60 replies to this topic

[Wiggy]

As the cars start to be unveiled, I'm convinced the new for 2014 formula will be good for F1. For years we've said 'paint all the cars all black and you couldn't tell them apart'

This year you definitely can, and innovation is back in F1... I love it. Pushing boundaries and new solutions, what F1 should be about. It'll be interesting to see the failure rate too, I'm sure the 'too reliable' moniker will be gone in 2014, though they should have relaxed the limit on amount of engine units while the regs bed in... Lots of grid penaltys this year I foresee!!

[Shiroo]

Absolutely agree.

 

All cars shown so far looks so different. Anteater, penis and fork. (that's not an irony). I mean seriously, if someone will go wrong way, he might fall back in order so hard. Also Ferrari rear is so different to Macca and Lotus for example (with 2 pillars that has exhaust between).

Bring it on!

[PayasYouRace]

I agree too! There's plenty to get excited about this year.

[EthanM]

within 6 months they will converge

the problem with engineering is there is always 1 optimal way to do things and eventually they will all converge on that 1 optimal way

[Shiroo]

within 6 months they will converge

the problem with engineering is there is always 1 optimal way to do things and eventually they will all converge on that 1 optimal way

 

not really. If the car have different design to begin with, one solution won't work there as good as other. While the bad solution for the other might work here brilliantly.

[Gilles4Ever]

within 6 months they will converge

the problem with engineering is there is always 1 optimal way to do things and eventually they will all converge on that 1 optimal way

Maybe some but probably only next year, there's a knock on effect with the design of the car.

 

Anyway, for now, we have diversity and I for one am very happy to see the different solutions. 

 

Change the rules every year, just for the diversity  

[S3baman]

Maybe some but probably only next year, there's a knock on effect with the design of the car.

 

Anyway, for now, we have diversity and I for one am very happy to see the different solutions. 

 

Change the rules every year, just for the diversity  

 

As much as I would love that, it will increase the costs. It's always cheaper to evolve than to revolutionise.

[LuckyStrike1]

The enjoyment factor needs to be higher in F1, it is entertainment after all. And so far the new rules are a huge hit. I laugh my ass off at every new F1 car unveiled and I'm looking forward to many good laughs in front of the TV during the Sundays this year. 

[Exb]

I guess it depends what you want out of following F1. If its the technical side and seeing all the different solutions then I agree the rule changes are great, it is certainly fascinating to see all the different concepts and it's exciting waiting to find out which team has the best solution, both aerodynamically and in the engine department, however if its close racing your after, then this season may be disappointing, there is a possibility there will be some big performance gaps between the teams this year if certain teams have got it right or wrong, and same with the engines, maybe one engine manufacturers will dominate. The last couple of years all the cars (even the backmarkers) have been within a few seconds of each other and often top cars have been split by 100ths of a second which has made for some close racing with multiple teams having a chance to win, maybe that won't be the case this year and one team will run away with it (kind of like what happened last year with Red Bull when the other teams gave up to concentrate on this year and that didn't go down well with a lot of fans). Personally I can't wait for this season and love the uncertainty of it, of not having a clue as to who might be competitive or not and it will be great to see the development race as well, I just hope cars are more reliable than has been suggested as the thought of half the field not finishing does not sound ideal to me. I know reliability is part of the racing and is often the result of a trade off between having the quickest solution and pushing the limits too much but I just find it a bit unsatisfying if a car ends up winning because a couple of others in front have had their engine explode in the final few laps or even if their is a great battle developing and one car drops out due to issues but I know some people like this element and I can see why they might so each to their own.

[bobcat]

I wish they's allowed more flexibility around engine rules.

 

If they'd said "only 100Kg fuel allowed per race" we might have some variety in power unit designs with the same end result in terms of efficiency and power.

[Seanspeed]

I'm looking forward to everything except the reliability aspect. I have zero idea how anybody finds cars breaking down entertaining.

[Disgrace]

As the cars start to be unveiled, I'm convinced the new for 2014 formula will be good for F1. For years we've said 'paint all the cars all black and you couldn't tell them apart'

This year you definitely can, and innovation is back in F1... I love it. Pushing boundaries and new solutions, what F1 should be about. It'll be interesting to see the failure rate too, I'm sure the 'too reliable' moniker will be gone in 2014, though they should have relaxed the limit on amount of engine units while the regs bed in... Lots of grid penaltys this year I foresee!!

 

This has honestly never been true from my perspective as a television viewer.

Edited by Disgrace, 25 January 2014 - 16:31.

[garagetinkerer]

I'm looking forward to everything except the reliability aspect. I have zero idea how anybody finds cars breaking down entertaining.

Macca from 2004 was hilarious, with Kimi planting his foot in for good effect (making sure nothing survived)... do you not think so?

[Afterburner]

F1 teams are not pushing any boundaries this year other than the ones of the increasingly shrinking box the FIA is placing around them. When we start getting new lap records, we'll be pushing boundaries again. The cars are uglier than they've ever been, in my opinion--and I thought they couldn't get any worse after the stepped noses.

And as far as new rules go, don't even get me started on the double-points fiasco.

[Otaku]

What new rules?? These are patched patched patched patched patched patched patched patched old rules.

[johnmhinds]

As the cars start to be unveiled, I'm convinced the new for 2014 formula will be good for F1. For years we've said 'paint all the cars all black and you couldn't tell them apart'

This year you definitely can, and innovation is back in F1... I love it. Pushing boundaries and new solutions, what F1 should be about. It'll be interesting to see the failure rate too, I'm sure the 'too reliable' moniker will be gone in 2014, though they should have relaxed the limit on amount of engine units while the regs bed in... Lots of grid penaltys this year I foresee!!

 

I wouldn't really call teams wasting money on wacky nose cone designs to fit a stupidly written rule "innovating".

[Myrvold]

I'm looking forward to everything except the reliability aspect. I have zero idea how anybody finds cars breaking down entertaining.

It isn't the cars breaking down that are entertaining per se. It is the uncertainty, the fact that a guy like Vettel in the last half last year wouldn't be "guaranteed" to win all the races, and there would always be some sort of interest in the race that way.

[nosecone]

What new rules?? These are patched patched patched patched patched patched patched patched old rules.

Maybe true for the bodywork. But the engine rules are different to what we had in the past. We had Turbo engines already but not in combination with the ERS.
So I'd say the engine rules are "new rules".

 

I agree on the point that the aerodynamic has changed just a little bit ("patched") but the new engine rules are enough

[Fastcake]

I'm looking forward to everything except the reliability aspect. I have zero idea how anybody finds cars breaking down entertaining.

 

Agreed. Watching a car win thanks to three cars in front breaking down, rather than any ability of the car and driver, is rather flat. Thankfully, reliability has greatly improved since the nineties, and I don't expect a massive regression.

 

F1 teams are not pushing any boundaries this year other than the ones of the increasingly shrinking box the FIA is placing around them. When we start getting new lap records, we'll be pushing boundaries again. The cars are uglier than they've ever been, in my opinion--and I thought they couldn't get any worse after the stepped noses.

And as far as new rules go, don't even get me started on the double-points fiasco.

 

Do you think the ideal state of F1 should have the cars going ever faster? Because there is an ultimate speed limit, both in terms of safety and good racing.

[Afterburner]

Do you think the ideal state of F1 should have the cars going ever faster? Because there is an ultimate speed limit, both in terms of safety and good racing.

Basically, yeah. I know there's an ultimate speed limit, but I'd like to see F1 trying to reach it rather than cowering away from it every time the cars get close to going faster than they used to be able to. I've always been more partial to the technology aspect than the racing, so I could mostly care less about how good the racing is as long as we've got cars pushing the limit out on the track. Nothing about these rules seems innovative to me--feels like more restricting, more downsizing, more of designing stupid-looking solutions within an allotted box, because 'OMG THEY MIGHT GO TOO FAST'.

My opinion, of course.

[Disgrace]

Agreed. Watching a car win thanks to three cars in front breaking down, rather than any ability of the car and driver, is rather flat. Thankfully, reliability has greatly improved since the nineties, and I don't expect a massive regression.

 

They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. Kovalainen's win is such an example, but the converse is Panis' win. He wouldn't have won without Hill blowing up whilst cruising to the win, but a storming drive meant that Panis was first to profit. Unreliability is fine, what concerns me is a continuation of tyre conservation and fuel saving which will prevent such drives.

Edited by Disgrace, 25 January 2014 - 17:42.

[andyF1]

Back in the days when the reliability was worse, there was a real sense of challenge in finishing a grand prix which also led to a sense of achievement at finishing a grand prix. Now that reliability is so much better that sense of challenge and achievement seems to have gone.

 

The era of poor reliability also allowed tail end teams and drivers, who rarely scored points, to occasionally score points

[Crazy Ninja]

Can someone clear up the ERS for me? In one of the vids posted by Ferrari, it says:

 

'The turbocharger is connected to an electric motor that will be capable of recovering energy from the exhaust gases. The ERS, while also helping the turbo to accelerate in the exit of corners which solves the typical problem of turbocharged engines - turbo lag. There is another electric motor, similar to the KERS, but with double the power. It is allowed to power the car for over 30 seconds and takes its energy from a much bigger battery than the ones we have used so far. It produces approximately ten times more power than that used in 2013.'

 

So, there's two Energy Recovery Systems? Or am I being thick?

[Otaku]

Agreed. Watching a car win thanks to three cars in front breaking down, rather than any ability of the car and driver, is rather flat. Thankfully, reliability has greatly improved since the nineties, and I don't expect a massive regression.

 

 

Do you think the ideal state of F1 should have the cars going ever faster? Because there is an ultimate speed limit, both in terms of safety and good racing.

 

That may be true but it's not that reliability has improved by itself, the main part is actually the development ban. Lift that ban and you'll see teams chasing limits again and things blowing up, it's rather natural. 

[BillBald]

Can someone clear up the ERS for me? In one of the vids posted by Ferrari, it says:

 

'The turbocharger is connected to an electric motor that will be capable of recovering energy from the exhaust gases. The ERS, while also helping the turbo to accelerate in the exit of corners which solves the typical problem of turbocharged engines - turbo lag. There is another electric motor, similar to the KERS, but with double the power. It is allowed to power the car for over 30 seconds and takes its energy from a much bigger battery than the ones we have used so far. It produces approximately ten times more power than that used in 2013.'

 

So, there's two Energy Recovery Systems? Or am I being thick?

 

ERS-K is like KERS

ERS-H is turbo driven

It's more complicated than that, but that's it in a nutshell.

[Seanspeed]

It isn't the cars breaking down that are entertaining per se. It is the uncertainty, the fact that a guy like Vettel in the last half last year wouldn't be "guaranteed" to win all the races, and there would always be some sort of interest in the race that way.

It also means that <insert your fav team/driver here> is uncertain to finish a race. It also means less competition on the track. It also means potentially epic battles never happening. It also means certain drivers being taken out of the championship early on because of a couple reliability problems early on(due to the even stricter engine availability).

If the only reason you want this is to stop Vettel from winning a bunch of races in a row I think you are being short sighted and dont see all the other detrimental effects that come along with it. Not to mention that Vettel might have great reliability and its he who benefits from everyone else having bad reliability and winning a bunch of races as a result.

Just be careful what you ask for.

[BillBald]

The most important rule change for me is the final abolition (I hope) of the EBD.

 

Now we will see who has the skill to control all that power, because they won't get an increase in downforce every time they press the throttle pedal.

[Fastcake]

^ What Seanspeed said.

 

That may be true but it's not that reliability has improved by itself, the main part is actually the development ban. Lift that ban and you'll see teams chasing limits again and things blowing up, it's rather natural. 

 

No I think you can only partially attribute the engine freeze to improved reliability. If you would look at the average number of retirements over the years (there's a graph somewhere on the internet), they have quite clearly been falling since the early 1990s. It's equally natural that as teams moved from 10 men in a shed to multi-million pound enterprises, reliability will have improved.

[EthanM]

The most important rule change for me is the final abolition (I hope) of the EBD.

 

Now we will see who has the skill to control all that power, because they won't get an increase in downforce every time they press the throttle pedal.

 

you do realize that the internal combustion engine delivers significantly less power than it used to right? And that software controls the power delivery from the electric motor?

[Myrvold]

It also means that <insert your fav team/driver here> is uncertain to finish a race. It also means less competition on the track. It also means potentially epic battles never happening. It also means certain drivers being taken out of the championship early on because of a couple reliability problems early on(due to the even stricter engine availability).

If the only reason you want this is to stop Vettel from winning a bunch of races in a row I think you are being short sighted and dont see all the other detrimental effects that come along with it. Not to mention that Vettel might have great reliability and its he who benefits from everyone else having bad reliability and winning a bunch of races as a result.

Just be careful what you ask for.

Now you are jumping to many conclusions. yes, it might lead to the drivers/teams I support could retire, but as a Marussia-fan (former HRT and Minardi) it wouldn't be too different. If someone would get taken out of the hunt early due to reliability problems, then someone made a mistake somewhere, and that's something I want back.

It's not the reason, neither have I said so. Vettel was just a great example due to the last part of last season. Matter of fact is, when you are that much faster, you will usually have better reliability as well, as you can drive at 98% instead of pushing 100%. But seeing 100% finishers doesn't really give a feeling that the drivers and cars are being pushed to the limit is it?

Just be careful on how you are judging people would be my advice - not everyone mentioning Vettel and "not winning" in the same sentence is a hater, or would like to see him finish last in every race.

[BillBald]

you do realize that the internal combustion engine delivers significantly less power than it used to right? And that software controls the power delivery from the electric motor?

 

I don't think that the software will be able to perform a true traction control function, as it shouldn't get the required feedback. The most it can do is smooth the power curve.

 

It would be hard to give the driver as much help as that extra downforce used to give (just when it was needed).

[GSiebert]

lol innovation ? they only have different nose shapes.

[rhukkas]

lol innovation ? they only have different nose shapes.

 

Was going to say the exact same thing myself. There is absolutely no room for innovation any more in F1. Same engines, spec-tyres, super-tight bodywork regs....

 

f1 has 5 years, and then my friends, it's all going to be about Formula E

[Seanspeed]

Now you are jumping to many conclusions. yes, it might lead to the drivers/teams I support could retire, but as a Marussia-fan (former HRT and Minardi) it wouldn't be too different. If someone would get taken out of the hunt early due to reliability problems, then someone made a mistake somewhere, and that's something I want back.
It's not the reason, neither have I said so. Vettel was just a great example due to the last part of last season. Matter of fact is, when you are that much faster, you will usually have better reliability as well, as you can drive at 98% instead of pushing 100%. But seeing 100% finishers doesn't really give a feeling that the drivers and cars are being pushed to the limit is it?

Just be careful on how you are judging people would be my advice - not everyone mentioning Vettel and "not winning" in the same sentence is a hater, or would like to see him finish last in every race.

My point was that this 'unpredictability' can equally work against your wishes as much as they can help them.

And if you wouldnt mind seeing somebody taken out of the driver's championship early on due to reliability issues that would hurt them later on, we simply dont watch this sport for the same reasons. I like watching good racing first and foremost.

[Slackbladder]

It isn't the cars breaking down that are entertaining per se. It is the uncertainty, the fact that a guy like Vettel in the last half last year wouldn't be "guaranteed" to win all the races, and there would always be some sort of interest in the race that way.

You mean Horner 'inventing' issues last season wasn't fun and interesting for you??

[SenorSjon]

Maybe true for the bodywork. But the engine rules are different to what we had in the past. We had Turbo engines already but not in combination with the ERS.
So I'd say the engine rules are "new rules".

 

I agree on the point that the aerodynamic has changed just a little bit ("patched") but the new engine rules are enough

 

The engines are almost spelled out in the rules. V-Angle, sizes, etc are all predefined. Not to mention the penalty system for failures AND taking it to the next GP-weekend as well.

[senna da silva]

I'd rather have this formula than farting engines that blow diffusers.

[Myrvold]

My point was that this 'unpredictability' can equally work against your wishes as much as they can help them.

And if you wouldnt mind seeing somebody taken out of the driver's championship early on due to reliability issues that would hurt them later on, we simply dont watch this sport for the same reasons. I like watching good racing first and foremost.

 

And my wishes isn't first and foremost to give others a chance, but to always have an aspect of uncertainty!
Good racing, is more than breathtaking passes and people running inside 0.4 sec of eachother lap after lap. It's also the mechanical being pushed, the drivers being pushed, things being put in the limit - and over.
 

You mean Horner 'inventing' issues last season wasn't fun and interesting for you??

Nope, as 99 of 100 of these issues never really caused anything for Seb. while leading.

[Seanspeed]

And my wishes isn't first and foremost to give others a chance, but to always have an aspect of uncertainty!
Good racing, is more than breathtaking passes and people running inside 0.4 sec of eachother lap after lap. It's also the mechanical being pushed, the drivers being pushed, things being put in the limit - and over.

Well I would consider 'good racing' to be close or exciting racing. Just my opinion. You obviously like the element of the technology being pushed and so do I, but not to the extent that I will be happy when it starts to impact the quality of the on-track action. That's really the most important thing for me.

Like I said, I think we watch this sport for different reasons. If I was a bigger fan of the 'reliability' stuff, I'd probably prefer sports car/endurance racing to F1.

Edited by Seanspeed, 25 January 2014 - 22:04.

[nosecone]

The uncertainity and unreliabilty is a unwished negative side-effect but i think this effect will disappear with the time. Maybe it isn't even as bad as everybody is saying. We are in pre-season and everything the teams say is full of sandbagging. Last year we were all afraid of the tyres that won't even last a lap. In the end they did...

 

The new rules are a big opportunity for the sport. We have strange looking cars which (at least the three cars we saw by now) vary a lot in their look. As said they look strange but F1 cars have to  look strange... We can't compare them to normal cars.

 

I HAVE TO ADMIT that i was complaining a lot about the new rules when i saw the drawings. I was proofen wrong... the cars look better than expected. And if the new rules enable cars to follow each other closer... we shall not complain

[Jon83]

Let's see what this formula actually brings before deciding whether its a good thing or not. 

[docronzo]

Yeah research and developement is great. But it's obvious that the rules have been changed to the worse.

[InSearchOfThe]

 

 

f1 has 5 years, and then my friends, it's all going to be about Formula E

Is that when the oil runs out?

Because until it does the most powerful companies in the world have different opinions on that.. Including F1.

 

You do wonder what the FIA were thinking. These changes are very radical.

Bottom line with me is, does the racing get better and/or more competitive?

If so , then it's all good. If not,then we will all have a meltdown.

[Murl]

Back in the days when the reliability was worse, there was a real sense of challenge in finishing a grand prix which also led to a sense of achievement at finishing a grand prix. Now that reliability is so much better that sense of challenge and achievement seems to have gone.

 

The era of poor reliability also allowed tail end teams and drivers, who rarely scored points, to occasionally score points

Totally agree.

 The unreliability is a part of a "Grand Prix", the supreme challenge of pace AND reliability. "To finish first, first you must finish". We've lost that with the modern ear aof 20 finishers in every race. Echoing Otaku, it is natual to have attrition in an event where competitors are pushing to the absolute limit. We need to have races with 6-8-10 finishers, to have a great challenge faced and met. Or as they once said, a Grand Prix.
 

[pdac]

As the cars start to be unveiled, I'm convinced the new for 2014 formula will be good for F1. For years we've said 'paint all the cars all black and you couldn't tell them apart'

This year you definitely can, and innovation is back in F1... I love it. Pushing boundaries and new solutions, what F1 should be about. It'll be interesting to see the failure rate too, I'm sure the 'too reliable' moniker will be gone in 2014, though they should have relaxed the limit on amount of engine units while the regs bed in... Lots of grid penaltys this year I foresee!!

 

I will reserve judgement on reliability. A lot of people are suggesting that reliability will be a big issue - many hoping that it will mix the field up and lead to less predictable, exciting racing. I'm not sure whether this is more wishful thinking though.

 

When the parc ferme rules came in and teams were no longer allowed to tinker with the car between the end of qualifying and race day, many said that we'd see a huge increase in mechanical failures during the races. That did not happen.

 

My feeling is that as computers have become more powerful andsophisticated, design manufacture and testing has been improve so much. I'm sure there will be some unexpected things that show up once the new powertrains hit the track in earnest, but I'm not sure it's going to be as bad as some are suggesting.

[Seanspeed]

I'm hoping you're right and things aren't nearly as bad as the predictions are saying, but these predictions are also coming from the teams themselves. Its not just overdramatic journalists trying to drum up any potential interesting point they can, this seems to be *serious* concern for these teams and they think it will have a large impact on the results.

Results decided by reliability rather than performance can be interesting here and there, but if its a regular occurrence, it gets old. For me, at least. I'm being realistic and thinking it will be an issue, I just pray that things improve very quickly and its not like this all year, which would be a joke.

[PayasYouRace]

I think you need a bit of unreliability to make good racing. Just that slight chance that you know at the back of your mind that it's not over until the chequered flag falls. I don't want to see cars dropping like flies, but in the past few years it's been a bit boring knowing that everyone will probably finish, barring driving errors or accidents.

[S3baman]

Every time a new engine is introduced, reliability will be a key factor until the engine manufacturers get an understanding of their power units. However, this year more than ever will see drivers coasting to the finish line and the stress on the engine components will be less. Now I don't mean to say that all the electronics, the generators, the batteries, will not be stressed. They will play a much larger role in the overall reliability than say the basic V6 engine. I doubt however that we'll see the same rate of attrition as when the V10 came into F1, back in the days of pedal to the floor flat out racing.

[Crazy Ninja]

ERS-K is like KERS

ERS-H is turbo driven

It's more complicated than that, but that's it in a nutshell.

 Thank you! 

[Gilles4Ever]

Bernie doesn't like them and holds nothing back

 

F1 chief executive Bernie Ecclestone has slammed the sport's brave new era, saying the Jerez test this week proves the radical 2014 rules have produced "a total farce".

 

"Look at the last few days. I said it was going to be like this," he told the Daily Mail, referring to the chaos at the opening winter test, headlined by reigning world champions Red Bull's almost total inability to run the new car.

Ecclestone, who railed against the introduction of energy recovery-powered turbo V6 engines, said he isn't taking the blame.

"They (the FIA and the teams) insisted on these new engines," he said. "If they wanted to race like this they should go to Le Mans."

 

http://www.motorspor...-testing-farce/