboxes in the search for weight-loss.

    With the coming of hard run-off areas, any driver that found himself with his car's nose facing a tyre-wall then risked disqualification if he received "outside assistance" by being pushed backwards enough to rejoin the race.

    The weight and added complexity (minimal) of putting a reverse gear back became less of a penalty and they've been carrying that extra gear for some years now.
  16. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    82,628
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Matchett said reverse is required by the regs, and that they're built so lightweight that they often break when used. Lots of cars went into that runoff area and the Caterham did indeed break its reverse.
  17. g®eg

    g®eg Canadian living in exile

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Oddometer:
    7,008
    Location:
    41.655984,-71.302657
    LOL

    [​IMG]
  18. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    82,628
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Hmmm, having trouble understanding that!

    Let's see. It's Sergio Perez. He had a nasty wreck last year at Monaco. So... the national colors are Mexico, the wrestler suggests he's ready for another round (?) and the CH in the heart is Switzerland, Sauber's base.

    Am I close? Who's the wrestler?
  19. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    82,628
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    A good short piece on Ross Brawn and Renault's Jean-Francois Caubet both pressing for the hybrid V-6 engine to be mandated for the 2014 season, no more delays.

    Their point is that auto manufacturers would be more likely to get into F1 if the engine is something that applies to their fleets. The V-8 is no longer relevant to car makers.
  20. JNRobert

    JNRobert Breaking Wind

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Oddometer:
    10,108
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Better yet make them 2.5l 4 cylinder turbo's with boost and rev limits (say 2 bar and 16k). That would be even more relevant.