212 replies to this topic

[bonjon1979a]

Just watching 2007 Malaysian GP, i'm struck by how fast the cars look in the race. They're actually going for it. I checked the fastest lap times for the race and the top 16 cars all had a lap within a second of the fastest time in qualifying. Last year in Malaysia we had the fastest lap at 4 seconds off the best in qualifying, the top sixteen cars fastest laps were within 6 seconds...

I'm sorry but this is not F1, the cars and drivers aren't anywhere near the limit. I hate to say it but in the race, the quality of the driver matters very little as they're so far away from the limit any GP2 driver could deliver a race win if the car was kind on it's tyres. Pathetic.

[jjcale]

Can someone please remind me why they did away with refueling .... was it just cost cutting or was there actually a good reason for it??

[tarmac]

I hate to say it but in the race, the quality of the driver matters very little as they're so far away from the limit any GP2 driver could deliver a race win if the car was kind on it's tyres. Pathetic.

If this was true Grosjean would have won Hungary 2012 easily..

It is endurance racing and actually requires more tactical skill

Edited by tarmac, 20 March 2013 - 22:55.

[Nobody]

Just watching 2007 Malaysian GP, i'm struck by how fast the cars look in the race. They're actually going for it. I checked the fastest lap times for the race and the top 16 cars all had a lap within a second of the fastest time in qualifying. Last year in Malaysia we had the fastest lap at 4 seconds off the best in qualifying, the top sixteen cars fastest laps were within 6 seconds...

I'm sorry but this is not F1, the cars and drivers aren't anywhere near the limit. I hate to say it but in the race, the quality of the driver matters very little as they're so far away from the limit any GP2 driver could deliver a race win if the car was kind on it's tyres. Pathetic.

yup

speed and power on the absolute limit, check this out

http://www.youtube.c...st=HL1363819891

clash of the ****ing titans, I say!

[bonjon1979a]

Can someone please remind me why they did away with refueling .... was it just cost cutting or was there actually a good reason for it??

cost cutting

[scheivlak]

Just watching 2007 Malaysian GP, i'm struck by how fast the cars look in the race. They're actually going for it. I checked the fastest lap times for the race and the top 16 cars all had a lap within a second of the fastest time in qualifying.

You must have looked wrong

http://www.forix.com...&r=20070002&c=3
http://www.forix.com...&r=20070002&c=4

Last year in Malaysia we had the fastest lap at 4 seconds off the best in qualifying, the top sixteen cars fastest laps were within 6 seconds...

And you don't remember that the rain at the start was so heavy that it was red flagged?
Of course the track gradually dried out but even at the places where it was completely dry all the rubber laid before had been washed away.

I'm sorry but this is not F1, the cars and drivers aren't anywhere near the limit. I hate to say it but in the race, the quality of the driver matters very little as they're so far away from the limit any GP2 driver could deliver a race win if the car was kind on it's tyres. Pathetic.

It's your post that is pathetic, and it should be merged with all those other whinges in the Pirelli whinge thread.

[tvianna]

Totally disagree. Motorsport has always been about speed, but also taking care of the equipment. If you watch some races from the 80s, the drivers had to look after not only their tyres, but also engines, gearboxes, fuel consumption... or do you think that drivers like Senna, Prost or Lauda did 70 qualifying laps during a race, like Schumacher use to in the refueling age?
The F1 after 1994 became year after year more and more boring, almost like two or three sprint races together, specially when there was only one tyre supplier.

[Coral]

I agree...I am watching Malaysia 2007 just now and it is fantastic. The speeds are just electric. I can't believe how good Lewis Hamilton was in those days...now I remember why I became a fan. Not one single mention of "look after your tyres..." What has F1 become? Flimsy tyres, driving to delta times, push to pass...all for the sake of the "show".

I miss durable tyres. I miss drivers going flat out. I miss refuelling and sprint races. I want 2007 back!

[jj2728]

It's your post that is pathetic, and it should be merged with all those other whinges in the Pirelli whinge thread.

Agreed. I shudder to think how whinged some here would be had the internet existed when the engines went from front to rear and the 1.5 liter formula was introduced.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Durable tires sucked.

[Diderlo]

Just watching 2007 Malaysian GP, i'm struck by how fast the cars look in the race. They're actually going for it. I checked the fastest lap times for the race and the top 16 cars all had a lap within a second of the fastest time in qualifying. Last year in Malaysia we had the fastest lap at 4 seconds off the best in qualifying, the top sixteen cars fastest laps were within 6 seconds...

I'm sorry but this is not F1, the cars and drivers aren't anywhere near the limit. I hate to say it but in the race, the quality of the driver matters very little as they're so far away from the limit any GP2 driver could deliver a race win if the car was kind on it's tyres. Pathetic.

Checked 2007 Malaysian GP
Pole: 1:35.043
FL: 1:36.701


So clearly you are exaggerating. Also you should remember that driving on the limit is not all about absolute speed (imo). A tank full of fuel adds to the difficulty of driving the car and so do the tyres. And I do disagree with your last comment.
But yeah, most people would like to see faster cars. I agree on that.

Edited by Diderlo, 20 March 2013 - 23:09.

[Disgrace]

It's the wrong trousers, Gromit, and they've gone wrong!

[black magic]

well clearly there are two camps.

sadly those who defend the current status seem to forget it was possible even 40 years ago to have it all. cars being driven hard, drivers repeatedly trying to overtake and defend, tyres degenerating and yet not being undriveable. watch a race from the 70's then compare to this nonesense.

those criticising just wish to see the pinnacle of motorsport reflect a true test of skill.

driving to a delta is a skill but not one worthy of motor sport pinnacle. you want driving to a delta skill go follow competitive fuel economy runs.

when a 44 yr old says he is only using 70% of his capabilities to circulate then the sport is in serious trouble.

perhaps move past the fact that your favourite team is doing well and see the big picture. even when tyres were durable, fuel stops etc , drivers still had to look after their equipment so comments to that nature are indeed fascile. but fundamentally they had to be able to drive faster than the competition period.

and thats why MOST of us watch motorsport.

[Lemans]

yup

speed and power on the absolute limit, check this out

http://www.youtube.c...st=HL1363819891

clash of the ****ing titans, I say!

One of my favourite laps ever. The way he comes out of the last chicane.....@#$%!!!
And the sound!

[Ickx]

I think the ban of refueling is the best thing that has happened for a decade. Much more fun to see the driver actually matters when it comes to when to pit. Not just using the fuel on board and throwing on a set of new tyres while they refuel the car.

[Diderlo]

I think the ban of refueling is the best thing that has happened for a decade. Much more fun to see the driver actually matters when it comes to when to pit. Not just using the fuel on board and throwing on a set of new tyres while they refuel the car.

Spot on

[Lemans]

The current cars looks lethargic especially during the opening laps. I like the refuelling era as the cars are far better aesthetically as well. Smaller and much more svelte then the current limo-sized ugliness.

F1 has certainly lost a lot of beauty and excitement in a very short amount of time. The FIA has really made some tragic decisions.

[scheivlak]

I like the refuelling era as the cars are far better aesthetically as well. Smaller and much more svelte then the current limo-sized ugliness.

And what about the cars of the pre-refuelling era?
Did they also have a limo-sized ugliness?

[Morbus]

I did not like the last race. And the cars do look very slow in comparison to even three years ago. It wasn't the refueling ban, it's just the stupid crack down on power, the rising of the minimum weight. And the tires, of course. But mostly, the cars are just underpowered. They look easy to drive, and that's exacerbated by the drivers not being on the limit because they don't want to ruin the tires. Just get overpower cars and leave the tires and the refueling ban: everything will be solved.

To quote a great man: "POWEEEEEEER!!!"

[Lemans]

And what about the cars of the pre-refuelling era?
Did they also have a limo-sized ugliness?

Yes, some of them did. My point is the current crop of cars are not as attractive as they were only a short time ago. There enormous length doesn't help matters.
What's with the eyeroll?

[scheivlak]

They look easy to drive, and that's exacerbated by the drivers not being on the limit because they don't want to ruin the tires.

That''s some special kind of logic

[Ross Stonefeld]

I did not like the last race. And the cars do look very slow in comparison to even three years ago. It wasn't the refueling ban, it's just the stupid crack down on power, the rising of the minimum weight. And the tires, of course. But mostly, the cars are just underpowered. They look easy to drive, and that's exacerbated by the drivers not being on the limit because they don't want to ruin the tires. Just get overpower cars and leave the tires and the refueling ban: everything will be solved.

To quote a great man: "POWEEEEEEER!!!"

The power hasn't changed and the weight has gone up a few kg.

[rhukkas]

Modern F1

- Races are more *interesting* to watch live for the entire duration
- Highlights aren't so good to watch as cars actually look very slow

Old F1

- Races in general aren't particularly interesting*
- Cars are GREAT to watch on highlights.

By interesting I mean that the result isn't as predictable throughout the GP. Interesting shouldn't be mixed up with exciting or enthralling.

I prefer older F1 because when they raced they were ACTUALLY racing. There was less of it, but it was more valuable. Now modern F1 is in an hyper-inflationary environment. But the QE has been delivered by cheese tyres and DRS. Racing has become valueless and there's hardly any suspense. Like the Wiemar republic F1 is in boom times but when people realise F1 is just like the emperor's new clothes it will crash hard.

Edited by rhukkas, 20 March 2013 - 23:47.

[scheivlak]

Yes, some of them did. My point is the current crop of cars are not as attractive as they were only a short time ago. There enormous length doesn't help matters.
What's with the eyeroll?

Because you imply in your specific wording a connection between ugliness and not having to refuell - which is of course complete nonsense.

There were some pretty pre-1994 F1 cars - in fact about that time IMHO cars started to get uglier and uglier. Which had nothing to do with the possibility of refuelling but rather the invention of the high nose aerodynamic solutions, barge boards et cetera et cetera.
The current ugliness has IMHO more to do with the strange rules about e.g. both the front and the back wing.

[PretentiousBread]

That''s some special kind of logic

Please explain what you thought was incorrect about that quote.

[scheivlak]

Like the Wiemar republic F1 is in boom times but when people realise F1 is just like the emperor's new clothes it will crash hard.

I think you should read a bit more about the Weimar republic and all its ups and downs. Let's say it's a bit more complex....

[PretentiousBread]

And you don't remember that the rain at the start was so heavy that it was red flagged?
Of course the track gradually dried out but even at the places where it was completely dry all the rubber laid before had been washed away.

Actually it is the norm these days for the gap between pole and fastest lap to be 4 seconds or more, in a normal dry race. Some instances it is around 5-6s difference.

[scheivlak]

Please explain what you thought was incorrect about that quote.

Let's say that it's not so easy to drive as fast as possible without ruining your tyres.
Just read e.g. Caracciola's memoirs. The 1930's GP driver skills were exactly that - and that's the way he won many a GP.

Or just take look at how Kimi won the Australian GP

When you both say that cars are easy to drive and at the same time that it's difficult to go fast without ruining your tyres you're making two conflicting statements.

[cokeb]

Actually it is the norm these days for the gap between pole and fastest lap to be 4 seconds or more, in a normal dry race. Some instances it is around 5-6s difference.

Didn't they qualify with race fuel onboard back then?

[rhukkas]

I think you should read a bit more about the Weimar republic and all its ups and downs. Let's say it's a bit more complex....

Well it was a loose analogy at best I'll admit.

but with regard to F1, it has a faith based viewership. Viewers, in general, think they are watching the world's best drivers, racing as fast as they can, in the world's fastest cars. That's purely faith and holds no real foundation in reality. Are they the best drivers? probably not! Do they drive at 100%? NO! Do the cars lap at an awe inspiring pace (in the race)? NO! The whole USP of F1 isn't probably true.

Right now F1 is flooding the market with all these extra gimmicks and slowly it's devaluing the whole thing. Right now it's boom time, but once the general viewership twig that F1 is just one big 'show' and not much more.... we'll see a bust.

[Lemans]

Because you imply in your specific wording a connection between ugliness and not having to refuell - which is of course complete nonsense.

There were some pretty pre-1994 F1 cars - in fact about that time IMHO cars started to get uglier and uglier. Which had nothing to do with the possibility of refuelling but rather the invention of the high nose aerodynamic solutions, barge boards et cetera et cetera.
The current ugliness has IMHO more to do with the strange rules about e.g. both the front and the back wing.

I understand that but given the current rules which force a very boxy cross section of the chassis and the aerodynamic solutions of the current era cars which are not very attractive to begin with, I believe the the larger fuel tanks and extra length have made the cars even more ungainly then before the ban.
Is that clear?

[scheivlak]

I understand that but given the current rules which force a very boxy cross section of the chassis and the aerodynamic solutions of the current era cars which are not very attractive to begin with, I believe the the larger fuel tanks and extra length have made the cars even more ungainly then before the ban.
Is that clear?

Yes, and to quote James Hunt, I think it's bullshit.

[PretentiousBread]

Let's say that it's not so easy to drive as fast as possible without ruining your tyres.
Just read e.g. Caracciola's memoirs. The 1930's GP driver skills were exactly that - and that's the way he won many a GP.

Or just take look at how Kimi won the Australian GP ;)

When you both say that cars are easy to drive and at the same time that it's difficult to go fast without ruining your tyres you're making two conflicting statements.

We're nearly a hundred years on from these memoirs, things have changed a bit.

Don't you mean how Lotus won the gp, in a car piloted by Kimi? The car's weight distribution, suspension geometry and prevailing track conditions also may have played a part.....

He never said 'difficult to go fast without ruining the tyres', he simply said they're not driving at the limit to avoid ruining the tyres. That's true.

[Myrvold]

Can someone please remind me why they did away with refueling .... was it just cost cutting or was there actually a good reason for it??

Fans wanted more on track overtaking. Not in-pit overtaking. And statistics do show that refueling (among other things) did severely hamper the amount of passing in a race.

http://cliptheapex.c...rtaking/seasons

[scheivlak]

Actually it is the norm these days for the gap between pole and fastest lap to be 4 seconds or more, in a normal dry race. Some instances it is around 5-6s difference.

Well, it's a bit like in 1993 -the pre-refuelling era- when it was often 3-4-5 seconds...

[PretentiousBread]

Didn't they qualify with race fuel onboard back then?

Yes, but you can take the Q2 times from pre-2010 and compare them with race fastest laps 2011-onwards and the difference is still pronounced, more than ever before.

2010 fastest lap patterns are also completely different to 2011-present. They tended to come on heavily lapped tyres and were still considerably closer to qualifying times than what we see now. The only exceptions to this I can think of were India and Austin last year, which were close to being flat out contests.

[scheivlak]

He never said 'difficult to go fast without ruining the tyres', he simply said they're not driving at the limit to avoid ruining the tyres. That's true.

And he still was fast. And overtook (e.g. Hamilton) when necessary. That's a craft. Not many master that art.

[eronrules]

i don't see the point of this thread, we already have a thread full of Doom Mongers shouting how

Pirelli tires and DRS are disaster and ruining spirit of racing ...
http://forums.autosp...howtopic=155428
blaah blah blah. why not stick to that one, cause as i see, this one also has the same doom mongers shouting the same things,

-saving tire
-driving to delta
-not being able to push
-less durable tires
-how old days were better as drivers were able to push

etc etc etc BS

Edited by eronrules, 21 March 2013 - 00:12.

[Lemans]

Yes, and to quote James Hunt, I think it's bullshit.

I'll just quote myself instead, "I don't give a **** what you think".

[rhukkas]

And he still was fast. And overtook (e.g. Hamilton) when necessary. That's a craft. Not many master that art.

he overtook Hamilton on the outside due to massive disparity of speed. Hardly a master.

the main issue nowadays is this.

This is what it should be like

1 stopper is for the super smooth jenson button's
2 stopper for the all rounder alonso's
3 stopper for the all out attack hamilton's

but now, it doesn't MATTER which strategy you take you can't attack. There's no VARIATION. Everyone, no matter what strategy. has to tyre bloody save. it isn't racing. Racing is tyre savers going up against the all out attackers....

Who wants t go onboard to watch Hamilton drive like Button? WTF is happening here? How is that entertainment? "OMFG look how much little steering input and smooth throttle application he used there" said no one ever.

[tvianna]

well clearly there are two camps.

sadly those who defend the current status seem to forget it was possible even 40 years ago to have it all. cars being driven hard, drivers repeatedly trying to overtake and defend, tyres degenerating and yet not being undriveable. watch a race from the 70's then compare to this nonesense.

The aerodynamics ruined this scenario.

Edited by tvianna, 21 March 2013 - 00:16.

[g1n]

i don't see the point of this thread, we already have a thread full of Doom Mongers shouting how

who cares about them, F1 will go on, long after they are dead.

[PretentiousBread]

And he still was fast. And overtook (e.g. Hamilton) when necessary. That's a craft. Not many master that art.

If you say so, while it was blatantly obvious to the rest of the world the Lotus was much better on its tyres than anything around it that day, correlating with the pattern often seen in 2012.

[PretentiousBread]

i don't see the point of this thread, we already have a thread full of Doom Mongers shouting how

Pirelli tires and DRS are disaster and ruining spirit of racing ...
http://forums.autosp...howtopic=155428
blaah blah blah. why not stick to that one, cause as i see, this one also has the same doom mongers shouting the same things,

-saving tire
-driving to delta
-not being able to push
-less durable tires
-how old days were better as drivers were able to push

etc etc etc BS

And this thread still has people such as yourself apologising for Pirelli all over it and claiming superiority over those fans who dislike the tyres. Both sides are repeating themselves.

[jonpollak]

It's ok
We all go through these peelings of doubt.
I have the same type rebelation about every 8 years.

Like this one I had, just the other day
Jp

[jj2728]

well clearly there are two camps.

sadly those who defend the current status seem to forget it was possible even 40 years ago to have it all. cars being driven hard, drivers repeatedly trying to overtake and defend, tyres degenerating and yet not being undriveable. watch a race from the 70's then compare to this nonesense.

those criticising just wish to see the pinnacle of motorsport reflect a true test of skill.

driving to a delta is a skill but not one worthy of motor sport pinnacle. you want driving to a delta skill go follow competitive fuel economy runs.

when a 44 yr old says he is only using 70% of his capabilities to circulate then the sport is in serious trouble.

perhaps move past the fact that your favourite team is doing well and see the big picture. even when tyres were durable, fuel stops etc , drivers still had to look after their equipment so comments to that nature are indeed fascile. but fundamentally they had to be able to drive faster than the competition period.

and thats why MOST of us watch motorsport.

Are you inferring that those, whose team(s) is/are doing well are defending the current status? That's a pretty broad assumption. I watched and attended races 40 years ago, actually closer to 50 years ago to be more precise so I've witnessed many a change throughout the years. There will always be those who defend and those who criticsize regardless of the current rules packages implemented. The same people who wish that re-fuelling were brought back so that drivers could push at the limit would soon be damning it because the races had become to processional and there was not enough passing on track. How many people, with the exception of the tifosi sat glued to their seats each and every race during the Schumacher reign? Drivers were pushing to the limit, were they not? Yet those same folk who witnessed drivers on the limit were probably the ones who quickly switched the channel, having become bored with the processional nature of the races.
I watch motorsport because it's been a part of my life for most of my life. Eff 1 is still the pinnacle of motorsport.
You spoke of fuel economy runs, what of the fuel economy runs of the mid-80s? Did you switch the channel then, hoping that the grass would turn greener eventually?
Too many people want there cake and eat it too. If people are that upset by the current state of F1, then freely switch channels or follow another form of motorsport.
It's quite simple actually.

[Watkins74]

Can someone please remind me why they did away with refueling .... was it just cost cutting or was there actually a good reason for it??

Refueling sucked. Whenever a car got behind another car for position the computer would calculate the time loss for trying to overtake and they would determine pitting for fuel was the right strategy. I hated that.

[jj2728]

It's ok
We all go through these peelings of doubt.
I have the same type rebelation about every 8 years.

Like this one I had, just the other day
Jp

My word.....I thought I felt some deja vu all over again.......

[PretentiousBread]

Are you inferring that those, whose team(s) is/are doing well are defending the current status? That's a pretty broad assumption. I watched and attended races 40 years ago, actually closer to 50 years ago to be more precise so I've witnessed many a change throughout the years. There will always be those who defend and those who criticsize regardless of the current rules packages implemented. The same people who wish that re-fuelling were brought back so that drivers could push at the limit would soon be damning it because the races had become to processional and there was not enough passing on track. How many people, with the exception of the tifosi sat glued to their seats each and every race during the Schumacher reign? Drivers were pushing to the limit, were they not? Yet those same folk who witnessed drivers on the limit were probably the ones who quickly switched the channel, having become bored with the processional nature of the races.
I watch motorsport because it's been a part of my life for most of my life. Eff 1 is still the pinnacle of motorsport.
You spoke of fuel economy runs, what of the fuel economy runs of the mid-80s? Did you switch the channel then, hoping that the grass would turn greener eventually?
Too many people want there cake and eat it too. If people are that upset by the current state of F1, then freely switch channels or follow another form of motorsport.
It's quite simple actually.

^^^

There will always be those who defend and those who criticsize regardless of the current rules packages implemented. The same people who wish that re-fuelling were brought back so that drivers could push at the limit would soon be damning it because the races had become to processional and there was not enough passing on track

I wouldn't. For me that's a core fundamental value of racing that shouldn't be disturbed - that the art of driving a car on the limits of adhesion should be an important skillset. If it brings back less overtakes it is worth it because they are more meaningful. I'm all for the sport being exciting, I just don't believe that bastardising it is the right method.

[Alfisti]

Durable tires sucked.

This. It was massively boring as was the so called tyre war. I still think piss weak V8's and small capacity limited turbo's is a mistake and the cars are 200+HP short of where they need to be as a spectacle but the racing the past two years has been fantastic.