275 replies to this topic

[DS27]

Then everyone bitches about it. This tech will change the motor industry!!!

I would wager 0% of casual fans and a significnt amount of hardcore fans couldn't give a fig about the technology or its relevance.

Still, maybe there are lots of tree-huggers that have now decided to follow F1 to replace the fall out of traditional fans.

[Nonesuch]

Now, F1 rulers are in a cul-de-sac.

 

This is an important point. If we 'went back to the 2002' rules we'd see cars that would make the F2002 look like an amateur GP2 car. You cannot forget technical innovation.

 

So F1 is forced to slow down its entries, and massively so. This leads to all kinds of problems, not least the ever further standardization of the cars and the tighter restrictions imposed on the teams.

 

The other option is of course to start building new tracks that cater to the needs of those extreme 21st century cars. I believe there's already a game about that:

 

[growers]

This tech will change the motor industry!!!

No, this tech will change the marketing industry. The only reason F1 went v6 hybrid is to sell more cars.

[stkildaresident]

But now are a lot safer  .

 

The video @231 is so sad. Looks like it's the formation lap. I think the V8/V10 sounded better under the safety car than those V6s.

Yeap, spot on mate. Having listened to the V6 live at most of the corner's at Albert Park, yes they have some interesting new sounds, but really a really poor in comparison. V8and 10s had a much broader spectrum of sounds.

[RealRacing]

I could imagine the thinking behind F1 rule changes. Every year, cars are faster. If the pre-94 cars would've been allowed to develop freely especially regarding tyres and rear duiffuser, in a decade they would have become virtually undrivable, virtually able to take most bends flat out, with drivers needing pressurized suits to avoid blacking out, and unacceptable dangers. The FIA tried to slow them down every year: grooved tyres, aero, engine reduction et similia.

 

Now, F1 rulers are in a cul-de-sac: if they change everything and allow more technical freedom to increase competition and make F1 more exciting to see like in the nineties (free tyres development, more power, less aero limitations), very soon the car would became undrivable monstres with drivers passing out in faster bends due to g-forces. Not good.

 

If instead they'd choose the other way, the set of rules many F1 fans advocate that is the "seventies" one: harder tyres and perhaps smaller to allow drift, more suspension travel, less wings and zero rear diffuser, steel brakes to allow longer braking distance, with this "philosophy" cars would be certainly more fun to see and to drive, races would be more exciting, but they would be also way slower than even the slowest GP2 or F3, and it's evident that's unacceptable for F1.

For my taste, it doesn't matter if cars are a bit slower over a lap as people aren't really able to notice a difference of 2 secs. However, the way cars are driven and on-track competition make a huge difference. A go-cart race is entertaining if drivers are on the limit. What is out of place in F1 are the limitations on how a pilot can drive a F1 car: tyres, fuel, rules. I don't know when these became prevalent in F1 and when the focus was shifted to converting F1 into an endurance, eco-relevant series. F1 drivers just need as many components are needed to be able to drive on the limit as much time as possible during a race. After all, as fans of cars in general, if we wanted to see the development of energy recovery systems or the latest breakthrough in fuel saving, we would go visit the factories of the major manufacturers, or watch the Discovery channel. However, as fans of auto racing, we want to see drivers and cars giving it all with just enough rules to make the spectacle reasonably safe and very competitive.

[Sulman]

 What is out of place in F1 are the limitations on how a pilot can drive a F1 car: tyres, fuel, rules. I don't know when these became prevalent in F1 

Formula One has never had a technical era of cars that were capable of being thrashed, at least not by design. I think the last time drivers were able to run flat was probably the Bridgestone/Michelin era when reliability happened to be very high, and the racing actually sucked. 

 

Through the 50's to now drivers have not been able to go hell for leather. Quite the opposite. They've always had a limit on performance and have had to look after some aspect of the car.

[wepmob2000]

I would wager 0% of casual fans and a significnt amount of hardcore fans couldn't give a fig about the technology or its relevance.

Still, maybe there are lots of tree-huggers that have now decided to follow F1 to replace the fall out of traditional fans.

The tech isn't particularly ground breaking anyway, although its use in a racing environment is fairly novel.

I was considering the relevance of F1 earlier, and realised just how completely irrelevant it always has been. I struggle to think of any developments from F1 that have filtered down into mainstream (as opposed to high end) motoring.

I don't mind the tech, or 'relevance' but not at the expense of the spectacle. This 'greening' of F1 is pathetic and pointless, nothing the sport ever does will satisfy the tree huggers, who are naturally inclined to hate it. I suppose if F1 really wants to be green it should consider holding all 19 races at Silverstone, therefore we could have the 'Russian GP, at Silverstone nr Moscow' and even bring back some much missed classics like the 'French GP, at Silverstone nr Paris'.

Edited by wepmob2000, 20 March 2014 - 02:02.

[growers]

The tech isn't particularly ground breaking anyway, although its use in a racing environment is fairly novel.

I was considering the relevance of F1 earlier, and realised just how completely irrelevant it always has been. I struggle to think of any developments from F1 that have filtered down into mainstream (as opposed to high end) motoring.

I don't mind the tech, or 'relevance' but not at the expense of the spectacle. This 'greening' of F1 is pathetic and pointless, nothing the sport ever does will satisfy the tree huggers, who are naturally inclined to hate it. I suppose if F1 really wants to be green it should consider holding all 19 races at Silverstone, therefore we could have the 'Russian GP, at Silverstone nr Moscow' and even bring back some much missed classics like the 'French GP, at Silverstone nr Paris'.

What makes you think the tech is aimed at making F1 greener? Surely the prospect of the car makers having a direct marketing link to F1 (V6 hybrid) so that they can sell more road cars is far more likely?

As for the tech being novel in Motorsport, LMP1 cars have been using a variant for a few seasons.

[RealRacing]

Formula One has never had a technical era of cars that were capable of being thrashed, at least not by design. I think the last time drivers were able to run flat was probably the Bridgestone/Michelin era when reliability happened to be very high, and the racing actually sucked. 

 

Through the 50's to now drivers have not been able to go hell for leather. Quite the opposite. They've always had a limit on performance and have had to look after some aspect of the car.

What I'm saying is, simply, that, given the technical capability that exists today, all the components that make up F1 can be made so as to maximize the probability of having good racing by allowing drivers to go to the limit as much as possible: make reliable engines and let them use 1 per race if necessary (same with gearboxes), tyres that allow pushing for the entire duration of the window they are designed for (and allow teams and drivers to choose whatever suits them better and make as many or as few pit stops as they need), allow enough fuel for every race with the drivers able to use what's necessary to maintain their maximum possible speed. On top of this, regulate aero to the point where it does not interfere with close racing and you have most of the necessary components so that the probability for good racing and a good spectacle is highest. By the way, in the era you refer to racing sucked mostly because the cars were creating too much turbulence behind them, not because of speed or because they were too reliable. 

 

In short, it's not that difficult to make the most competitive F1 possible, but the stakeholders of F1 can't/don't want to mostly because there are too many interests that are not necessarily aligned.

[Sulman]

What I'm saying is, simply, that, given the technical capability that exists today, all the components that make up F1 can be made so as to maximize the probability of having good racing by allowing drivers to go to the limit as much as possible: make reliable engines and let them use 1 per race if necessary (same with gearboxes), tyres that allow pushing for the entire duration of the window they are designed for (and allow teams and drivers to choose whatever suits them better and make as many or as few pit stops as they need), allow enough fuel for every race with the drivers able to use what's necessary to maintain their maximum possible speed. On top of this, regulate aero to the point where it does not interfere with close racing and you have most of the necessary components so that the probability for good racing and a good spectacle is highest. By the way, in the era you refer to racing sucked mostly because the cars were creating too much turbulence behind them, not because of speed or because they were too reliable. 

 

In short, it's not that difficult to make the most competitive F1 possible, but the stakeholders of F1 can't/don't want to mostly because there are too many interests that are not necessarily aligned.

I don't disagree with the principle, but you've just described the 2009 regs. 

[RealRacing]

I don't disagree with the principle, but you've just described the 2009 regs. 

Which someone found a loophole for that basically destroyed all they had been working for. Later they were never able to enforce/improve on the original rule change for 2009 and the results are visible today: DRS, cheese tyres, blown exhausts, mandatory use of compounds, parc ferme rules and now fuel and even more engine and gearbox restrictions. If they had been able to enforce the original spirit of the rules in 2009, the story would be different today, I'm guessing for the better...

[growers]

Personally I much preferred the purebred race engines made by the likes of Cosworth compared to the new hybrids. I follow F1 for a bit of escapism, not to to be brainwashed about tech trickle-down to the motor in your next rep-mobile or about how green F1 has become!

[JLF1]

Dunno how anyone can defend these new cars but whatever, how pathetic they're in that video.

 

Another blow tbh here in the UK.

 

 

First of all F1 went from BBC to Sky, now no one I know watches is and no one has Sky or wants to pay the crazy prices for Sky Go etc. So instantly I have no one to talk to about F1 these days, frigging MotoGP has done the same with BT (I think it is) and so again I have to pay for another service to be able to watch that too? Like no, I'll just join my friends in not watching it any more. 

 

Now these new cars are just...........

 

Disgusting.

 

 

Said my bit, I'll move on, F1 is the cars, without them... just any other series. 

You get Sky Go at no extra cost, Also you just need to get a basic subscription and pay for the HD pack, It isn't that much, Do some research, I know huge amounts who watch the Sky Coverage, Its a lot better then the BBC after all the BBC were looking at cutting costs part of the reason why the deal happened, Sky actually invest in their formula 1 coverage. The BBC's coverage is awful now and they do not take much care or pride in it. Good job Sky is all i have to say. 

If you no longer like the sport in its current form then go and watch something else. The V10 era was awful and it was good to see it go, The V8 Era was very good but got boring near the end, The V6 Era so far has been good fun to watch. I REST MY CASE.

[Sash1]

New tech to slow things down is bullshit. Apparently these cars can reach new speed records on long straights. Imagine a brake failure or loss of downforce (broken wing) just before the Variante del Rettifilo at this new high speed (and with a heavier car that carries more energy). If they wanted to slow things down, the cheapest option would have been to limit the amount of gears to four or five or put fuel flow restrictions on the old engines.

[tifosiMac]

You get Sky Go at no extra cost, Also you just need to get a basic subscription and pay for the HD pack, It isn't that much, Do some research, I know huge amounts who watch the Sky Coverage,

You can no longer get Sky Sports F1 with just the HD pack as you have to pay for the sports package at £43.50 a month. Existing customers who bought the HD pack before April 2013 can still receive the F1 coverage on a basic HD subscription, but new customers have to pay more. Off topic but needed to correct your advice

[JLF1]

Hmm, okay, thats a weird one because someone who signed up a few weeks ago got it at no extra cost. Weird aha, anyway thanks for the info.

[tifosiMac]

Hmm, okay, thats a weird one because someone who signed up a few weeks ago got it at no extra cost. Weird aha, anyway thanks for the info.

I would imagine that was either a mistake by Sky, they are an extremely good negotiator, or they have a contact that got them in through the back door. Officially you can't get that package any more.

[JLF1]

Haha, my friend is rather good at negotiating a deal so that could be why

[phoenix101]

Listening to F1 with hearing protection is like having protected sex. Everything will be better for the people in the grand stand and non-fans in the vicinity when db levels allow people to enjoy the sport safely without protection.

 

If people want to listen to F1 through a set of ear plugs, I would encourage them to seek the services of a mental health professional.

Edited by phoenix101, 20 March 2014 - 18:26.

[Sulman]

Actually, without wishing to go all 'elf and safety the PU's are still above the damage threshold (134db according to Renault), so you should be careful if you're nearby. 

 

I'd hate people to knacker their ears thinking because they're not getting mauled by the V8 sound that the new engines aren't actually perfectly capable of damaging your hearing trackside. 

[johnmhinds]

Listening to F1 with hearing protection is like having protected sex. Everything is better for the people in the grand stand and non-fans in the vicinity when db levels allow people to enjoy the sport safely without protection.

 

If people want to listen to F1 through a set of ear plugs, I would encourage them to seek the services of a mental health professional.

 

You're comparing the current F1 noise levels to unprotected sex? Really?

[phoenix101]

You're comparing the current F1 noise levels to unprotected sex? Really?

 

No. I'm making fun of F1 fans who insist that hearing protection makes F1 sound more enjoyable

Edited by phoenix101, 20 March 2014 - 18:29.

[chipmcdonald]

New tech to slow things down is bullshit. Apparently these cars can reach new speed records on long straights.

 

Not really, and part of the reason they can manage what they can is not because they're "super duper awesome new technology!" but because they simply have less downforce/drag. 

[Dan333SP]

My 2 cents... They are awful and there probably isn't anything that can be done to drastically change that for now, but at least have Mercedes update their exhaust because that motor in particular sounds like utter crap. The Renault and Ferrari at least have a semi-pleasing note. It's ironic to me that the last time the Mercedes had a distinctly different sound, it was epic ('00 and '01, one of my all time favorites), while now it is embarrassing.

[917k]

Not really, and part of the reason they can manage what they can is not because they're "super duper awesome new technology!" but because they simply have less downforce/drag. 

 

I think you need to take a break from your endless moaning.

 

WE-GET-IT.

[Lazy]

Not really, and part of the reason they can manage what they can is not because they're "super duper awesome new technology!" but because they simply have less downforce/drag. 

Yeah, they have less df and more weight and still, in their highly undeveloped state they are within 2 or 3 secs of last years, near perfected, cars. The engineers are confident that they will be matching last years times by mid season and they are doing all that with 2/3's of the fuel. That's impressive technology.