The Official 2012 F1 Thread. Spoilers possible!

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

  1. dlearl476

    dlearl476 Two-bit Throttle Bum

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Oddometer:
    25,256
    Location:
    Between Here and There
    I've believed since the mid-nineties that the best thing the FIA could do to make F1 more enjoyable was ban aerodynamic aides not part of the body proper and ground effects, and specify a tire that was durable enough to be consistent over the course of its life, but skinny enough that, due to the power and handling capabilities of the cars, teams would be inclined to change them at least once, possibly twice, during a race. It keeps pit strategy in the race and it rewards drivers who are better at managing their tire wear.
  2. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    81,954
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I'm thinking I'll live to see the day when fueling is made brain-dead safe and easy, at which point F1 will re-introduce it. Not because cars need to be refueled, but because it adds another element of uncertainty and excitement.
  3. viajero

    viajero Too old to be a nOOb

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Oddometer:
    2,455
    Location:
    Idaho
    I would like to see a racing format like world superbike, with two sprint races, one Saturday after qualifying, and another on Sunday. Each would be an hour to one and a half hours in length (or maybe 200k in length). Increased points for the top five, skewed more towards winning. No refueling, no tire changes, just racing.
  4. dlearl476

    dlearl476 Two-bit Throttle Bum

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Oddometer:
    25,256
    Location:
    Between Here and There
    Hard to say. Besides the safety issues, I think one reason they went away from refueling is the huge cost of the rigs, which every team needed 2 of, plus a spare. IMO, anything more "brain-dead safe and easy" = more expensive. :dunno
  5. dlearl476

    dlearl476 Two-bit Throttle Bum

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Oddometer:
    25,256
    Location:
    Between Here and There
    With today's cars, No refueling, no tire changes, just racing = parade.

    In the bigger picture, I'd like to see the point for fast lap returned, and perhaps even an "index of economy" point like in the old Le Mans rules.

    On the plus side, I think the three part qualifying is the best thing to happen to F1 in twenty years.
  6. A. T. T-W

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

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Oddometer:
    4,422
    Location:
    Centre of my universe
    Ferrari would veto it (again). Thankfully.

    F1 isn't meant to be relevant. A large part of the attraction is that it's spectacularly irrelevant.

    Despite the technological complexity, F1 remains one of the least complex forms of motorsport. Aggregate-win formulae are much less successful in attracting TV audiences and F1 is primarily a TV-sport (people don't seem to mind time-trials, endurance races and the like when they can see, smell and sometimes, feel the action by being present, probably in the same way that those who attend F1 events rarely see much actual racing). Go to Goodwood and watch the Hill Climb. You get to see a few moments of action as the entrants pass. It makes crap TV but when you are there it's very involving.

    I'd hate to see F1 adopt additional points for fastest lap etc. That would lead to handicapping and possibly classes, the way that other formulae have gone. BTCC is a classic case; success weight penalties, reversed-grids and complex class rules. It all makes for pretty uninspiring TV but attend an event and it's very different.

    I preferred the old one-hour, "as many laps as you like" qualifying, it threw-up more topsy-turvy grids. The current version is much more predictable, easier for commentators to manage and for TV companies to insert ad-breaks into.
  7. Flys Lo

    Flys Lo cool hand fluke

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Oddometer:
    321
    Location:
    between my last drink and my next one
    A formula Atlantic that I (with a friend) race in the VARA series gets about 5 uses out of its reverse before it breaks.
  8. JNRobert

    JNRobert Breaking Wind

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Oddometer:
    10,102
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Exactly.
  9. ccambern

    ccambern n00b

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2011
    Oddometer:
    5
    I think relevance is... erm... relative in F1. If the manufacturers believe a given formula is relevant, then it is. The engine formula is really just a marketing opportunity; Audi at Lemans, etc. You just need a formula that keeps costs in check and lets the manufacturers pretend that there is some relation between their race cars and their road cars.

    I honestly don't think F1 will gain or lose fans on the basis of its engine formula as long as the cars are (very) fast and they sound good. I've been to several Indycar races this year (my company handles webcasting for SCCA World Challenge) and I don't think the new Indycars are really fast enough. F1 cars are jaw-dropping, even on TV. Indycars are quick, but not exactly breathtaking. Whatever F1 does, it needs to make sure the cars continue to be incredibly fast, not just in corners, but in straight-line acceleration.
  10. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    81,954
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Maldonado really let down his team today. First, he completely misjudged the turn at Casino. I mean, completely. Drove into the wall. Amazing mistake, tore-up his car. Then he loses his composure and slashes across Sergio Perez. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

    Nice to see Michael take a pole. Shame about the grid penalty.
  11. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    81,954
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I'm sure you're right about the cost of a rig. Still, every time F1 changes its regs, it costs the teams huge amounts of money. Renault this week complained that F1's dithering on the new engine has cost them 50 million (not sure what denomination), so far. I bet a rig costs less than that!
  12. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    81,954
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Which of the teams agrees with you?

    Mercedes and Renault apparently don't. Neither does Ferrari.

    Mercedes and Renault seem to believe a smaller displacement engine would not only benefit their business, but would also be a draw for other manufacturers to enter the sport.

    Ferrari opposes smaller engines for much the same reason: it doesn't see them as helping market its high-power brand.

    It's certainly not my place to say that they're right or wrong. But manufacturers who are currently involved in F1 seem to believe that engine displacement (and the hybrid engine) could have an impact their business, be it positive or negative.
  13. A. T. T-W

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

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Oddometer:
    4,422
    Location:
    Centre of my universe
    Well Renault and Mercedes both make small Euro-boxes with small engines, they want F1 to adopt the new regulations (Renault were particularly keen on the proposed 4-Cylinder in-line that Ferrari was dead set against) not for some idealistic rubbish about encouraging more manufacturers but because it would do their sales good. Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari supply the maximum number of teams that the (current) regulations permit. Enough to make building their own F1 engines viable, possibly even profitable.

    I doubt that any manufacturer would be tempted to join-in on the basis that the engine configuration suited their market profile. They've seen the way that the three latest teams have struggled, the risk that they'd fail spectacularly would be too great to chance. If VW/Audi, who have quite a bit of racing experience, won't take the plunge, Porsche won't come back, Honda, who have a very long association both as an engine supplier and race-team and Toyota haemorrhaged vast amounts of money to achieve sod-all, why would Kia or Proton or Tata try?

    Ferrari don't build "relevant" cars. They'd be happy to stick with V8s or even a return to V12s I suspect. Ferrari have always only ever been interested in dominating F1, even if that means less than a handful of teams competing (more chances for them to win).

    No. Renault and Mercedes-Benz are using the "relevant" argument fallaciously. Whereas Ferrari are at least honest that teeny-weeny engines are not relevant to their road-car business.

    I also question whether more manufacturers are needed. The grids are more full than they've ever been, there doesn't seem to be any rumblings from teams about to withdraw and from an infra-structure point of view, many circuits couldn't accommodate more teams in the pit-lane anyway.:dunno

    There's still a split within FOTA along the old FOCA and FOMA lines. The Manufacturer element still believe that a FOTA stacked with big-money manufacturer-teams would have more clout. I doubt whether any of the 'Garagista' teams want to see changes as they'd be the ones who will have to pay whatever the engine manufacturer's demand (and one thing is certain, teeny-weeny engines won't be supplied for any less cash).
  14. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    81,954
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    That was implicit in their statements, I thought. :dunno And it does confirm the real-world relevance of F1 engines, if they're correct.

    Ferrari have stated that they oppose a smaller engine because it hurts their marketing. Can't remember if they also dislike the hybrid, for the same reason.

    It may be that they're all fibbing. This is F1, after all. But in the absence of other evidence, one must take them at their word.
  15. Flys Lo

    Flys Lo cool hand fluke

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Oddometer:
    321
    Location:
    between my last drink and my next one
    Fascinating qualifying!
    I wouldn't suggest more teams are needed... but perhaps more stronger teams. The money and resources that mainstream manufacturers bring to the table can often bring that.
    Last year you could pick the qualifying order of the teams prior to the race, this year its more of a curve-ball, but you know that you won't be seeing a Caterham, HRT or Marussia on the front row. What happens after 2 years if one of those teams had Honda behind them?
  16. bobobob

    bobobob badbadbad

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Oddometer:
    6,625
    Location:
    On a hill
    And Diesel?
  17. A. T. T-W

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

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Oddometer:
    4,422
    Location:
    Centre of my universe
    There have always been 'minnows' in the Piranha Club . However, it's debatable whether their presence adds anything and so, perhaps (theoretically), yes it would be better if all the teams were equally well-funded. As it's impossible to ensure that all teams have the funding of the best, it was mooted that all should have spending capped. It was the manufacturer-teams that objected most vociferously to this proposal. It should be remembered that resources don't mean success. Toyota is a first-class example.

    My question is whether more manufacturer teams is a good idea. Red Bull are not a manufacturer, nor is Sauber, Williams, Force India or McLaren (despite their MP4-12-C road car). Renault have given-up everything except engine supply, Honda, Toyota and BMW have withdrawn completely. Ferrari are a bit odd in that they are a manufacturer albeit one that only started making road cars to compete in F1 and whose products are only marginally less exclusive than their F1 cars.

    The problem with manufacturers in F1 is that if or when the manufacturer pulls-out, no other manufacturer will step-in to take-over the team. It took a year of 'Brawn GP' before Mercedes-Benz could bring themselves to buy Honda's defunct team and it's residual expertise. VW-Audi couldn't bring themselves to buy BMW's left-overs and it was virtually given back to Peter Sauber.

    There are pragmatic reasons for this; manufacturers are concerned about potential loss of R&D to commercial competitors and new manufacturer-teams are wary of potential jibes that their F1 success (if any) owed more to the out-going manufacturer than to their own efforts.

    The other effect of manufacturer-teams is this idea of "relevance". It's the natural course taken by car manufacturer-teams faced by having to convince their boards that F1 is especially relevant to their core-business. It's difficult to argue that "racing improves the breed" when the central element has no obvious relevance to their products.

    The smaller the engines have become, the more dependant upon the resources of manufacturers that the sport has become. This is the effect of squeezing similar power from 2.4 litres as was achieved from 3.5 litres. It's much easier to build powerful, large capacity, multi-cylinder engines and that's why the last remaining independent engine manufacturers have disappeared: it takes the resources of big companies to produce 2.4 litre V8s with F1 level power-outputs (and reliability).

    On the whole and as counter-intuitive as it may seem, manufacturers are not good for F1.
  18. wxwax

    wxwax Excited Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Oddometer:
    81,954
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    The lack of comments a reflection of the race?

    It was no Indy 500. :lol3 That was a race and a half.

    It was nice to see all the leaders bunched up. But if Button couldn't pass a Caterham, why on earth would the cheerleader commentators think there would be any passing by the more evenly matched cars? :huh

    Congrats to Webbah.
  19. viajero

    viajero Too old to be a nOOb

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Oddometer:
    2,455
    Location:
    Idaho
    Monaco hasn't been much of a race for years. The circuit simply doesn't lend itself to proper racing. It is, in fact, just a spectacle for the wealthy to attend and flaunt their lifestyle. Give me Spa any day.
  20. Clem Kevin

    Clem Kevin Nude With Boots

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Oddometer:
    984
    Location:
    San Clemente, CA
    Not rooting for red bull this year (nor last year) but happy to see Webber take a win.