Jump to content


Photo

Rosberg "F1 is a complete different sport this days"


  • Please log in to reply
1346 replies to this topic

#651 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 14:53

There is a quote from last year a few pages back talking about how the skill then was to start each stint a few seconds slower a lap and slowly increase the speed as the tyres wear off, thus keeping a constant speed throughout the stint and making the tyres last as long as possible. I am not sure if the same thing is happening now, but might be. This is exactly the same thing though, it is not racing it is just following a predetermined plan for the race. A plan that was of course fed through a computer, most likely of course from data gained from the simulator.

This weeks race just made it so obvious, that last stint was just awful, there was no racing, everyone just following each other home.

Two year ago Lewis Hamilton would have been trying to get all over the back of Alonso, on Sunday he appeared to not even bother, he just sat there doing his times and trying to make it to the end of the race. Some are saying this shows a new mature Hamilton, that now appears to be rubbish. It is all that he can do because of the tyres.

Why else would the drivers be coming out and saying it?

And don't give me that story that Mercedes are only saying it because they want the tyres changed, Hamilton has supposedly come out and said something very similar and it was McLaren who were the most vocal about wanting the tyres made more unpredictable.

That's what I don't understand, the drivers are saying this is the case and yet there are people who don't believe them.


There was a very clear message from Lewis during the third stint (lap 33) when he was behind Massa and Alonso
"I can't get close enough to the back of these Ferraris"

http://www.dailymoti...highlights_auto
around 7:50 in this vid.

The McLaren was just slow on Sunday and after 4 or 5 laps on each stint, both cars struggled with horrible traction.

Managing the tyres at the beginning of stints may be the best way to extend tyre life bit it is not the way Vettel did it on Sunday, or Raikkonen. Likewise, if you are trying to undercut someone in the pitstops - you need to push on the outlap.

Advertisement

#652 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,773 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 24 April 2012 - 15:02

.................
Even with the new "Pit Channel" we only hear a fraction of the traffic but there has been nothing to suggest that any sort of delta is in use during races.

I don't have access to anything outside what is fed from time to time during the broadcast. But if there is such communication, I doubt it's open. Even if they do it on an open channel it must be coded in some way, otherwise your rivals would know your intentions. A number on the pit wall board is enough, I'd think.

#653 Neophiliac

Neophiliac
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 15:12

Sorry. I don't think that statement is at all true. Can you possibly prove it to me ? I think that it was only like that for a short period in the 90's and 00's. At all other times people have had to conserve the car for significant parts of the race.


Preserving the car for reliability reasons has always been part of it, but it's always been a compromise: push faster and sacrifice relability or go slower. Now it's not really a choice, is it? You can't really go fast at all - because going fast for one lap means you'll be slow in laps 2, 3, 4....10.

Put another way - sure, there have been plenty of dominating drives from the front where the need to push was just not there and the focus was on bringing the car home. But when a driver needed to fight for position, points, a win or (especially) a championship, all that "nursing" went out the window and people went absolutely balls out. Alonso and MS did not nurse their cars home or tried to preserve the tires in 05 and 06 at Imola. Hakkinen and MS did not nurse their cars in Suzuka in 2000 or 1999. And MS sure as hell did not care a fig about conserving the car in Hungary in 98. (Just a few examples, of course).

#654 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 April 2012 - 15:20

Two year ago Lewis Hamilton would have been trying to get all over the back of Alonso, on Sunday he appeared to not even bother, he just sat there doing his times and trying to make it to the end of the race. Some are saying this shows a new mature Hamilton, that now appears to be rubbish. It is all that he can do because of the tyres.


This.

Why don't we install wine glasses in all of the cars, fill them up and deduct points for every milliliter missing at the end of the race? That would take "skill".

It would also be about the only thing more boring than watching drivers "skillfully" preserve their tires during a RACE.

Ahhrrghhghhhhhh.



#655 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,039 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 15:40

This.

Pirelli have done a great job for F1 and judging by audience figures and comments the fans love this style of unpredictable racing. But it does become confusing when we have drivers popping up out of the blue with a fast but unrepeatable lap time in a session, and fancied runners simply disappearing backwards in the race. We need to see pure skill, speed and pace win through too, and not simply just applaud those who could tip toe the best or find the right set-up sweetspot on the day. There is room for both.

http://www1.skysport...ions-On-Bahrain


That sums it up. The problem we have it that no order has been established, it seems like a complete lottery between the two FIVE teams. Perez was a hero in Malaysia and he has barely been mentioned for the last few weeks. Alonso's victory has been forgotten about as has Button's. Rosberg looked like a wild rookie defending at Bahrain and I dare say Vettel will be forgotten about too come next week.



#656 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 24 April 2012 - 15:51

So how this drastically changeable tire have affected Mark Webber? For example he has been 4th in every race this year...
Red Bull have been a consistent performer this year. Also Ferrari in its mediocrity (if we take out the odd Malaysian result).

#657 Darth Sidious

Darth Sidious
  • Member

  • 751 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 16:53

I guess we are lucky we are not racing at indy anymore. It seems those Michelins in 2005 would still be better at coping with that corner than the Pirellis of 2012.


Pirelli could cope with Indy ok. The drivers would just have to go through the pits at the end of each lap instead of the banking and they'd only need to three stop instead of lapping using the banking and having to retire on lap 26 when they ran out of usable tyres.

#658 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 April 2012 - 17:00

It is easy to do F1 "exciting". Give some(2) teams tyres with bigger tyre window(30 degrees) and give the rest tyres with 5 degree window. Good luck to the rest finding sweet spot. Change the lucky teams every weekend.

Edited by ivand911, 24 April 2012 - 17:04.


#659 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,774 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 17:49

That sums it up. The problem we have it that no order has been established, it seems like a complete lottery between the two FIVE teams. Perez was a hero in Malaysia and he has barely been mentioned for the last few weeks. Alonso's victory has been forgotten about as has Button's. Rosberg looked like a wild rookie defending at Bahrain and I dare say Vettel will be forgotten about too come next week.


You've got to love F1 fans. If one team or driver dominates, it's boring, but if the field is competitive and the pacesetters varying from race to race, then there's not enough order! :lol:

(This post isn't aimed specifically at the posted I have quoted.)


Advertisement

#660 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 24 April 2012 - 18:21

You've got to love F1 fans. If one team or driver dominates, it's boring, but if the field is competitive and the pacesetters varying from race to race, then there's not enough order! :lol:

Yes, F1 fans that complain about the quality of F1 racing this year are something to laugh about. Now let's hear about it from another laughable caricature of an F1 "fan", namely Martin Brundle:

"On the journey home I was talking with two F1 drivers, a world champion and a multiple race winner, and they had very similar concerns to Michael in that they can't push the cars anywhere near their limits. 'Physically my granny could drive the race' quipped one to underline how far away from the limits they are...

We need to see pure skill, speed and pace win through too, and not simply just applaud those who could tip toe the best or find the right set-up sweetspot on the day."

What a clueless man he is, he should listen to guys from the inter nets like you instead of his buddys who allegedly drive those things for a living.

/sarcasm off and end of my contributions on topics concerning the magical fantastical tyres the show has been blessed with this year

#661 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,774 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 18:50

Yes, F1 fans that complain about the quality of F1 racing this year are something to laugh about. Now let's hear about it from another laughable caricature of an F1 "fan", namely Martin Brundle:

"On the journey home I was talking with two F1 drivers, a world champion and a multiple race winner, and they had very similar concerns to Michael in that they can't push the cars anywhere near their limits. 'Physically my granny could drive the race' quipped one to underline how far away from the limits they are...

We need to see pure skill, speed and pace win through too, and not simply just applaud those who could tip toe the best or find the right set-up sweetspot on the day."

What a clueless man he is, he should listen to guys from the inter nets like you instead of his buddys who allegedly drive those things for a living.

/sarcasm off and end of my contributions on topics concerning the magical fantastical tyres the show has been blessed with this year


Wow, way to completely miss my (not serious) point, read things into my post that weren't there, and then pre-emptively run away. :rolleyes:

For the record, I actually share some of Brundle's concerns, but I prefer this current specification of F1 to that which we had several years ago.


#662 MilesDavis

MilesDavis
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 24 April 2012 - 19:47

What has any of that got to do with the topic of this thread? (and besides anyone who thinks that Lewis was handed the title in 2008 is a loon). This is not a gate. This is the people who run this sport conspiring to turn it into a popular, x-factor, dancing with the stars, type of stupid entertainment package for stupid people who like to go gaga for the nice coloured cars overtaking each other.

Anyone who thinks this is Formula One needs to stop and try and remember what attracted them to this sport in the first place.

Why did they make a film about Senna? Was it because he nursed his tyres the best? I bet you I could watch that film again tonight, frame by frame, and never see tyres mentioned once. What I will see mentioned however is words like 'courage' 'speed' 'intelligence' 'skill' and 'breathtaking' - how many of those words has been used so far to describe this season?


HOLD IT RIGHT THERE OR I'LL SHOOT!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

have you even been alive in lets say 1986 or 1987. Have you seen those races. Yes it was Senna time. But it was all about fuel consumption. Nobody ever drove 100% because if they did they would ran out of fuel. Actually it was even worse in 1988 but mclaren had no competition so we never noticed. Can I say that Senna drove at 66% during whole 1988 -yes I can. Because they had even smaller tanks in 1988 than in 1987. Why did Williams won 9 races in 1987, and Lotus only twice? Because Sennas lotus was thirstier -actually it wasnt lotus that was thirstier it was driver that had a habit of stabin throttle mid corner thus using more fuel, in the end he should ease off, turn the boost on min -just to finish the race. Now what is worse driving in tyre delta or driving in fuel delta - if you ask me it is THE SAME!!!! -but nobody complains. On contrary -they say drivers pushed in 1986 -NONSENSE -they pushed only in qualifying. Basically what we have now is 1986 all over again -except it isn fuel but tyres

Also in our beloved group C noone never ever went 100%. Heck they went 50%.

#663 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,791 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 24 April 2012 - 19:51

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE OR I'LL SHOOT!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

have you even been alive in lets say 1986 or 1987. Have you seen those races. Yes it was Senna time. But it was all about fuel consumption. Nobody ever drove 100% because if they did they would ran out of fuel. Actually it was even worse in 1988 but mclaren had no competition so we never noticed. Can I say that Senna drove at 66% during whole 1988 -yes I can. Because they had even smaller tanks in 1988 than in 1987. Why did Williams won 9 races in 1987, and Lotus only twice? Because Sennas lotus was thirstier -actually it wasnt lotus that was thirstier it was driver that had a habit of stabin throttle mid corner thus using more fuel, in the end he should ease off, turn the boost on min -just to finish the race. Now what is worse driving in tyre delta or driving in fuel delta - if you ask me it is THE SAME!!!! -but nobody complains. On contrary -they say drivers pushed in 1986 -NONSENSE -they pushed only in qualifying. Basically what we have now is 1986 all over again -except it isn fuel but tyres


Never thought I'd be saying this, but I actually agree with you on certain points here.

#664 SCUDmissile

SCUDmissile
  • Member

  • 3,926 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 24 April 2012 - 19:56

Yes, F1 fans that complain about the quality of F1 racing this year are something to laugh about. Now let's hear about it from another laughable caricature of an F1 "fan", namely Martin Brundle:

"On the journey home I was talking with two F1 drivers, a world champion and a multiple race winner, and they had very similar concerns to Michael in that they can't push the cars anywhere near their limits. 'Physically my granny could drive the race' quipped one to underline how far away from the limits they are...

We need to see pure skill, speed and pace win through too, and not simply just applaud those who could tip toe the best or find the right set-up sweetspot on the day."

What a clueless man he is, he should listen to guys from the inter nets like you instead of his buddys who allegedly drive those things for a living.

/sarcasm off and end of my contributions on topics concerning the magical fantastical tyres the show has been blessed with this year

I wonder who he was talking about? Mark, and maybe JB?

#665 iotar

iotar
  • Member

  • 2,153 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 24 April 2012 - 20:19

Yes, F1 fans that complain about the quality of F1 racing this year are something to laugh about. Now let's hear about it from another laughable caricature of an F1 "fan", namely Martin Brundle:

"On the journey home I was talking with two F1 drivers, a world champion and a multiple race winner, and they had very similar concerns to Michael in that they can't push the cars anywhere near their limits. 'Physically my granny could drive the race' quipped one to underline how far away from the limits they are...

We need to see pure skill, speed and pace win through too, and not simply just applaud those who could tip toe the best or find the right set-up sweetspot on the day."

What a clueless man he is, he should listen to guys from the inter nets like you instead of his buddys who allegedly drive those things for a living.

/sarcasm off and end of my contributions on topics concerning the magical fantastical tyres the show has been blessed with this year

Next time someone goes off the track, misses apex, messes up overtaking, crashes, makes mistake at the start I'll remind this granny quote. Yeah racing is completely different and everyone's tip-toeing around the track and only keen eyes of insiders and enlightened posters as yourself can see that. Yeah buddy, only you, Brundle, world champions really get it. Feeling better about yourself now?

So again, when was this "pushing to the limits" era that is not here anymore. Oh yes indestructible Bridgestones tyres times. What a great racing we witnessed. Time trails to pitstops and real delta times, when they knew exactly where they will be and when. Computer simulated driving at its best.

When certain world champion tip-toed to his world championship in Interlagos. Or when the same world champion in the same season benefited the most from RANDOM CHANGAEBLE CONDITIONS THAT INCLUDED TYRE TEMPERATURE, which suited his car the most. Only real racing we saw happened when it rained, but it was pure racing. What a bunch of self-centred, short-sighted hypocrites.

Over-privileged spoilt brats that F1 drivers are, speak publicly or shut up. You know why they don't? Because after every f... up everyone would remind them "granny quote". Gee I wonder what their "private", real opinions about Bahrain are. Tough guys.


#666 The Ragged Edge

The Ragged Edge
  • Member

  • 4,435 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 20:44

What are the undeniable facts, irrespective of what side of the fence you sit? 1. You cannot push the tyres, otherwise they fall apart after a few laps. 2. Racing has become a tyre management exercise. What is the point of employing the fastest drivers in the world, when a competent tyre whisperer is the order of the day. Racing is no longer possible and if you apply Ockhams razor, what is the point of watching F1? Hence why for the first time in 30 years, I now record the races, as I have better things to do than to devote my time to something contrived.

It simply is not worth my time to watch these races live anymore and for a F1 nut, when I'm calling the racing fake and sh1t, my friends know something is wrong with F1, because I followed it like a religion. F**k this fake racing and f**k Pirelli, with their 2nd rate product. Yes, the Bridgestone tyre might have last too long(which I dont personally agree with), but they will be remembered and go down in history as a company that made tyres TOO good and that takes some doing. Now compare Bridgestone, to the sh1te Paul Hembury has produced and his insistence that Pirelli tyres can be pushed 100%? He should leave Pirelli and get a job in politics. For it takes a special breed of person, to have the audacity to tell such a broad faced lie, in the face of incontrovertible evidence. :down: The tyres are an anathema to racing and everything F1 stands for. These tyres belong in Mario Kart, not on an F1 car. :well:

#667 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 604 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 24 April 2012 - 20:47

I didn't start watching until 1996, but I can imagine that the 1980s had its fair share of dull races. But the thing is, back then the designers were doing their best. They weren't deliberately making defective components because some berk in the FIA thought it was a good idea at the time.

#668 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 20:50

My concern is that tyres like this don't do well in dirty air / multiple attacking. You get 1-2 chances otherwise your tyres are toast. A flat spot and you can say good night to that battle.

These tyres are too delicate, the commentators say once thermal degradation sets in from pushing too hard, the next couple of laps have to be a lot slower to compensate and bring the temps down. Now back in the 80's you managed the tyres but they didn't fall away like this, it feels too artificial. With these Pirelli's you can't even manage the tyre if you can't switch it on i.e. Rosberg Malaysia, Button, Hamilton Bahrain.

The height of racing styles was 04 and 06. All the drivers giving it full beans.

I don't like this. For once we have great talent on the grid and drivers can't compete with each other.

#669 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,371 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 20:51

Given his loutish, unpenalized behaviour at Bahrain, Kekinho was right. No point trying to overtake if the guy in front can try to kill you.

#670 iotar

iotar
  • Member

  • 2,153 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 24 April 2012 - 21:12

I didn't start watching until 1996, but I can imagine that the 1980s had its fair share of dull races. But the thing is, back then the designers were doing their best. They weren't deliberately making defective components because some berk in the FIA thought it was a good idea at the time.

80s are the ancient history, so are nineties and so on. They have zero relevance to current F1 on any level. Commercially, technologically, financially. These days are over. No talk about simple solutions like ground effect or minimalistic aero. It won't work. The only comparison we have are last years of Bridgestones.

You know why I won't be 100% certain about anonymous drivers opinions? Because one: they have a memory of a gold-fish when it comes to what bothers them and will never pay much attention to the big picture. Ever. If the tyres are too unpredictable they will complain, when the tyres were too durable they complained that "real racing" and overtaking was not possible. Somehow missing connection between the two and advanced aero. Yes, they always will complain but won't ever give a solution. You can't blame them, they're not brainboxes or great thinkers of out times. They just talk. And don't make it sound like drivers are unanimous in their opinion about current tyres. Two random, private quotes sold by Brundle are not enough..

Two related to one: because their perspectives are usually limited to their own world. That's why I won't trust them. Ask Hamilton if engine freeze is OK (when he's got more HP than competition) next time he complains about tyres. Let's see what his answer will be. Or is it OK to create new financial categories for "double world champions" and put at financial disadvantage other teams? That's the bigger picture I'm talking about. Go on drivers, have a say on those issues.

But it really doesn't matter. What we're witnessing now is not some care about racing or F1 but blatant lobbying. Those kind of "behind the scenes" leaked opinions are part of it. As is media's attention and involvement of gullible public. Certain teams/drivers realized that they may have problems with the tyres and the process to put the pressure on tyre manufacturer to change them has begun.

#671 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 April 2012 - 22:27

As said already, the whining is because the 'established' teams haven't been as established as usual this season.


what a laod of trop, have you even read anything ni this thread?

#672 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 April 2012 - 22:30

Refueling will not help. It will only mask to an extent the tyre absurdity and increase the mess and safety hazards in the pits. We see now neither on full tanks, nor with empty one cars can be driven to their maximum. Except in for a lap or two in qualifying.


all refuelling will do is help mclaren heh. It will allow them a 4-7sec window for errors.

it may help the start of the race slightly as lower fuel loads help the tryes but drivers are 2-3 stopping most races anyway which is what happened with refuelling.

#673 valachus

valachus
  • Member

  • 1,070 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 24 April 2012 - 22:32

Wow, way to completely miss my (not serious) point, read things into my post that weren't there, and then pre-emptively run away. :rolleyes:

For the record, since I didn't intend to "run away" but simply to do better things with my time than explain why current F1 racing no longer is what I used to like, I have to mention that I voiced my opinions on tyres in this forum already last year. I haven't changed my views since then, with the exception that the charade has gone this past weekend beyond the point of ludicrous. I really think, in fact, that it is insulting to one's intelligence to keep claiming that things have always been like this.

Basically what we have now is 1986 all over again -except it isn fuel but tyres

Tyre delta and fuel delta are hardly the same. You see, to put it simply, while there is a fuel gauge on the car's dashboards, I'm not aware of the existance of a similar "tyre gauge". Besides, back in 1986 Berger won a GP on the same brand of tyres as is used nowadays, only that back then this manufacturer had a magic recipe which allowed a driver to use a single set of tyres and WIN.

Next time someone goes off the track, misses apex, messes up overtaking, crashes, makes mistake at the start I'll remind this granny quote. Yeah racing is completely different and everyone's tip-toeing around the track and only keen eyes of insiders and enlightened posters as yourself can see that. Yeah buddy, only you, Brundle, world champions really get it. Feeling better about yourself now?

Yeah, sure I feel better, I just concluded that I'm quite unique, since only I am enlightened enough to "get it". Just like countless other "unique" guys that used to watch F1 for decades. However, regarding folks such as commentators, journalists, team members, drivers who might also "get it", if their public opinions appear somewhat subdued, take into account please that only in your magic world they have no formal (read, contractual) or informal restraints whatsoever to impede their freedom of speech.

So, sorry but this is not the kind of "debate" I like to carry on with.

PS: you should really try two things - first, to check out how many drivers spun off while running in free air and DNF-d during the last X GPs [not FPs, not Q sessions, not rookie tangles like Grosjean's in wet Malaysia]... and then, before spouting nonsense, to make sure that grannys and/or especially bored/frustrated/crowded racing drivers are never involved in traffic incidents - not even during SC periods, not even at karting speeds on their leisure time or in urban traffic with regular guys like you or me. :wave:

#674 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,774 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 22:51

For the record, since I didn't intend to "run away" but simply to do better things with my time than explain why current F1 racing no longer is what I used to like, I have to mention that I voiced my opinions on tyres in this forum already last year. I haven't changed my views since then, with the exception that the charade has gone this past weekend beyond the point of ludicrous. I really think, in fact, that it is insulting to one's intelligence to keep claiming that things have always been like this.


Fair enough. Sorry if I was harsh on you earlier. I've been watching F1 since 1996 (and tried to learn as much about the history of the sport beforehand as well) and, whilst the sport can always be improved upon, I don't think that it's worse than back then - just different.


#675 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 April 2012 - 23:04

+1 .

Bridgestone tyres + DRS and KERS is the way to go


2008 was also a great year.

#676 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:10

It is pathetic people talking about fake show when the fakery is here since 70's and 80's . All regulation that have been increasing is just that. Compare the rule book today with rule book of 30 years ago.



Stop saying crap. Lap Delta is what every race driver does in every car sport. The limitation might be tires, engines, the track, the brakes, anything else. In past was much bigger where every mechanical component had to be nursed. There were pilots with reputation to break things and pilots of reputation that were good to the material.

It is also amusing the claiming cries of ShowBiz when there is the DRS. Of course it is a showbiz did you wake up from the coffin today?

This is just Schumacher - he had a Ferrari that didn't break for more than a year - when F1 started to change for cars that didn't break. Plus some cry babies of Mclaren fans that now see it might not look like a dominant year.

:up:

I honestly don't understand some of these fans. Had drivers in the 70ies, or 80ies pushed to the limit their cars in races as Schumacher seems to suggest they would not only run out of tires, but they would run out of CAR! Brakes wouldn't last, transmissions wouldn't last, engines surely wouldn't last, etc. Etc. Etc. Heck, with Schumacher's driving style, had he raced in F1 between 75 and 89 instead of his career, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been a 7 times champion, if he even managed one at all unless he would have modified his style to suit the Formula back then.

People keep bringing up this delta time crap, but, the only difference is, drivers back then had to figure out the delta time themselves, and it it didn't have a name for the TV and Internet kids to pick on.

Edited by Birelman, 25 April 2012 - 03:15.


#677 gricey1981

gricey1981
  • Member

  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:08

:up:

I honestly don't understand some of these fans. Had drivers in the 70ies, or 80ies pushed to the limit their cars in races as Schumacher seems to suggest they would not only run out of tires, but they would run out of CAR! Brakes wouldn't last, transmissions wouldn't last, engines surely wouldn't last, etc. Etc. Etc. Heck, with Schumacher's driving style, had he raced in F1 between 75 and 89 instead of his career, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been a 7 times champion, if he even managed one at all unless he would have modified his style to suit the Formula back then.

People keep bringing up this delta time crap, but, the only difference is, drivers back then had to figure out the delta time themselves, and it it didn't have a name for the TV and Internet kids to pick on.


Well thats a big difference to now isnt it. Much more driver skill figuring out yourself rather than being told by the pit crew to do a 1.38:00 for 10 laps or more so the tires will last.

#678 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:19

Preserving the car for reliability reasons has always been part of it, but it's always been a compromise: push faster and sacrifice relability or go slower. Now it's not really a choice, is it? You can't really go fast at all - because going fast for one lap means you'll be slow in laps 2, 3, 4....10.

Put another way - sure, there have been plenty of dominating drives from the front where the need to push was just not there and the focus was on bringing the car home. But when a driver needed to fight for position, points, a win or (especially) a championship, all that "nursing" went out the window and people went absolutely balls out. Alonso and MS did not nurse their cars home or tried to preserve the tires in 05 and 06 at Imola. Hakkinen and MS did not nurse their cars in Suzuka in 2000 or 1999. And MS sure as hell did not care a fig about conserving the car in Hungary in 98. (Just a few examples, of course).

Why don't you try to make that example of an earlier date, then come back and tell us about it, I want to hear all about Alain Prost driving the car at 100% the whole race, or Jackie Stewart, or FAngio.

You can't come into an F1 conversation talking about how much better it was in the days of old, say 90ies and expect to be taken seriously


#679 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:22

Well thats a big difference to now isnt it. Much more driver skill figuring out yourself rather than being told by the pit crew to do a 1.38:00 for 10 laps or more so the tires will last.

That's exactly what I said, that that's the only difference, and it's only differnt because technology cought up with Formula 1. What are you saying? You want to ban semi-auto gewrboxes? Power steering? Stif like that? :rolleyes:

Advertisement

#680 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:22

Well thats a big difference to now isnt it. Much more driver skill figuring out yourself rather than being told by the pit crew to do a 1.38:00 for 10 laps or more so the tires will last.

That's exactly what I said, that that's the only difference, and it's only differnt because technology cought up with Formula 1. What are you saying? You want to ban semi-auto gewrboxes? Power steering? Stif like that? :rolleyes:

#681 gricey1981

gricey1981
  • Member

  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 April 2012 - 05:19

That's exactly what I said, that that's the only difference, and it's only differnt because technology cought up with Formula 1. What are you saying? You want to ban semi-auto gewrboxes? Power steering? Stif like that? :rolleyes:


no just tires that last more than a lap when pushing fully.

In the old days the cars were on the limit of their respective performance. Today apparently it is solely the tires. It has nothing to do with technology. In the 80s they knew how the tires would wear.

You have to admit that these are some of the fastest wearing tires F1 has ever seen, if not the fastest.



#682 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:09

no just tires that last more than a lap when pushing fully.

In the old days the cars were on the limit of their respective performance. Today apparently it is solely the tires. It has nothing to do with technology. In the 80s they knew how the tires would wear.

You have to admit that these are some of the fastest wearing tires F1 has ever seen, if not the fastest.

I have stated repeAtedly on this thread that I believe the tires are gimmicky, and that is wrong, but to try t state material management is something new, and particular to modern Formula 1 is hypocritical. Nobody with the least bit of racing knowledge should say that, but if refueling is the alternative, I will take the current Formula 1 anyway, and twice on Sunday.

Today's cars are also on the limit of their respective performance. Yes, the tires are parr of that limit. It might seem to you that it's only the tires dictating the limit because technology has cought up to Formula 1 making reliability almost a non issue, examples, Schumacher's run of reliability for more than a full season without a reliability non-finish. Why, in today's time, if you get 1 reliability issue in a McLaren they're already asking for Whitmarsh's head the next day. Back then, you'd be lucky to finish 10 races without an issue. It IS about technology, I can't believe you can't see that, you must be pulling my leg.

Edited by Birelman, 25 April 2012 - 06:16.


#683 Roonaldo

Roonaldo
  • Member

  • 70 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:11

It's very simple. If a driver has raw pace, he should be rewarded for using it, not penalised...

I can see what will happen next, similar to a few years ago. Teams will work put its better for a driver to drop back from a guy in front to preserve tyres, rather than attempt to get close and pass and destroy the tyres. He will wait for next round of stops to try an undercut or vice versa. Where's the progress?

#684 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:20

It's very simple. If a driver has raw pace, he should be rewarded for using it, not penalised...

I can see what will happen next, similar to a few years ago. Teams will work put its better for a driver to drop back from a guy in front to preserve tyres, rather than attempt to get close and pass and destroy the tyres. He will wait for next round of stops to try an undercut or vice versa. Where's the progress?

That probably won't work out as much, not so often anyway as the guy who stops will have the new fresher rubber and will be faster than the other guy regardless of how the other guy conserved his tires. More times than not when they try that they lose a ton of time, just look at Raikkonen's race in Malaysia how he lost time for stopping later than the others.

The first part of your paragraph sounds a lt like Alain Prost, he drove in a golden era of Formula 1, you might have heard of him.

#685 Neophiliac

Neophiliac
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 25 April 2012 - 12:08

Why don't you try to make that example of an earlier date, then come back and tell us about it, I want to hear all about Alain Prost driving the car at 100% the whole race, or Jackie Stewart, or FAngio.

You can't come into an F1 conversation talking about how much better it was in the days of old, say 90ies and expect to be taken seriously


Well, y'know - Prost is not a bad example. There was Prost, driving some level below the limit, and there was Senna, pushing the limits, often even when unnecessary. The record of which approach was more successful is mixed. But that's the beauty of it, right? That in the same racing series, two rather different approaches to racing can be successful. The key point was that the technology of the era allowed someone like Senna to be successful, and did not constrain him into driving within a 'delta' time. I am not sure the present situation compares to that in any way at all and that's the part that you seem to be struggling to grasp in the 18 pages of thread. It's not that people are saying that F1 has always been about pushing at the limit, 100% of the time. It's that an approach like that would in most cases bring you to the finish line faster, but you ran risks along the way of not finishing at all - and as a driver/team, you had to weigh those risks against the rewards appropriately. The situation where there is no possible reward to be had at all for pushing at 100% is rather new.

P.S. - and no need to get all condencending as though you are the only one armed with historical knowledge of the sport. That's a high horse you'll have trouble staying on, this being the interwebs and not a high school debate society.


#686 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 12:33

I have stated repeAtedly on this thread that I believe the tires are gimmicky, and that is wrong, but to try t state material management is something new, and particular to modern Formula 1 is hypocritical. Nobody with the least bit of racing knowledge should say that, but if refueling is the alternative, I will take the current Formula 1 anyway, and twice on Sunday.

Today's cars are also on the limit of their respective performance. Yes, the tires are parr of that limit. It might seem to you that it's only the tires dictating the limit because technology has cought up to Formula 1 making reliability almost a non issue, examples, Schumacher's run of reliability for more than a full season without a reliability non-finish. Why, in today's time, if you get 1 reliability issue in a McLaren they're already asking for Whitmarsh's head the next day. Back then, you'd be lucky to finish 10 races without an issue. It IS about technology, I can't believe you can't see that, you must be pulling my leg.


You're totally missing the point. 25 years ago material management was necessary because better materials couldn't be produced. It is NOT the same as INTENTIONALLY producing FAKE tires to improve the SHOW and turn the Racing part of it into a WWE match.

The hypocrisy is fans like yourself buying into it :confused: then comparing it to something totally different. Cars in the 80s were much harder to drive "PROOF"....so 80% of a driver in the 80s is equal to a today's driver driving at 400% with these "Toy cars".

Hamilton said "I couldn't imagine driving these cars today & They were insane"

SO NO ITS NOT THE "SAME" it never will be

#687 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 13:00

Well, y'know - Prost is not a bad example. There was Prost, driving some level below the limit, and there was Senna, pushing the limits, often even when unnecessary. The record of which approach was more successful is mixed. But that's the beauty of it, right? That in the same racing series, two rather different approaches to racing can be successful. The key point was that the technology of the era allowed someone like Senna to be successful, and did not constrain him into driving within a 'delta' time. I am not sure the present situation compares to that in any way at all and that's the part that you seem to be struggling to grasp in the 18 pages of thread. It's not that people are saying that F1 has always been about pushing at the limit, 100% of the time. It's that an approach like that would in most cases bring you to the finish line faster, but you ran risks along the way of not finishing at all - and as a driver/team, you had to weigh those risks against the rewards appropriately. The situation where there is no possible reward to be had at all for pushing at 100% is rather new.

P.S. - and no need to get all condencending as though you are the only one armed with historical knowledge of the sport. That's a high horse you'll have trouble staying on, this being the interwebs and not a high school debate society.

:up:

I will add Prost's "below the limit" would require today's driver 200% over the limit,who btw currently are only driving at 70%.

I will believe an F1 driver an WDC over any poster here when he says "I couldn't imagine driving those cars on the limit" and especially when said driver is known for his car control and driving on and over the limit himself.

@those arguing the "limits"
Yeah right I'm gonna believe some anonymous poster here who probably never seen an F1 car over a 7time WDC who's driven millions of KMs over 2decades,during dozen of rules&reg changes about the "Limits of driving an F1 car" and another who clearly stated "I can't believe those crazy bastards drove these death boxes to the limit"

#688 MS7XWDC

MS7XWDC
  • Member

  • 305 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 25 April 2012 - 13:54

25 years ago material management was necessary because better materials couldn't be produced.

It is NOT the same as INTENTIONALLY producing FAKE tires to improve the SHOW and turn the Racing part of it into a WWE match.


exactly. spot on !!!

driving to a delta time to keep the tyres OK is a joke.

#689 flyer121

flyer121
  • Member

  • 4,570 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 25 April 2012 - 14:34

Even if we agree to the fantasyland "delta" and "limit" theory , so what?

Car is a collection of components and each component has a physical limit ! So what if tyre limit is lower than the engine limit?

We already knew that engines actually have a rev limiter - does anyone argue that it favors mediocre drivers over the ones who can over rev the engines? Almost all of them can over rev teh engine..

I dont buy this BS about tyres/ regs favoring a few drivers over others ! if you are GOOD enough you will still drive the fastest and while driving 70% & keeping within the supposed "DELTA" ...


#690 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 April 2012 - 14:37

exactly. spot on !!!

driving to a delta time to keep the tyres OK is a joke.

But everyone complained before without DRS, KERS and tyres that last an entire race back in 2010. I'll admit F1 is less pure right now, but really you guys complained so so much in 2010 too. It's a lose lose situation. I think you guys should just quit F1 if you ask me, as you just don't enjoy it any more. Better to just pretend you're back in the 80's when everything was supposedly much better because obviously everything is awful now.

#691 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,518 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 25 April 2012 - 14:46

But everyone complained before without DRS, KERS and tyres that last an entire race back in 2010. I'll admit F1 is less pure right now, but really you guys complained so so much in 2010 too. It's a lose lose situation. I think you guys should just quit F1 if you ask me, as you just don't enjoy it any more. Better to just pretend you're back in the 80's when everything was supposedly much better because obviously everything is awful now.

I agree. The sport would be very pure, but exceptionally dull.


#692 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,773 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 16:04

One thing I can't understand is why every time a thread like this comes to life, the majority of the views are polar. One group wants everything new scraped, the other contradicts that no changes needed at all. This is black and white. And it does not work, because it is not what reality is.
It's only matter of proportions to find an optimal balance. Some minor tweaks.
Through the history the preservation and clever use of the available resources has always been a factor and a differentiator among drivers.
But
there must be sufficient resources to spend and spare. And they are becoming less and less, some below the reasonable limit and thus unsettling the balance. We are tricked into believing that there is close racing, and I mean in the sense that everyone tries hist best to be at least one spot ahead. What we actually have is the same procession but at shorter distances with drivers occasionally swapping positions due to artificial advantages and lack of resources to defend.
Raikkonen's experience in China and in Bahrain is very indicative. You push to reach the top while the rest are in preservation mode only to lose all in a single lap, because your tyres had an abrupt loss of performance. Or you try cautiously once and if there's no success settle for what you have and keep a pace which will lead you to the finish.
Although "controlled", tyres IMHO must have a predictable usage life cycle - bringing into work mode, a sufficient number of laps with relatively constant performance under load and then a gradual decline.

Edited by sharo, 25 April 2012 - 16:06.


#693 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 16:40

But everyone complained before without DRS, KERS and tyres that last an entire race back in 2010. I'll admit F1 is less pure right now, but really you guys complained so so much in 2010 too. It's a lose lose situation. I think you guys should just quit F1 if you ask me, as you just don't enjoy it any more. Better to just pretend you're back in the 80's when everything was supposedly much better because obviously everything is awful now.


I tried finding threads of people complaining about tires and found they were,but NOT for being too durable and Bridgestone producing sh** tires to keep their name in the news :lol: . They complained that BS needed to make more durable tires and they were "graining" too fast :lol: Only if they'd seen the Pirellis.
The Irony.

On the News of Bridgestone's departure...

I am not disappointed to hear this really. It would be interesting to see if anyone can actually produce a grippy tyre that doesnt leave so many marbles. It would make off-line overtaking a bit easier on some circuits.

Maybe this is one of the missing links in the overtaking equation?

I wonder who will take their place in these harsh economic times? At least slicks will be aeasier to produce one would think...

Glad to hear that. I have always thought they were incompetent since they became single suppliers. The tyres were not that consistent. Also, they never looked like supplying tyres with different type of construction that would offer more grip, but grain less. Their tyres were simply not high quality. FIA had already asked them to make tyres that leave less marbles. So, good to see them go.

:lol:
Yes,everyone complained,for the same reasons we are now.........BETTER TIRES/less marbles/bigger operating window.....NOT worst ones,which Pirelli are.
http://forums.autosp...w...0tires&st=0
http://forums.autosp...idgestone tires
http://forums.autosp...p...e=show&st=0

It was only during 2010 which "some" fans complained about the iron tires and how they lasted all race which Bridgestone probably produced on purpose knowing it was their last year and leave F1 with a BANG......"We make extra durable tires" when not a year earlier fans complained of marbles and graining. :stoned:

F1/Bernie makes some BS poll on F1's main site in which only 80,000 fans vote they'd like cheesy tires and Bernie rolls with it and finally gets his "SHOW".

Now he says "The fans asked for it" :stoned: :drunk: F1 doesn't have 80,000 fans and not all fans go online,in forums etc. I didn't,and had no vote in the matter.
Heck he could have manipulated the poll himself.The simple reason we have all these Anti Pirelli threads and chatter with the majority not liking them should tell Bernie what fans want.And not those that have been watching for only 2-3 years and became fans because they play F1 on X-Box and PS3 and the reason they like countless overtaking is because they can do it on F1 2011 as well and it was harder in F1 2008.




#694 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,101 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 25 April 2012 - 17:20



As long as the car stays the same, F1 will keep repeating same problem, back and force.

Current tyre is not what tyre should progress and develop into. Natural develpment direction for tyres is durable, long lasting and grippy. Car is at fault for not being able to race with such tyres.

Most arguments made here are pointless as long as you only focus on tyres.

It's the car the needs to be looked into and changed.



#695 Neophiliac

Neophiliac
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 25 April 2012 - 17:43

Even if we agree to the fantasyland "delta" and "limit" theory , so what?

Car is a collection of components and each component has a physical limit ! So what if tyre limit is lower than the engine limit?

We already knew that engines actually have a rev limiter - does anyone argue that it favors mediocre drivers over the ones who can over rev the engines? Almost all of them can over rev teh engine..

I dont buy this BS about tyres/ regs favoring a few drivers over others ! if you are GOOD enough you will still drive the fastest and while driving 70% & keeping within the supposed "DELTA" ...


Sorry, not the same. To pick the engine: conceptually (and somewhat broadly) it has two limits: max performance (horsepower, torque, rpm) and max life. The two interact, but in a binary way rather than linear way: that is, you can push past the spec rpm limit for example and the engine goes kaboom. In that way, pushing the engine too hard can lead you not to finish the race. But performance of the engine stays fairly consistent through the race (with some degradation, but such that it's fairly negligible, especially with the current long-life engines). When you push the engine to the limit of its performance, you increase the chances of failure by some margin but at the same time you gain speed.

So you do the following math: suppose, for the sake of example, that (1) my expected finishing position at engine turned down to 80% is 3rd and chances of finishing are 90%, while (2) my expected finishing position with engine turned up to 100% is 1st but the likelihood of finishing is 50%. Simple math gives me expected points of 0.9x15=13.5 in scenario (1) vs 0.5*25=12.5 in scenario (2). It's a close call, but if I am at the beginning of the season, I'd go with option (1). On the other hand, if I am at the end of the season, fighting for a championship and winning the race is an absolute must - I throw caution to the wind and go with option (2). This is the kind of stuff that, in a more informal way, went on inside the head of drivers like Prost. In a more formal way, this kind of calculation and modeling of expected position maight very well occur now by dedicated ppl at the factory.

Pirelli is a different situation. Here, the calculus is very perverse: push at 100% and you will be slow on the next few laps. Push at 80% and you might squeeze out consistent lap times. There is no probabilities or risks to weigh. It's just one optimum path and that path happens to involve driving at a lot less than the max one-lap pace. The Q&A with Kimi after China could really have gone like this:
Q. Why did you finish 12?
A. I drove too fast... and as a result I was slow.

That's a very bizzare sort of "racing".

#696 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:34

You're totally missing the point. 25 years ago material management was necessary because better materials couldn't be produced. It is NOT the same as INTENTIONALLY producing FAKE tires to improve the SHOW and turn the Racing part of it into a WWE match.

The hypocrisy is fans like yourself buying into it :confused: then comparing it to something totally different. Cars in the 80s were much harder to drive "PROOF"....so 80% of a driver in the 80s is equal to a today's driver driving at 400% with these "Toy cars".

Hamilton said "I couldn't imagine driving these cars today & They were insane"

SO NO ITS NOT THE "SAME" it never will be

Dude, I think you need to re-read my post, when did I defend, or buy into anything? I have stated many times that the tires are gimmicky, and that is wrong, which word out of that last bit do you not understand? I'm not defending the tires, simply stating the obvious that in the past you could not push 100% the whole way. Why do I keep being accused of defending the new tires? I'm not, however, if the alternative is re-fueling, as some have suggested, I'll take this we have now.

#697 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:49

Well, y'know - Prost is not a bad example. There was Prost, driving some level below the limit, and there was Senna, pushing the limits, often even when unnecessary. The record of which approach was more successful is mixed. But that's the beauty of it, right? That in the same racing series, two rather different approaches to racing can be successful. The key point was that the technology of the era allowed someone like Senna to be successful, and did not constrain him into driving within a 'delta' time. I am not sure the present situation compares to that in any way at all and that's the part that you seem to be struggling to grasp in the 18 pages of thread. It's not that people are saying that F1 has always been about pushing at the limit, 100% of the time. It's that an approach like that would in most cases bring you to the finish line faster, but you ran risks along the way of not finishing at all - and as a driver/team, you had to weigh those risks against the rewards appropriately. The situation where there is no possible reward to be had at all for pushing at 100% is rather new.

P.S. - and no need to get all condencending as though you are the only one armed with historical knowledge of the sport. That's a high horse you'll have trouble staying on, this being the interwebs and not a high school debate society.

The thing is dude, Senna wasn't driving at the limit for a whole race either, and though Prost was the master of car management, Senna was still REAL good at it too. He could simply drive faster than Prost. He might have driven closer to the limit of what his tires, brakes, chassis, engine would take without dying out completely, or too early (old school delta time), but, that's what a great racing driver does, difference is, he had to figure out how fast he could go on his own, not told by a computer.

I have said many times in this thread that technology has cought up to Formula 1, and management became sort of a lost art, but, just because technology has made cars almost unbreakable, it doesn't mean we should lose the art completely, car management exists at all levels of motorsport, and so it should. I'm a Senna fan, but I can appreciate the car management driver like Prost, it brings a great element.

Fr the record I will repeat, I do not defend the new tires, but merely point out that management isn't particular to tody's Formula 1, and it's been he all along except for mid 90ies to recent. The new tires are stupid wearing out that fast, and I have said before to make it better what they have to d is abolish the forceful use of both compounds and make the soft tire last half the race (managed) and the hard go all the way to the end (managed). You qualify the coound you prefer, but you must race the compound you qualified. That would bring in a nice range of strategies and pure racing, and maintain the proper "management" element. A third super soft compound would bring in a wider range of strategies.

#698 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,478 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:07

It's very simple. If a driver has raw pace, he should be rewarded for using it, not penalised...


http://i92.photobuck...TrulliTrain.jpg

Reallllyyy....

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 26 April 2012 - 06:07.


#699 Roonaldo

Roonaldo
  • Member

  • 70 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:11

http://i92.photobuck...TrulliTrain.jpg

Reallllyyy....


1 photo proves what exactly?

Advertisement

#700 Roonaldo

Roonaldo
  • Member

  • 70 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:17

That probably won't work out as much, not so often anyway as the guy who stops will have the new fresher rubber and will be faster than the other guy regardless of how the other guy conserved his tires. More times than not when they try that they lose a ton of time, just look at Raikkonen's race in Malaysia how he lost time for stopping later than the others.

The first part of your paragraph sounds a lt like Alain Prost, he drove in a golden era of Formula 1, you might have heard of him.


Thanks for the reminder, now thinking back I was an Ayrton fan. 24 Prosts and I wouldn't watch F1.

I remember races seeing Ayrton coming through the pack, driving at the limit. As a result of raw pace, it was exciting! It was not as exciting as seeing drivers benefit from being cautious, waiting until others people tyres went off or DRS. Seeing Kimi lose 10 places or so on 1 lap was a joke, just for the tyres falling off the cliff.