Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2021 engine formula: political wrangling, technical details, aesthetics...


  • Please log in to reply
3408 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (418 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (377 votes [90.19%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.19%

  2. Nay (41 votes [9.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.81%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (210 votes [50.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.24%

  2. Nay (208 votes [49.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 49.76%

Removing MGU-H, more tactical use of MGU-K

  1. Yay (308 votes [73.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.68%

  2. Nay (110 votes [26.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#101 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 03 November 2017 - 22:55

 But if they are one of the lucky few to have that privilege, they then shouldn't also be getting preferential treatment from the sport as well - regardless of how long or successful they've been in the sport. 

 

Hear, hear. This is so correct.  :up:



Advertisement

#102 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 5,717 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 03 November 2017 - 22:57

F1's biggest problem is that the cars can't get close to each other. I agree that the gap between the top and the midfield is too big, but the way to solve that is with a budget cap, not pissing off the top teams.

 

I'm in agreement with you there. However, even if the cars could overtake more easily, it would still be just the usual suspects winning this year - it'd just be like the ease in which LMP1s pass LMP2s. :p

 

Okay, I may be exaggerating a little. But at the moment, a Williams or Force India have very little chance of finishing on the podium, or even taking a shock win, even if they run the perfect race. That's unacceptable. Liberty Media needs to decide whether F1 is just about who has the most money, or who is the best. Because the former doesn't necessarily mean the latter.



#103 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,652 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 03 November 2017 - 23:04

I'm in agreement with you there. However, even if the cars could overtake more easily, it would still be just the usual suspects winning this year - it'd just be like the ease in which LMP1s pass LMP2s. :p

 

Okay, I may be exaggerating a little. But at the moment, a Williams or Force India have very little chance of finishing on the podium, or even taking a shock win, even if they run the perfect race. That's unacceptable. Liberty Media needs to decide whether F1 is just about who has the most money, or who is the best. Because the former doesn't necessarily mean the latter.

 

I agree, Williams or Force India have no chance at the podium unless the top 3 teams have some type of major issue. The way to fix that, in my opinion, is to get rid of DRS, and to adopt some kind of a budget cap. 



#104 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,930 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 23:25

He does business by trying to make the most money possible. Keeping the big names in F1 is probably his best chance of that. Will Sky or RTL continue paying huge money to show Arden F1 Cosworth vs. McLaren Mecachrome on their broadcasts? 


If their drivers are Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel, Max Verstappen, et al, then yes, they probably would.

#105 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 03 November 2017 - 23:38

He does business by trying to make the most money possible. Keeping the big names in F1 is probably his best chance of that. Will Sky or RTL continue paying huge money to show Arden F1 Cosworth vs. McLaren Mecachrome on their broadcasts? 

 

 

As long as people watch there will be a market.  Long game for FOM is direct to consumer.  With that model it's easier to make more money from smaller audience penetration.   Besides, judging what I've seen of Sky's coverage they don't know any teams other than the team Lewis is on.  The Dutch aren't watching because some Austrian bloke advertises caffeinated taurine sugar water on the car.  It's because "the young Dutchman" (in Diffey speak)  is driving.  The focus on individual drivers rather than teams has already began.  We'll see more promotion and media on the who and where rather than on what decal someone has on the car.



#106 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 12,288 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 03 November 2017 - 23:40

Loved the piece on AMuS which completely destroys the criticism of the manufacturers. 

 

Basically the MF'ers are complaining that new rules will get expensive. Well duh, any new regulation will get things expensive... And at the same time they want to continue with the very expensive MGU-H... doesn't make sense. It seems that they are just saying things to protect their current status/investment and are trying to keep new manufacturers out of F1. 

 

Really painful to see that they are playing it like this. I will not be sorry if some current mf'ers leave (assuming some new ones will enter the sport). 

Welp. Yeah. Hit the nail on the head.



#107 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 12,288 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 00:13

FOM are collating fan opinion here:

https://www.surveymo...k/r/2021Engines

Done.



#108 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,067 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 04 November 2017 - 03:18

Completely disagree. No team is, or should be, bigger than the sport.

 

Part of F1's problems in recent years have been created through the idiotic way it has been run. Ferrari receiving preferential financial treatment, when they already have budget and resources way in excess of the majority of teams, is just one example of that.

 

For F1 to become more exciting and less predictable, teams need to be should all be receiving similar financial deals. Maybe that's a naive view on my part, but hey, it works for other sports - and currently they are way more exciting to follow than Formula One has been for the last few years. But if teams doesn't like that, fine, then they can throw their toys out the pram and quit as far as I'm concerned.

 

It had nothing to do with fair competition so it's not a sport - it's a business. 

 

I agree that Ferrari shouldn't receive preferential treatment but the question is does giving Ferrari those payments help Liberty increase their return on investment ? It Liberty think yes they will continue.



#109 Vettelari

Vettelari
  • Member

  • 1,564 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 04 November 2017 - 03:58

If Ferrari leave, do you really think Mercedes would be content to spend half a billion each year in order to race against Renault? Honda have proven to be a joke.

I think that if you lose Ferrari, Mercedes is going to follow them out that door unless they can find another big time manufacture (BMW/VAG/FORD) to "take their place".

In my completely worthless opinion, as always.

#110 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,098 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 04 November 2017 - 05:43

My big problem with a "Push to Pass" system is how it punishes cars at the lower end of the grid while causing even more separation from the fastest cars to the rest of the field. A car that qualifies lower will have to use the P2P to get around cars at a much higher rate than the leading cars would ever need. It causes a situation where it is extremely difficult for any car that doesn't start in the top 5 to win a race, except for the random safety car shuffle. Whoever is leading the race gets to save up all of his P2P's and can deploy them if any car gets close to him at a much higher rate than trailing cars would have been able to save during the race.


That is not an issue with P2P, thats an issue with giving every car the same benefit as opposed to a car following closely behind another. You would have the same issue with DRS if the leader could use it. P2P as a concept is much more beneficial than drag reduction as its nowhere near as speed dependant, or relying on a braking zone to dictate its activation points.

#111 l12mcg

l12mcg
  • Member

  • 250 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 04 November 2017 - 09:20

That was a V10, not a V8.

I seriously doubt that a light weight V10, with a small amount of fuel on board, and launch control, would be slower than the hybrids. There is no way that’s representative of normal starts.

Besides, you can only dump as much power into the rear wheels as the tyres can take, and whether it be V10, V8, Hybrid, etc, none of them are at full power off the line. The fact that the Mercedes in front of vettel that he had to drive around has the most power on the grid, is proof that engine numbers are mostly irrelevant to a good start. Otherwise the Mercedes would have disappeared when the lights went out.

My bad, you are right I forgot th engine change was 06 not 05...

You’re right peak power doesn’t really change the get away iffbthe line but peak torque does. The new engine design will have less torque than current. They’ll be slower off the line significantly without the MGU-H.

And yes, the current hybrids are just faster off the line than that V10 with little fuel onboard. Some of it is down to tyres but the V10/8s didn’t have the torque to push the current tyres off the line anyway so they’d be even slower actually...

Edited by l12mcg, 04 November 2017 - 09:46.


#112 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 10:57

I don't get why people get hung up about the speed of the cars. Can anyone really tell the difference between a car doing 180mph or 200mph? To the average viewer a car that goes through a corner twitching and sliding at 130mph is far more entertaining than one that goes through flat at 175mph.

 

6 or so cars battling wheel to wheel for lap after lap doing 2 minute laps is infinitely more exciting that an aero dominated procession doing 1 minute 45 second laps.

Make the racing exciting and no-one will be worrying about noise, technology, how many cylinders there are etc. All the majority of people watching want to see is action and that's what will pay the bills in the long term. It's a simple formula; more power than grip.



#113 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 4,508 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 12:14

I don't get why people get hung up about the speed of the cars. Can anyone really tell the difference between a car doing 180mph or 200mph? To the average viewer a car that goes through a corner twitching and sliding at 130mph is far more entertaining than one that goes through flat at 175mph.

6 or so cars battling wheel to wheel for lap after lap doing 2 minute laps is infinitely more exciting that an aero dominated procession doing 1 minute 45 second laps.
Make the racing exciting and no-one will be worrying about noise, technology, how many cylinders there are etc. All the majority of people watching want to see is action and that's what will pay the bills in the long term. It's a simple formula; more power than grip.


We just had 3 years where EVERYONE was complaining that the cars were too slow. Drivers most of all, but also fans, team principals, journo's.

So obviously F1 needs to be 'the fastest out there' to keep its elite status.

In 14-16, F1 cars had lower cornering speeds than Japanese Super Formula and were awfully close to LMP prototypes. That was a big dent in the F1 exposure.

#114 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 2,880 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 November 2017 - 12:22

I don't get why people get hung up about the speed of the cars. Can anyone really tell the difference between a car doing 180mph or 200mph? To the average viewer a car that goes through a corner twitching and sliding at 130mph is far more entertaining than one that goes through flat at 175mph.

 

6 or so cars battling wheel to wheel for lap after lap doing 2 minute laps is infinitely more exciting that an aero dominated procession doing 1 minute 45 second laps.

Make the racing exciting and no-one will be worrying about noise, technology, how many cylinders there are etc. All the majority of people watching want to see is action and that's what will pay the bills in the long term. It's a simple formula; more power than grip.

We have plenty of racing categories where they are less aero dependent and have exciting battles. Yet no autosport draws close to F1's popularity.



#115 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,429 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 November 2017 - 12:24

I don't get why people get hung up about the speed of the cars. Can anyone really tell the difference between a car doing 180mph or 200mph? To the average viewer a car that goes through a corner twitching and sliding at 130mph is far more entertaining than one that goes through flat at 175mph.

6 or so cars battling wheel to wheel for lap after lap doing 2 minute laps is infinitely more exciting that an aero dominated procession doing 1 minute 45 second laps.
Make the racing exciting and no-one will be worrying about noise, technology, how many cylinders there are etc. All the majority of people watching want to see is action and that's what will pay the bills in the long term. It's a simple formula; more power than grip.

Which is why I think the aero needs fixing before you can even start on the PU....

#116 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,693 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 November 2017 - 12:46

We just had 3 years where EVERYONE was complaining that the cars were too slow. Drivers most of all, but also fans, team principals, journo's.

So obviously F1 needs to be 'the fastest out there' to keep its elite status.


In 14-16, F1 cars had lower cornering speeds than Japanese Super Formula and were awfully close to LMP prototypes. That was a big dent in the F1 exposure.


I wasn't.

#117 Jerem

Jerem
  • Member

  • 1,434 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 04 November 2017 - 13:42

I don't get why people get hung up about the speed of the cars. Can anyone really tell the difference between a car doing 180mph or 200mph? To the average viewer a car that goes through a corner twitching and sliding at 130mph is far more entertaining than one that goes through flat at 175mph.

 

6 or so cars battling wheel to wheel for lap after lap doing 2 minute laps is infinitely more exciting that an aero dominated procession doing 1 minute 45 second laps.

Make the racing exciting and no-one will be worrying about noise, technology, how many cylinders there are etc. All the majority of people watching want to see is action and that's what will pay the bills in the long term. It's a simple formula; more power than grip.

Of course the racing needs to be fun, that doesn't mean the cars can't be fast.

Actually the speed difference with last year has been obvious many times, especially on Saturdays. The outright speed of the cars IS part of the excitment for me. If closer racing was the only reason why people are interested, then everyone would be watching touring cars.

I understand why one would want to sacrifice speed for closer racing, but the racing wasn't exactly much closer the last few years with dead slow cars. At some tracks it was clearly more difficult this year, but not as bad as we were told before the season started.



#118 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 1,824 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 04 November 2017 - 16:09

"If McDonald's was ran like Formula 1........"

 

 

 

 

 

 

MCDONALD'S 2021 PROPOSALS / MODERNIZATION / AD CAMPAIGN STRATEGY

 

 

(internal memo/NOFORN)

 

 

 

1) The Big Mac will be scaled down to a smaller, more healthy portion size 1/3rd the present amount.  This will be in alignment with consumer's modern penchant for "healthy diet", and will provide knock-on cost benefits.

 

2) Big Mac composition will incorporate "hybrid" soy meat substitute. This is also in keeping with consumer's Modern health standards, as well as making our product more "green" and environmentally friendly.

 

3) Buns will be redesigned to a slight oval shape.

 

4) Fat content will be restricted to no more than 50% present allotment, in keeping with Modern strictures.

 

5) Special Sauce will be restricted calorically by in-house developed sugar substitute and genetically engineered synthetic cooking oil substitute based on dog hair.

 

6) Total caloric content will not exceed 95 calories (approximate amount = 1 apple). 

 

7) packaging will be reduced in cost by using brown bags, and removing all recognizable branding and labeling from bags, reducing the offense of being "visually loud".

 

8) Cost to the consumer will remain the same.

 

 

 

 We feel this will keep our brand in line with Modern consumer expectations of a "green", environmentally sound product while simultaneously reducing costs and encouraging new entrants to join our supply chain.  This will increase our market share and corporate value, and without doubt grow our brand to new heights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#119 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 17:12

We have plenty of racing categories where they are less aero dependent and have exciting battles. Yet no autosport draws close to F1's popularity.

 

It's not F1 itself that attracts people it's the drivers. Swap the drivers from F2 to F1 and vice-versa and see what happens to viewing figures. F1 has built it's viewership based on having prime time TV slots on free to air channels. That is all changing and unless they hang on to the celebrity drivers only the petrolheads will watch and that won't pay for the monster that is F1.



Advertisement

#120 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 17:14

We just had 3 years where EVERYONE was complaining that the cars were too slow. Drivers most of all, but also fans, team principals, journo's.

So obviously F1 needs to be 'the fastest out there' to keep its elite status.

In 14-16, F1 cars had lower cornering speeds than Japanese Super Formula and were awfully close to LMP prototypes. That was a big dent in the F1 exposure.

Who's EVERYONE? I certainly wasn't and many knowledgeable people in F1 one were saying in the press that faster cars doesn't mean more exciting races which is what the two and two people were putting together.

I do believe F1 should be the fastest series but not at the expense of viewers. How many people watch top fuel dragsters outside of the US for instance? They're way faster than an F1 car...



#121 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 4,508 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 17:22

Who's EVERYONE? I certainly wasn't and many knowledgeable people in F1 one were saying in the press that faster cars doesn't mean more exciting races which is what the two and two people were putting together.

I do believe F1 should be the fastest series but not at the expense of viewers. How many people watch top fuel dragsters outside of the US for instance? They're way faster than an F1 car...


Straight line racing has never attracted the attention of the worldwide audience (luckily).

Going fastest through corners, very hard braking etc and fastest lap times are part of the F1 grandeur.

I am too lazy to look it up, but the complaints about F1's speed and how 'easy it was' were abundant. Worst thing was when that lmp1 Audi driver tried the Caterham at Spa and was utterly unimpressed.

Of course - everyone is a exaggeration. Some might not care, but from every side a lot of people were extremely vocal thst F1's speed was embarrassing.

Just to quote Button after Monaco: 'these cars are finally F1 cars again'.

#122 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,275 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 17:33

If we look at either of the two past regulations that allowed plenty of new entrants into the sport it’s hard to say what would be the modern equivalent.

The first was the 1966 3 litre formula. It worked because Ford allowed the DFV to be available to anyone who wanted it. So it became easy to buy a customer supply and build a chassis round it. But the DFV was cutting edge in 1967. It wasn’t some piece of retro tech.

The second was the 3.5 litre formula of 1987. There was something about that formula that meant not only could Cosworth and Judd supply low cost engines to small start up teams, but steadily more and more manufacturers wanted to build engines to those rules and partner with teams. Once the turbos disappeared the field was mainly Ford and Judd with a few works teams thrown in, but after a decade nearly every team had a near exclusive manufacturer supply. Again, those engines were reflections on the then current engine trends in technology.

So what would be the key to another successful formula? Current technology is hybrid based so we should expect that in an F1 engine. But one success was based on virtually a single customer engine, while the other enticed many manufacturers.

 

It's dangerous to reduce it to one single factor. In 2000 the stock values were 10 times higher than 1987, with nearly all of the growth after 1995. People and companies had a lot of money to burn.



#123 RainyAfterlifeDaylight

RainyAfterlifeDaylight
  • Member

  • 3,967 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 04 November 2017 - 17:41

We know the problems, we know the solutions but we are in crisis. Strange.



#124 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 04 November 2017 - 17:45

We know the problems, we know the solutions but we are in politics. Normal F1.

Slight correction RAD.



#125 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 November 2017 - 17:57

It's not F1 itself that attracts people it's the drivers. Swap the drivers from F2 to F1 and vice-versa and see what happens to viewing figures. F1 has built it's viewership based on having prime time TV slots on free to air channels. That is all changing and unless they hang on to the celebrity drivers only the petrolheads will watch and that won't pay for the monster that is F1.

 

During the Ecclestone reign TV in terms of revenue was at the bottom in terms of amount generated.  Until the Sky deal TV was undersold in terms of market rate.  With the switch to premium content going direct to consumer (the UK Euro folks aren't seeing so much right now but you will...) it's possible for the producer to make a fair amount more selling to a much smaller base of more dedicated viewers.  Many posts on the forum talk about raw numbers but raw audience numbers haven't driven broadcast in the last 10-15 years.  Now it's about who is watching rather that just how many.  Targeting is more important the overall exposure for many brands.  An example of this in action is that during the viewership decline of the last decade or so F1 revenue figures (and profitability) have increased.



#126 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 3,462 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 04 November 2017 - 18:51

I agree, Williams or Force India have no chance at the podium unless the top 3 teams have some type of major issue. The way to fix that, in my opinion, is to get rid of DRS, and to adopt some kind of a budget cap. 

 

They're working on this. Posted in the other topic:

 

statman, on 26 Oct 2017 - 10:37, said:snapback.png

 

new article on amus

 

https://www.auto-mot...l-12780493.html

 

 

rough translation by me:

 

* Looking for more random results in racing
* Lower costs, simpler technical elements, spectacular cars
* Group of experts under supervision of Brawn are working on sports and technical regulations
* New engine concept will be released October 30th
* November 7th will see the budget
* Expert team is now working on infrastructure for their own future testing
* Independent testing, no longer solely relying on team testing
* Expert team consist of Pat Symonds, Nikolas Tombazis, Jason Somerville and many more
* CFD models already made
* Have acquired the Manor windtunnel
* On Aero: don't care about flow around the car, more concerned about the 40m or so behind
* To test this last problem, new larger windtunnel needed: Toyota, Sauber, Williams have the best infra
* Rear wheels section/floor is a point of interest
* Time gain within a reasonable framework
* Goal is that a difference of 50 million euros in budget should not make a difference of a second, but a maximum of i.e. 3 tenths
* Then you could freeze the budgets at 150 and not at 100 million euros. Because the small teams would approach the 150 million limit more easily with a fairer money distribution


#127 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 04 November 2017 - 18:53

I agree, Williams or Force India have no chance at the podium unless the top 3 teams have some type of major issue. The way to fix that, in my opinion, is to get rid of DRS, and to adopt some kind of a budget cap. 

What does DRS have to do with it?



#128 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 4,508 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:16

What does DRS have to do with it?


If they luck into position and there is no DRS, they might hold onto it.

#129 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 12,288 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:24



#130 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:24

If they luck into position and there is no DRS, they might hold onto it.

I thought that was probably the reasoning Requiem, but it doesn't make much sense to me and is a separate issue to be honest.  Cars being unable to race closely is yet another problem with F1.  Let's assume a chasing car currently requires a 0.8 second + DRS pace advantage to overtake.  If the aero of F1 cars is revised/improved (and this of course is something pretty much everyone would like to see happen) so that DRS is no longer required but a 0.8 second pace advantage still is, then nothing changes for the likes of Williams and Force India.



#131 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 12,288 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:27

We just had 3 years where EVERYONE was complaining that the cars were too slow. Drivers most of all, but also fans, team principals, journo's.

So obviously F1 needs to be 'the fastest out there' to keep its elite status.

In 14-16, F1 cars had lower cornering speeds than Japanese Super Formula and were awfully close to LMP prototypes. That was a big dent in the F1 exposure.

Yeah, contrary to popular opinion, it's not hard to tell faster cars from slower ones, even on the straights. At COTA this year the inside of the back straight near turn 12 was open to spectators for the first time, and the speed show the F1 cars put on there was quite impressive. And yes, the speed makes a difference in the twisty bits as well. The combination of speed and direction-changing ability shown by F1 and LMP1 cars in the esses at COTA is just mind-blowing.


Edited by AustinF1, 04 November 2017 - 19:31.


#132 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,652 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:27

It's not F1 itself that attracts people it's the drivers. Swap the drivers from F2 to F1 and vice-versa and see what happens to viewing figures. F1 has built it's viewership based on having prime time TV slots on free to air channels. That is all changing and unless they hang on to the celebrity drivers only the petrolheads will watch and that won't pay for the monster that is F1.

 

The drivers gain their name and fame by driving in F1. Outside of the most hardcore of race fans nobody knows LeClerc, yet he is supposed to be a lot better than a lot of the drivers already in F1, for example. 

 

What does DRS have to do with it?

 

Allows the faster car behind to just cruise on by the slower car ahead, which can't do anything to defend. 



#133 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:37

The drivers gain their name and fame by driving in F1. Outside of the most hardcore of race fans nobody knows LeClerc, yet he is supposed to be a lot better than a lot of the drivers already in F1, for example. 

 

 

Allows the faster car behind to just cruise on by the slower car ahead, which can't do anything to defend. 

Very often that isn't the case.  You mentioned Williams, so remember Mercedes vs Williams Silverstone 2015?  If a car in front is significantly slower, it should lead to an easy overtake in my opinion, DRS or not.



#134 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 12,288 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:49

Very often that isn't the case.  You mentioned Williams, so remember Mercedes vs Williams Silverstone 2015?  If a car in front is significantly slower, it should lead to an easy overtake in my opinion, DRS or not.

Should, but quite often does not, esp with the cars so hard to follow now.



#135 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,652 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:49

Very often that isn't the case.  You mentioned Williams, so remember Mercedes vs Williams Silverstone 2015?  If a car in front is significantly slower, it should lead to an easy overtake in my opinion, DRS or not.

 

If the Williams was able to temporarily hold the position then obviously they weren't that slow on that particular track. Do you remember Canada 2011? Michael was on course for a first podium with Mercedes, having driven a great race in the wet, and yet at the end the Red Bulls and McLaren's went past him as if he was in a GP2 car due to the awful DRS. His great work was for nothing. Now compare that to Jos Verstappen at Malaysia when FOM showed the free 2001 race. 



#136 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:50

Should, but quite often does not, esp with the cars so hard to follow now.

Exactly.



#137 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,203 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:53

If the Williams was able to temporarily hold the position then obviously they weren't that slow on that particular track. Do you remember Canada 2011? Michael was on course for a first podium with Mercedes, having driven a great race in the wet, and yet at the end the Red Bulls and McLaren's went past him as if he was in a GP2 car due to the awful DRS. His great work was for nothing. Now compare that to Jos Verstappen at Malaysia when FOM showed the free 2001 race. 

I beg to differ.  We've often seen cars lapping even 1 second faster than those ahead until they finally catch up and wake turbulence halts their progress.



#138 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 04 November 2017 - 19:55

 

Sounds good, apart from that stupid piezo mic on the Force India.  :)


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 04 November 2017 - 19:56.


#139 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 12,288 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 20:09

Sounds good, apart from that stupid piezo mic on the Force India.  :)

Yeah I hate that mic. Sounds ridiculous.



Advertisement

#140 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,275 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 November 2017 - 20:19

They're working on this. Posted in the other topic:

 

statman, on 26 Oct 2017 - 10:37, said:snapback.png

 

Thanks. A correction though, they have not acquired the Manor tunnel but the Manor 2017 car model. They are looking for a tunnel and as you wrote only the Sauber, Toyota, and Williams tunnels are suitable

 

Edit: And the article does not say they are looking for more "random" results, but "unpredictable"


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 November 2017 - 20:24.


#141 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 04 November 2017 - 21:28

Which is why I think the aero needs fixing before you can even start on the PU....

 

They should fix both things, at the same time.  Fresh rules, a reboot, that remove the status quo built-in advantage (due to the nature of iterative development) of the top PU suppliers and top constructors.



#142 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 04 November 2017 - 21:30

Can anyone really tell the difference between a car doing 180mph or 200mph? 

 

Yes, definitely.  

 

It is self-evident when the Super Formula cars were faster than F1 cars in corners, or back when the CART were slower than F1 cars in corners that was self-evident too.  Switching from F1 to CART on the television, it was like the cars were in slow motion!!  :eek:

 

This was absolutely crystal clear.


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 04 November 2017 - 21:34.


#143 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • RC Forum Host

  • 3,784 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 November 2017 - 21:36

Yes, definitely.  

 

It is self-evident when the Super Formula cars were faster than F1 cars in corners, or back when the CART were slower than F1 cars in corners that was self-evident too.  Switching from F1 to CART on the television, it was like the cars were in slow motion!!  :eek:

 

This was absolutely crystal clear.

 

When you're at the circuit it is nearly impossible to tell the fastest car from the slowest. Even back in the early 2000s. I was at the 2004 British GP and the Minardi looked just as fast as the Ferrari for the brief amount of time you saw them. The only real difference was the older Cosworth V10 didn't rev as hard as the Ferrari. 



#144 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,478 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 04 November 2017 - 23:41

When you're at the circuit it is nearly impossible to tell the fastest car from the slowest.


True, it can indeed be hard to tell how fast in absolute terms a car is going, and even the worst teams are going to be four or so seconds slower at most.

But you can definitely tell when a car isn't at its limits. Doesn't matter if its a current F1 car in race-trim or a GT car being driven by its gentlemen driver.

Cars that are on their limits look fast, even if they're not necessarily that much faster in terms of laptimes. F1 cars in the last few years were often multiple seconds slower than they went in qualifying, and it showed.

 

As for the sound:

 

kndledw.jpg?1



#145 SkaP187

SkaP187
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:19

It's a bit of a strange discussion, but f1 should be the fastest cars out there (lap time wise) otherwise it would be f2, f1ab, f3, f16, or whatever you want, but not f1.

Edited by SkaP187, 05 November 2017 - 07:53.


#146 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,429 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 November 2017 - 08:04

True, it can indeed be hard to tell how fast in absolute terms a car is going, and even the worst teams are going to be four or so seconds slower at most.

But you can definitely tell when a car isn't at its limits. Doesn't matter if its a current F1 car in race-trim or a GT car being driven by its gentlemen driver.

Cars that are on their limits look fast, even if they're not necessarily that much faster in terms of laptimes. F1 cars in the last few years were often multiple seconds slower than they went in qualifying, and it showed.

As for the sound:

kndledw.jpg?1

That isn’t caused by the lack of noise your talking about but rather by the endurance nature of F1...

#147 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,478 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 05 November 2017 - 08:28


If their drivers are Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel, Max Verstappen, et al, then yes, they probably would.

 

These drivers didn't just fall from the sky into an F1 cockpit. How many millions watched Formula BMW for Vettel, Formula 3 for Verstappen, or GP2 for Hamilton?

 

Or alternatively, how many F1 viewers watched F1 champion Häkkinen compete in the GT Asia series, F1 champion Räikkönen in the Nascar Camping Truck Series, or F1 race winner Barrichello in Brazilian Stock Car championships? Not all that many.

 

The drivers get their fame and fortune by being part of the F1 myth. Ironically one of the most car-dependent championships any of them will ever compete in.

 

When they leave, they tend to quickly disappear from the public's attention, similar to how nobody outside of a few slightly autosport-obsessed people can name the three big talents currently in F2.

 


The drivers gain their name and fame by driving in F1.

 

Exactly. :up:

 

That isn’t caused by the lack of noise your talking about but rather by the endurance nature of F1...

 

Absolutely, they're two separate issues. :up:

 



#148 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 05 November 2017 - 09:13

Straight line racing has never attracted the attention of the worldwide audience (luckily).

Going fastest through corners, very hard braking etc and fastest lap times are part of the F1 grandeur.

I am too lazy to look it up, but the complaints about F1's speed and how 'easy it was' were abundant. Worst thing was when that lmp1 Audi driver tried the Caterham at Spa and was utterly unimpressed.

Of course - everyone is a exaggeration. Some might not care, but from every side a lot of people were extremely vocal thst F1's speed was embarrassing.

Just to quote Button after Monaco: 'these cars are finally F1 cars again'.

 

Yes but you're missing the point about viewers and speed. That is what many in F1 were warning about and was obvious to a lot of people. The cars are no doubt harder to drive now and more fun for the drivers but that has made zip difference to the spectacle. The cars still go through the corners on rails and how hard it is is completely lost to the TV viewer and spectator. It is impossible to tell the difference in cornering speed between last season and this unless you're a total F1 anorak and there aren't enough of those to pay the bills.

The only difference this season has been more bearable to watch is because the engines have matured (funnily now people want to change them again and give someone else the opportunity to do a Mercedes) and the cars at the top are closer together. Nothing to do with the cars being faster etc. 

The problem with discussions like that is that it is generally a group of devoted fans who know everything about the sport discussing what they don't see as an issue. Now watch F1 with a group of people who know nothing about F1 outside of what they see on the TV and you'll get a different perspective. Without fail every person I've watched motorsport with who is a casual fan finds BTCC, FIA RX and even club racing  massively more exciting than F1. Purists detest BTCC for being artificial but it's entertaining.

 

That's the problem F1 has had for years and years now. It's got a huge fan base from it's historical TV deals and the average punter is barely aware than any other motorsport exists due to the lack of TV coverage on channels they would watch. When they are exposed to other series that make no bones about being entertainment they,  in my experience, go right off F1. Look at the huge difference in TV viewing figures between free to air and Sky in the UK. If they were all devoted fans who couldn't get enough of F1 the figures would be far closer.

 

F1 needs to make up it's mind if it's a mass market sport or one for anoraks. Problem is the totally obscene amounts of money it needs to operate.



#149 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,075 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 05 November 2017 - 19:55

 It is impossible to tell the difference in cornering speed between last season and this unless you're a total F1 anorak and there aren't enough of those to pay the bills.

 

Nonsense, they are obviously faster. It was clear since first practice in Australia.

 

F1 cars will always look less out of control in hard cornering.  This is because they are perfect racing cars which are very low to the ground, whereas touring cars have high centres of gravity and pitch and heave about the place a lot.  This is something that applies even since Formula Vee and Formula Ford -- they are less spectacular to watch than saloon classes.


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 05 November 2017 - 19:58.


#150 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 3,462 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 06 November 2017 - 18:12

 

Edited by statman, 06 November 2017 - 18:13.