Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

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


  • Please log in to reply
4132 replies to this topic

Poll: Pick and choose! (466 member(s) have cast votes)

Extra 3000rpm?

  1. Yay (422 votes [90.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.56%

  2. Nay (44 votes [9.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.44%

More prescriptive engine design, standard energy store etc

  1. Yay (242 votes [51.93%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 51.93%

  2. Nay (224 votes [48.07%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 48.07%

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

  1. Yay (348 votes [74.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 74.68%

  2. Nay (118 votes [25.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#3901 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 29 March 2019 - 22:41

since you guys have been talking about DRS:

 

Verstappen, Hamilton want F1 to move away from 'band aid' DRS

 

No DRS could be a great time saver.  With no passing at all during the race you could just stop watching after the first turn.



Advertisement

#3902 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,491 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 29 March 2019 - 23:23

Spec series incoming...

 

It is certainly a long list!

 

But on the other hand, teams (such as Renault and Wiliams) complain about costs, and all those measures would be sensible ways to reduce costs.



#3903 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,491 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 29 March 2019 - 23:26

That list looks very positive as there's very little performance differentiation in those components.

 

Drivers may prefer different rotors and pads, so a choice of spec rotors and brake pads may provide difficulties for drivers to get their preferred braking feel.

 

As long as the spec parts are well priced it is OK. 

 

Spec parts can sometimes create monopolies and price gouging (e.g., in BTCC).  The spec 888 pedalbox in V8 Supercar costs $20,000 AUD for example, even though a off-the-shelf Tilton pedal box is only $5,000 AUD -- is the spec part price reasonable or not?


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 29 March 2019 - 23:27.


#3904 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,165 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 30 March 2019 - 00:42

I don't have any issues with that list other than the brake items. Those are very sensitive driver to driver. Some drivers are going to become anonymous if they can't get on with whatever the standard item becomes.

#3905 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,831 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 30 March 2019 - 00:57

It is certainly a long list!

But on the other hand, teams (such as Renault and Wiliams) complain about costs, and all those measures would be sensible ways to reduce costs.


The cost cap will reduce costs. That list of spec parts will kill F1. I expected more from Ross. F1’s problem is that they simultaneously attempt to fix a problem by five different half assed methods, instead of finding one good solution.

#3906 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,049 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 March 2019 - 07:49

I don't have any issues with that list other than the brake items. Those are very sensitive driver to driver. Some drivers are going to become anonymous if they can't get on with whatever the standard item becomes.

They are supposed to be the best drivers in the world, if they can't adapt then.....

#3907 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,123 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 March 2019 - 09:29

AMUS: 2021 list of standard parts:

 

These parts are standard from 2021 The transmission is a limiting case because it is one of the larger components on the car. Only the housing may construct the teams themselves. There are no differences in its function. They all have eight gears, and all have been using so-called quickshift circuits for years, which can shift up without interruption to traction. Less than zero switching time does not work. "The transmission wins you no race. It loses you at most one, if it breaks, "say the engineers.

The innards of the gearbox are just one of many standard parts. We got the list of planned unit parts, which is bigger than you think:

calipers

brake discs

Brake pads

steering column

rims

Halo

Crash structures laterally and behind

axes

nuts

drive shaft

Brake and accelerator pedal

DRS mechanism

Innards of the fuel tank such as pumps

Pit stop equipment: These include jack, gallows and impact wrench.

 

About the only companies complaining about that list I can see on first sight are the ones that are into the braking components, some of them will be out of F1....

 

Given their past difficulties, Such a monopoly for brake components suppliers, that would be a blessing for Haas: then everyone will have problems should the once again run into brake troubles! (Given the fact they managed to repeat difficulties with wheel changes,,,,)


Edited by Henri Greuter, 30 March 2019 - 09:29.


#3908 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,452 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 30 March 2019 - 10:35

They are supposed to be the best drivers in the world, if they can't adapt then.....

I disagree. Why not the freedom to come up with a solution/enhancment for each particular drivers' preference? I read somewhere that Lewis drove in a certain way that wasn't quite idealy suited   to the power delivery characteristics of the then Merc V8. The software engineer guys then came up with an algorithm in the ECU to sort that out!...That is fascinating and what F1 should be all about surely?



#3909 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,452 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 30 March 2019 - 10:43

It is certainly a long list!

 

But on the other hand, teams (such as Renault and Wiliams) complain about costs, and all those measures would be sensible ways to reduce costs.

No they wont.

The haves will always find places to spend their additional resources to keep that divide between the have not's a constant. And then the law of diminishing returns starts kicking in in ernest.  And we all know how expensive that is.


Edited by Fatgadget, 30 March 2019 - 10:47.


#3910 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,123 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 March 2019 - 12:16

I disagree. Why not the freedom to come up with a solution/enhancment for each particular drivers' preference? I read somewhere that Lewis drove in a certain way that wasn't quite idealy suited   to the power delivery characteristics of the then Merc V8. The software engineer guys then came up with an algorithm in the ECU to sort that out!...That is fascinating and what F1 should be all about surely?

 

 

Would require some new rules regarding what the McLar...  eh sorry: the standard ECU permits.

And with more allowances within the ECU, there will be the fear for all kind of traction-control-like solutions finding their way into the software.....

And/or other unwanted software options to optimize certain functions on the car....



#3911 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 7,413 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 March 2019 - 12:54

I disagree. Why not the freedom to come up with a solution/enhancment for each particular drivers' preference? I read somewhere that Lewis drove in a certain way that wasn't quite idealy suited   to the power delivery characteristics of the then Merc V8. The software engineer guys then came up with an algorithm in the ECU to sort that out!...That is fascinating and what F1 should be all about surely?

 

This is exactly what they are trying to get rid of. Custom solutions to the same problem.



#3912 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 2,857 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 30 March 2019 - 17:07

https://www.formula1...FtxaymbncK.html

 

"At the moment, we have a car running in CFD and windtunnels which when they are behind another car loses 5% of its downforce. That is pretty small. At the moment, when they get nose-to-tail, the car behind loses 50% of the downforce."

 

:up: :up: :up:



#3913 OO7

OO7
  • Member

  • 18,547 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 30 March 2019 - 17:11

https://www.formula1...FtxaymbncK.html

 

"At the moment, we have a car running in CFD and windtunnels which when they are behind another car loses 5% of its downforce. That is pretty small. At the moment, when they get nose-to-tail, the car behind loses 50% of the downforce."

 

:up: :up: :up:

And they are saying using ground effect has been instrumental.



#3914 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 2,857 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 30 March 2019 - 19:11

I wonder if the tunnel shape will also be spec part to control the flow field behind the car. Or it'll just be the in and outlet that will be given and the teams can find different tunnel shapes based on a volume rule, eg if you turn the car upside down and block the in and outlet, you would only be able to put in between X and Y litres of water.

#3915 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,452 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 30 March 2019 - 21:56

This is exactly what they are trying to get rid of. Custom solutions to the same problem.

And what is to stop say the ramp angle or whatever in the  diff being machined  to suite a particular drivers reference More expensive than a software solution surely??


Edited by Fatgadget, 30 March 2019 - 21:59.


#3916 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,676 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 April 2019 - 04:28

AMUS: 2021 list of standard parts:

calipers

brake discs

Brake pads

 

I don't like this. There are only a few brake suppliers in F1 anyway, just ban exclusivity and set a maximum price for components. As others have said, drivers for the same team will often use brakes from different suppliers.

 

steering column

 

A part that most of us would never really think about. So long as it is just the column, and not the steering box and associated systems. 

 

rims

 

Rims are one way of differentiating one car from another. Not necessarily performance wise, but visually. And teh wheel manufacturers can replicate the style for road wheels.

 

Halo

 

Already the case

 

Crash structures laterally and behind

 

The lateral crash structures are already a spec component. Not sure about the rear crash structure.

 

axes

 

?????

 

nuts

 

Makes sense. Stops development into making pit stops faster.

 

drive shaft

 

I guess this makes sense if they are using a common gearbox and diff. And wheels. Does this mean the hubs would be common too? 

 

Brake and accelerator pedal

 

How much money is in these items anyway? It must require a lot of adjustability to suit the preferences of different drivers.

 

DRS mechanism

 

I assume this means just the actuator, as any more than that may dictate the geometry for the DRS.

This does suggest that the DRS will be maintained beyond 2021, which I though they were trying to move away from.

 

Innards of the fuel tank such as pumps

 

Does make some sense. 

 

Pit stop equipment: These include jack, gallows and impact wrench.

 

Makes sense, especially with standard wheel nuts. Standard jacks will also save money in the pit stop time development war.

 

The list makes some sense, but I think that items, like wheels, that can be visual differentiators should still be allowed.

 

And others, like brake components, can be performance differentiators. I would not like, for example, all teams to have to use the same steering rack ratios. Maybe there will be options with that, but we will see.

 

Some items, such as brakes and wheels, are provided by outside suppliers who also provide sponsorship for the teams, in either money of products. Making them common parts cuts off that revenue stream.



#3917 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 02 April 2019 - 04:38

Some items, such as brakes and wheels, are provided by outside suppliers who also provide sponsorship for the teams, in either money of products. Making them common parts cuts off that revenue stream.

 

Why?  They would still be provided by outside suppliers.  It would still be advantageous for the supplier to be the chosen one for F1.  They would still want their brand out there.  They should probably offer more if they were the sole supplier.



#3918 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,676 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 02 April 2019 - 05:26

Why?  They would still be provided by outside suppliers.  It would still be advantageous for the supplier to be the chosen one for F1.  They would still want their brand out there.  They should probably offer more if they were the sole supplier.

 

The teams pay for tyres and still have to put the logo on the car.



#3919 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 02 April 2019 - 22:30

The cost cap will reduce costs. That list of spec parts will kill F1. I expected more from Ross. F1’s problem is that they simultaneously attempt to fix a problem by five different half assed methods, instead of finding one good solution.


Care to elaborate why the named spec parts would kill F1? I couldn't name one example. So I'm curious.

Advertisement

#3920 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 02 April 2019 - 22:38

Care to elaborate why the named spec parts would kill F1? I couldn't name one example. So I'm curious.

 

Maybe it is because F1 is seriously ill already and it wouldn't take much to kill it.



#3921 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 02 April 2019 - 22:41

That hasn't got anything to do with spec parts. So still awaiting the answer.

#3922 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 4,136 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 03 April 2019 - 12:34

Revealed: What Liberty told teams about its plans for F1 2021

 

some interesting tidbits, for example:

 

Expect first practice to start after Friday lunch, with second practice running into evening, and various running changes to qualifying and tyre usage regulations. But, fortunately, no qualifying race, as had been threatened.


Edited by statman, 03 April 2019 - 12:37.


#3923 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 4,136 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 05 April 2019 - 11:41



#3924 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 17,688 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 05 April 2019 - 17:53

Expect first practice to start after Friday lunch, with second practice running into evening, and various running changes to qualifying and tyre usage regulations. But, fortunately, no qualifying race, as had been threatened.


FP1 early afternoon, FP2 late afternoon, how is that practical?

#3925 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,599 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 April 2019 - 18:31

FP1 early afternoon, FP2 late afternoon, how is that practical?

 

You do FP1 first, and then you do FP2 after that, with a little break in between. A bit like they do now, but later.



#3926 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 05 April 2019 - 19:41

Besides - F1 has no relationship with 'practical'.



#3927 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 17,688 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 05 April 2019 - 22:05

You do FP1 first, and then you do FP2 after that, with a little break in between. A bit like they do now, but later.


Sunset :stoned:

Edited by TomNokoe, 05 April 2019 - 22:05.


#3928 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,599 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 April 2019 - 22:45

Sunset :stoned:

 

Yeah that's a thing, but it's not usually just after lunch in the places F1 goes.



#3929 Garndell

Garndell
  • Member

  • 649 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 05 April 2019 - 23:19

So does the shift to that kind of schedule for FP's suit the American audience better than the current system?



#3930 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,165 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 06 April 2019 - 00:14

So does the shift to that kind of schedule for FP's suit the American audience better than the current system?


They could be trying to increase Friday attendance by shifting the schedule to have track action when most people are finished work.

#3931 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,047 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 April 2019 - 06:36

It says right there in the article why the change is made. They are condensing the weekend for teams so they can arrive a day later. Some of the prep stuff will be moved to Friday mornings.



#3932 Wingcommander

Wingcommander
  • Member

  • 1,415 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 April 2019 - 07:40

IMO the whole idea of a budget cap would be to get rid of all the other restrictions they have on spending money. You want to go testing, go testing. You want to spend gazillion hours in a wind tunnel, go do it. You want to buy a yacht, go ahead and buy a yacht. Just make sure you don't spend more than what is allowed. Here are the regulations, this is the amount of money you're allowed to spend, make the most of it. All this talk about spec parts etc. makes me a bit worried about where the sport is heading. Maybe it's just me, I'm not really up to date with what is going on. 



#3933 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,599 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 April 2019 - 07:52

It says right there in the article why the change is made. They are condensing the weekend for teams so they can arrive a day later. Some of the prep stuff will be moved to Friday mornings.


A key point with an expanded calendar.

#3934 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,049 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 April 2019 - 10:06

They could be trying to increase Friday attendance by shifting the schedule to have track action when most people are finished work.

By attendance do you mean trackside? I doubt most fans would have enough time to get there after being at work first. It's not like a team sport where the fan base is more locally based and the stadium is nearby.

#3935 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,730 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 28 April 2019 - 16:14

I see the efforts to revive competition are giving great results so far. Keep up the good work   ;)



#3936 TheGoldenStoffel

TheGoldenStoffel
  • Member

  • 282 posts
  • Joined: November 18

Posted 28 April 2019 - 16:34

I see the efforts to revive competition are giving great results so far. Keep up the good work   ;)

 

Simply ditching Pirelli would probably had done a fair bit of the job, but money is apparently more important...



#3937 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,376 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 29 April 2019 - 18:24

So the FIA have opened tenders for wheel rims. Ross Brawn clearly said that only parts which didn't add performance would be considered for the spec.list. Mercedes spent a lot of time and money last season on wheel rims because they do affect performance. One of them is wrong or a liar and I know who my money is on.



#3938 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,599 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 April 2019 - 18:30

Pretty sure what the FIA are trying to do is standardise on the parts that teams spend a lot of money on and add marginal performance. If Ross Brawn actually said "didn't add performance" it would actually be in that context, but Ross tends to be more careful with his words than that.



#3939 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 29 April 2019 - 18:36

All they have to do is change the definition of 'adds performance' and everything is fair game.



Advertisement

#3940 thegforcemaybewithyou

thegforcemaybewithyou
  • Member

  • 2,857 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 29 April 2019 - 19:16

Maybe Ross already knows that in the future Pirelli will be asked to provide real racing tyres that do not need those rims to work fine.

 

Just imagine for a moment that it's 2021 and F1 still uses cheese tyres, the new aerodynamic rules finally allow for close racing and the power units are closer in performance than today. The first race comes and all the drivers report that everything seems fine when behind another car, it's just that the tyres still overheat. ;)



#3941 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,452 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 29 April 2019 - 19:21

It is certainly a long list!

 

But on the other hand, teams (such as Renault and Wiliams) complain about costs, and all those measures would be sensible ways to reduce costs.

I don't agree with a spec F1 at all.A Ferrari wont be a Ferrari A Merc wont be a Merc neither a Red Bull .Nor a Renault or  a Honda.

I'm almost positive should that stupidness  be enforced Ferrari and Merc and Renault and Honda will wave by bye to F1.



#3942 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,452 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 29 April 2019 - 19:29

IMO the whole idea of a budget cap would be to get rid of all the other restrictions they have on spending money. You want to go testing, go testing. You want to spend gazillion hours in a wind tunnel, go do it. You want to buy a yacht, go ahead and buy a yacht. Just make sure you don't spend more than what is allowed. Here are the regulations, this is the amount of money you're allowed to spend, make the most of it. All this talk about spec parts etc. makes me a bit worried about where the sport is heading. Maybe it's just me, I'm not really up to date with what is going on. 

Those with deep pockets will always have the edge. That is how F1 has always been.And always will  be.Even during the garagista days.... Yes Cosworth was bankrolled by Ford



#3943 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,614 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 April 2019 - 19:40

Drivers may prefer different rotors and pads, so a choice of spec rotors and brake pads may provide difficulties for drivers to get their preferred braking feel.

As long as the spec parts are well priced it is OK.

Spec parts can sometimes create monopolies and price gouging (e.g., in BTCC). The spec 888 pedalbox in V8 Supercar costs $20,000 AUD for example, even though a off-the-shelf Tilton pedal box is only $5,000 AUD -- is the spec part price reasonable or not?

No it’s called a rip of as the part is “spec” and as a result there should be no spec parts - but teams should be allowed to buy and sell what ever they want!

#3944 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,831 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 29 April 2019 - 19:41

It's awful. The more spec parts they introduce the more the cars look and perform the same. The only real positive of F1 right now is the different cars and us discussing the differences between them. Why would anybody want to watch twenty "Ross Brawn-spec" cars cruise around tracks completely butchered by the FIA? I know there are parts that will be "free" to development, but they will need to work around the spec parts, most likely leading to very similar solutions. The Merc long wheelbase concept, for example, wouldn't have worked as well as it has without those trick wheels, which supposedly don't add performance. 

 

Those with deep pockets will always have the edge. That is how F1 has always been.And always will  be.Even during the garagista days.... Yes Cosworth was bankrolled by Ford

 

They will always have an edge, but the edge will be much smaller. Right now it's utterly insurmountable. Look at 2009 when MOST teams (except Red Bull) were following the FOTA directive of smaller workforces. We got the single most competitive season of F1 in a very long time. 



#3945 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,614 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 April 2019 - 19:42

So the FIA have opened tenders for wheel rims. Ross Brawn clearly said that only parts which didn't add performance would be considered for the spec.list. Mercedes spent a lot of time and money last season on wheel rims because they do affect performance. One of them is wrong or a liar and I know who my money is on.

A certain Mr Boss Rrawn?

#3946 nonobaddog

nonobaddog
  • Member

  • 818 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 29 April 2019 - 19:48

It seems to me F1 was better when they didn't need lawyers on their teams to go racing.



#3947 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,614 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 April 2019 - 19:48

It seems to me F1 was better when they didn't need lawyers on their teams to go racing.

It was also cheaper...

And not just lawyers - mechanical engineering lawyers...

#3948 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,376 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 29 April 2019 - 21:11

IMO the whole idea of a budget cap would be to get rid of all the other restrictions they have on spending money. You want to go testing, go testing. You want to spend gazillion hours in a wind tunnel, go do it. You want to buy a yacht, go ahead and buy a yacht. Just make sure you don't spend more than what is allowed. Here are the regulations, this is the amount of money you're allowed to spend, make the most of it. All this talk about spec parts etc. makes me a bit worried about where the sport is heading. Maybe it's just me, I'm not really up to date with what is going on. 

 

I couldn't agree more. Using Ross B's own example of spec fire extinguishers; if a team wants to spend a large part of their budget making a special ultra-slim light weight fire extinguisher that could be worth say 0.0001 seconds a lap and neglect say aerodynamics why not let them as long as it still works and safety hasn't been compromised? The best managed team, with the best design ideas, will flourish while those poorly run and wasteful operations will flounder, and we will have plenty to talk about here because the engineering will become more interesting again.



#3949 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,599 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 April 2019 - 21:25

I don't agree with a spec F1 at all.A Ferrari wont be a Ferrari A Merc wont be a Merc neither a Red Bull .Nor a Renault or  a Honda.

I'm almost positive should that stupidness  be enforced Ferrari and Merc and Renault and Honda will wave by bye to F1.

 

Well right now a Mercedes is actually a Brackley, a Red Bull is whatever it wants to be because they're a drinks company, a Renault is actually an Enstone and we don't have Honda cars on the grid, so what exactly are you hoping to preserve by having these constructors duplicate their efforts for dubious benefit?

 

 

It's awful. The more spec parts they introduce the more the cars look and perform the same. The only real positive of F1 right now is the different cars and us discussing the differences between them. Why would anybody want to watch twenty "Ross Brawn-spec" cars cruise around tracks completely butchered by the FIA? I know there are parts that will be "free" to development, but they will need to work around the spec parts, most likely leading to very similar solutions. The Merc long wheelbase concept, for example, wouldn't have worked as well as it has without those trick wheels, which supposedly don't add performance. 

 

I'd happily trade the different cars that all look the same anyway for a field that is much more competitive and the winner isn't easy to predict from a handful of drivers every two weeks.



#3950 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,376 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 29 April 2019 - 22:28

I'd happily trade the different cars that all look the same anyway for a field that is much more competitive and the winner isn't easy to predict from a handful of drivers every two weeks.

 

Well you can get that by watching Indycar, F2, FE etc instead. F1 has always been about different cars, it's the very D.N.A. of the sport, and as the French say "vive la différence". IMHO it's worth trying to preserve as much difference as possible. Ross asked a rhetorical question the other day in an interview (and I paraphrase because I haven't got it in front of me) "who would say no to better racing?"  Well I'd like to answer that by asking what is "better" and what are we losing by trying to get it. If he means more overtaking I'd happily say no if it means no more DRS drive pasts, I'd happily say no if it was because tyre and refueling strategies were more diverse, I'd happily so no if the down side is a loss of team by team engineering. 


Edited by RacingGreen, 29 April 2019 - 22:29.