1069 replies to this topic

[Spillage]

PretentiousBread, on Mar 19 2013, 16:41, said:

I never used to believe that, but I have to agree now. I don't see how F1 could possibly be considered the pinnacle of motorsport from a driver's perspective anymore.

Don't understand this - where are the world's best drivers then? I don't see how Indycar and NASCAR are better than they have been at any points in the past, and rally is hardly in rude health right now.

[PretentiousBread]

mattferg, on Mar 19 2013, 18:27, said:

Changed it to make more clear - on average

I think it is plenty possible to win the title in a car which isn't necessarily the best. It's usually not possible to win the title in not the best circumstances however.

[PretentiousBread]

Spillage, on Mar 19 2013, 19:23, said:

Don't understand this - where are the world's best drivers then? I don't see how Indycar and NASCAR are better than they have been at any points in the past, and rally is hardly in rude health right now.

I don't think there necessarily is a pinnacle, but if there is it sure as hell isn't F1 - a sport where driving at the limits of adhesion is an obsolete requirement in half of the races.

[PretentiousBread]

Rikhart, on Mar 19 2013, 19:04, said:

That the 2012 ferrari was seconds off the place, as alonso tries with all his might to convey, thus looking like a "driving genius" that wins in far inferior machinery.

Perhaps not far inferior, but it was inferior.

[icewest07]

eronrules, on Mar 19 2013, 19:39, said:

Firing a team principle can make the car better

That's a good one

[chrisj]

That formula one would somehow be a lesser sport if Ferrari left.

[Rikhart]

PretentiousBread, on Mar 19 2013, 19:27, said:

Perhaps not far inferior, but it was inferior.

For qualifying, mostly. In the races it was a whisker away, and in the middle of the season was even the dominant car for like 2/3 races. But alonso keeps saying again and again it was "seconds off the pace", which is pure BS, which sadly fooled a lot of people.

[FerrariV12]

Jimisgod, on Mar 19 2013, 18:19, said:

Who was it?

Team Gunston, South African team named after a local cigarette brand that entered in a one-off at Kyalami in 1968 (as many SA drivers/teams did in those days), the last race for Lotus before they switched to Gold Leaf sponsorship.

[Sakae]

metz, on Mar 19 2013, 17:35, said:

The first definition of a sport is fair play.
Rules, budgets and politics make F1 anything but fair.

In the past, fewer rules allowed more imagination, giving others a "fairer" chance.
I agree, it was never a pure sport.

Was F1 ever meant to be "fair"? I think not. I can find FiA's "Sporting Regulations", which probably makes them think that GP competitive racing is series of sporting events. Go and figure.

[SCUDmissile]

That the 2007 was slower than the 2007 McLaren

That Vettel can't make his way through the field.

That McLaren don't do team orders. (Case in point)

Edited by SCUDmissile, 19 March 2013 - 20:52.

[Sausage]

That drivers still have to get used to cars after +200 testing laps or that they can be build around them.

[Muz Bee]

That the occasional repetition of someone's opinion constitutes a myth. I don't know the OP's motive but this seems to be like a free for all to put opinions out there on all scattered matters.

For example - on the "myth" that Bernie Ecclestone was a GP driver, BE would never try to give the impression he is a former race driver (he was) never mind a GP driver (he wasn't), nor did a myth form around this fallacy. In fact it seems so anonymous that even "fallacy" overstates it. Perhaps intended as a put down on the little fella.

Or - that the current GP driver lineup is superior to the early 2000s is a myth. Sounds like a fabrication to give credibility to the Schumacher era of dominance, not a myth, but that's my opinion of the said comparison which I believe is true.

I had hoped that more of the responses would be genuine myths - of mythical proportion even!

Edited by Muz Bee, 19 March 2013 - 19:58.

[PayasYouRace]

Muz Bee, on Mar 19 2013, 20:46, said:

I had hoped that more of the responses would be genuine myths - of mythical proportion even!

You mean like how Moses won the first Isle of Man TT? "And the roar of Moses' Triumph was heard in the hills."

[1Devil1]

- Hamilton is rain master in his own class. The last races or qualifyings under those conditions suggest otherwise
- Hakkinen was faster over one lap than Schumacher. All due to the fact I believe no other weakness of Schumacher in favor for Hakkinen could be found
- Senna would have won the championship 1989 without the DSQ
- everything was better twenty years ago, the drivers faster, the competition harder
- all you need is newey car to become a world champion.

[Kalmake]

Skinnyguy, on Mar 19 2013, 16:52, said:

Rain as car equalizer, so best drivers will emerge on the rain.

Actually rain is just another condition that sets a new pecking order, with different cars working well at different levels.

This myth might stem from turbo era. Rain negates some engine power advantage and turbos were less drivable (power curve, lag).

[g1n]

SCUDmissile, on Mar 19 2013, 19:34, said:

That the 2007 was slower than the 2007 McLaren

That Vettel can't make his way through the field.

That McLaren have always sought to go for driver equality. (Case in point)

err which year in the video you are referring to? if it is 1998, DC explained what happened in drivers interview in the same clip

Edited by g1n, 19 March 2013 - 20:20.

[eronrules]

cars running to Lap Deltas (whatever that is)

[g1n]

eronrules, on Mar 19 2013, 20:25, said:

cars running to Lap Deltas (whatever that is)

why is that a myth? they practice this all through the race at various stages...

[PretentiousBread]

eronrules, on Mar 19 2013, 20:25, said:

cars running to Lap Deltas (whatever that is)

What do you think Rocky's message to Seb in Friday practice, "That's the pace, make the tyres last" meant?

[eronrules]

when the car is heavy, it's natural that the lap times will be slow. and to save tires, the drivers do certain things, take the corners easy, straightlining as much posible, breaking early, slowing while turing in, gentle on the throttle to reduce wheel spin, less scrubbing etc etc. but they don't look at the dash board and run to a set time as some suggests. even if someone is slow in the lap, they can destroy the tires by not being careful.


all i'm saying is, there is no lap delta in the sense that they look at the dash and say ... i'll have to be exactly between 1:31:5-1:31:7 or some ****. if they can go fast and take care of the tires, it doesn't matter what the lap time is. last race, raikkonens fastest lap was on his 24th lap IIRC, and according to him, he did it unconsciously .


i hope i make myself clear to all.

[SCUDmissile]

g1n, on Mar 19 2013, 20:18, said:

err which year in the video you are referring to? if it is 1998, DC explained what happened in drivers interview in the same clip

yes 1998. Okay, I should change it to 'McLaren doesn't do team orders'

[eronrules]

PretentiousBread, on Mar 19 2013, 21:42, said:

What do you think Rocky's message to Seb in Friday practice, "That's the pace, make the tyres last" meant?

it has nothing to do with lap times, they have tire sensors and heat sensors, if u take too much out, temp rises, also they monitor wheelspin. they'll know when a driver has pushed for lap times.

[mclarensmps]

eronrules, on Mar 19 2013, 16:51, said:

the drivers do certain things, take the corners easy, straightlining as much posible, breaking early, slowing while turing in, gentle on the throttle to reduce wheel spin, less scrubbing etc etc.

Now if a driver performs those very same steps, in exactly the same places, lap after lap, what would that result in?

[eronrules]

mclarensmps, on Mar 19 2013, 22:03, said:

Now if a driver performs those very same steps, in exactly the same places, lap after lap, what would that result in?

a gradual increase in laptimes as tires are worn out in high fuel runs and a gradual decrease in low fuel run if the tires are treated well, what's ur point????

[Topsu]

E.B., on Mar 19 2013, 16:45, said:

That Henri Toivonen lapped a Lancia rally car around the Estoril circuit fast enough to have qualifed 6th for that year's GP.

I have witnessed the most epic thread in the history of internet on a Finnish F1 site regarding this myth. There was one guy who absolutely believed this. It went on for years Many theories about drag effience were heard.

[r4mses]

MarileneRiddle, on Mar 19 2013, 19:17, said:

[...]

4. It is possible for a driver to out-drive a car.

[...]

wanted to post the same.

some drivers may get to the exact limit, but they can't drive beyond it

[mclarensmps]

eronrules, on Mar 19 2013, 17:07, said:

a gradual increase in laptimes as tires are worn out in high fuel runs and a gradual decrease in low fuel run if the tires are treated well, what's ur point????

Fast lap times are more easily achievable due to lighter fuel loads. You are stating the obvious and not answering the question.

What it actually results in, is lapping to a delta, actually. Braking early, easy on the throttle, gradual turn-in, reduced wheel spin are all techniques drivers use to race to a delta, as instructed by the team. There is always a gradual increase in speed due to reduced fuel loads, which is why the deltas are different per tyre and stint. These aren't the only things that allow you to race to a delta, changing brake bias, engine maps, and fuel maps also come into effect.

Have a look at Raikkonnen's Australian GP chart and you can clearly see that he races to a delta for stints of between 5 and 15 laps. The deltas change as the race carries on, but they do exist. If the logic you presented was true, then taking factors like racing for position and back markers aside, a reasonably consistent race car driver's lap times would be faster lap after lap, by virtue of fuel loads alone, up until the point his tyres wear out.

This doesn't happen, in truth

[jannyg]

That Lewis Hamilton cannot look after his tyres.

[Myrvold]

I read the first page, then gave up!

This has a potential to be an amazing thread. But when one should debunk myths, there should be a reasoning behind it.

Examples:

Quote

That Gilles Villeneuve was 11 seconds faster than everyone else in the rain at Watkins Glen in 1979.

Then, how much was it, why has the myth become a myth?

Quote

That Lotus were the first team to enter a World Championship race with commercial sponsorship.

Fine - who where?

[mclarensmps]

I agree, Kimi the car breaker, Lewis the tyre wrecker, McLaren and Williams not using team orders are myths

[Ramses1348]

Drivers help design cars and have to build the team around them

[Skinnyguy]

mclarensmps, on Mar 19 2013, 22:32, said:

Braking early, easy on the throttle, gradual turn-in, reduced wheel spin are all techniques drivers use to race to a delta, as instructed by the team.

No, these are techniques used to go as fast as possible in the present without hurting your speed in the close future. Nothing to do with instructions or deltas, all about driving fast.

And a little correction, they´re not braking early, they´re not locking the tyres. Very different thing.

[eronrules]

mclarensmps, on Mar 19 2013, 22:32, said:

Fast lap times are more easily achievable due to lighter fuel loads. You are stating the obvious and not answering the question.

What it actually results in, is lapping to a delta, actually. Braking early, easy on the throttle, gradual turn-in, reduced wheel spin are all techniques drivers use to race to a delta, as instructed by the team. There is always a gradual increase in speed due to reduced fuel loads, which is why the deltas are different per tyre and stint. These aren't the only things that allow you to race to a delta, changing brake bias, engine maps, and fuel maps also come into effect.

Have a look at Raikkonnen's Australian GP chart and you can clearly see that he races to a delta for stints of between 5 and 15 laps. The deltas change as the race carries on, but they do exist. If the logic you presented was true, then taking factors like racing for position and back markers aside, a reasonably consistent race car driver's lap times would be faster lap after lap, by virtue of fuel loads alone, up until the point his tyres wear out.

This doesn't happen, in truth

i still don't see the 'Delta' part explained by anyone, and that's not the point, my gripe is that why people are scathing pirelli for this??? it was same with bridgestone/michelin era too, they too had to 'save' tires. anyway, it's pointless arguing.

[mclarensmps]

Edit: @skinnyguy All you did is re-word lapping to a delta...

Edit2: @eronrules I do agree with you on that, Pirelli shouldn't be blamed at all, this has been going on forever, regardless of the tyre manufacturer. When it isn't tyres, it's fuel. When it isn't fuel, it's saving the engine, there have been a plethora of reasons in the past why this was required by the drivers

Edited by mclarensmps, 19 March 2013 - 21:40.

[vapaokie]

E.B., on Mar 19 2013, 13:13, said:

Then there's Jackie Stewart's "in my day, if you raced for 5 years, there was a 2 out of 3 chance you were going to be killed".

Exaggeration maybe, not exactly a myth.

[Zava]

Hakkinen being handed the win thanks to a team order in '98 australia is a myth - he was leading when the team falsely called him to the pits, basically they gave him an undeserved DT penalty, handing Coulthard the lead, who then gave it back to Mika - fairplay to him.
a bit different to "THE" team order, Mika being second behind DC but the team making them swap their positions.

[Disgrace]

That Ferrari was a complete shambles prior to Schumacher turning up in 1996.

[artista]

As a scientist- in a non-motorsport related field-, the myths about car-developing drivers have always annoyed me a big deal. So, the rest of us need a master degree, a PhD and a good bunch of years of experience to be more or less productive in R&D and a driver comes and develop cars?! No way.

Of course, exception are the few drivers who did have a formation as engineers.

[eronrules]

artista, on Mar 19 2013, 22:49, said:

As a scientist- in a non-motorsport related field-, the myths about car-developing drivers have always annoyed me a big deal. So, the rest of us need a master degree, a PhD and a good bunch of years of experience to be more or less productive in R&D and a driver comes and develop cars?! No way.

Of course, exception are the few drivers who did have a formation as engineers.

for some reason, i though you were in journalism

[artista]

eronrules, on Mar 19 2013, 22:52, said:

for some reason, i though you were in journalism

That's just a hobby. Multitasking is good for the brain.

[Bloggsworth]

MarileneRiddle, on Mar 19 2013, 17:17, said:

3. More crashes and accidents = better racing.

Ask Patrese whether Mansell outdrove the car at Silverstone...

[eronrules]

Quote

3. More crashes and accidents = better racing.

that reminds me ...


People go to Nascar events to see Racing


and runs

[Nigol]

Hamilton was lucky to overtake Glock in Brasil 08.

[Risil]

Myrvold, on Mar 19 2013, 21:32, said:

Then, how much was it, why has the myth become a myth?

E.B. provided the answer to this (and some unintentional comedy ;) ), it ran like:

Villeneuve wasn't 11 seconds faster than everyone in the wet at the US GP. How much faster was he? Er, 9 seconds. NINE SECONDS.

[Collombin]

Zava, on Mar 19 2013, 16:32, said:

AFAIK he used a different, shorter layout.

(This was referring to the Toivonen rally car fast enough to qualify 6th for the Estoril GP)

That would make sense as a reason for how the myth may have come about - there was a similar one about Bellof lapping the Nurburgring in a Porsche 956 in 1983 with a time much faster than Lauda's F1 record from 1975. Only problem - it was a different Nurburgring

[Collombin]

Risil, on Mar 19 2013, 22:14, said:

E.B. provided the answer to this (and some unintentional comedy ;) ), it ran like

How do you know it was unintentional?

As to the why, that's easy - Nigel Roebuck.

[Risil]

Topsu, on Mar 19 2013, 21:16, said:

I have witnessed the most epic thread in the history of internet on a Finnish F1 site regarding this myth. There was one guy who absolutely believed this. It went on for years Many theories about drag effience were heard.

This whole idea made my day.

E.B., on Mar 19 2013, 22:20, said:

How do you know it was unintentional?

Edited by Risil, 19 March 2013 - 22:22.

[Skinnyguy]

mclarensmps, on Mar 19 2013, 22:38, said:

Edit: @skinnyguy All you did is re-word lapping to a delta...

Not at all. OK, let´s start with the basics. You know from where the infamous "delta" came from, right? New SC procedure. And you know what it means in that context? Delta means a fixed target laptime. When people argues "they´re driving to a delta" they´re claiming that there´s a speed drivers can´t go over, and it´s fixed by their team apparently.

Instead, I´m saying they´re driving as fast as possible keeping in mind not hurting their tyres. There´s not numeric speed limit, there´s just a set of actions to avoid. Driving as fast as possible while not doing these things is NOT a fixed static target, it´s not "driving to a delta".

[eronrules]

Skinnyguy, on Mar 19 2013, 23:22, said:

Not at all. OK, let´s start with the basics. You know from where the infamous "delta" came from, right? New SC procedure. And you know what it means in that context? Delta means a fixed target laptime. When people argues "they´re driving to a delta" they´re claiming that there´s a speed drivers can´t go over, and it´s fixed by their team apparently.

Instead, I´m saying they´re driving as fast as possible keeping in mind not hurting their tyres. There´s not numeric speed limit, there´s just a set of actions to avoid. Driving as fast as possible while not doing these things is NOT a fixed static target, it´s not "driving to a delta".

that was what i was trying to say too

[FernuttonHulkkonen]

Rikhart, on Mar 19 2013, 15:31, said:

For qualifying, mostly. In the races it was a whisker away, and in the middle of the season was even the dominant car for like 2/3 races. But alonso keeps saying again and again it was "seconds off the pace", which is pure BS, which sadly fooled a lot of people.

The ultimate truth about F2012 is what I'll say right now. Anything other than that is just stupidity from either fanboy or hater of Alonso:

F2012 started last year very badly. The car was slower than the pace setter by more than a second in qualifying and at least some 0,5s in race pace.

After Barcelona, the car improved but was still some tenths slower in race pace than the pace setters, in any track.

Car performance fluctuated from track to track, as with every other car. So, they were a couple of tenths off the pace in some tracks and more than 0,5s in others

F2012 was NEVER dominant and also NEVER really quick on dry qualifying.

Rain allowed Alonso score lot's of points with his talent/intelligence, either by qualifying on pole or by doing it in the race

Muz Bee, on Mar 19 2013, 15:46, said:

Or - that the current GP driver lineup is superior to the early 2000s is a myth. Sounds like a fabrication to give credibility to the Schumacher era of dominance, not a myth, but that's my opinion of the said comparison which I believe is true.

There is some big myth in that drivers today are better than in early 2000s

Purely speed wise, I would take: Trulli, Ralf Schumacher, Montoya, Fisichella than almost any driver on current grid and rank them along, or almost along, Vettel, Alonso, Kimi, Hamilton.....

Plus, Alonso, Kimi, Button, Webber were all there since 2001 and Massa briefly joined as well.

Sutil, who don't have the speed Fisico had, is quicker than Diresta, and this one example already shows how much this claim(of current line up being better) is a myth

Edited by FernuttonHulkkonen, 19 March 2013 - 22:51.