316 replies to this topic

[dia6olo]

And we are lining up loads of examples of lottery wins that has nothing to do with skills I see.

See above the farce that is qualifying in changing wet conditions. It perfectly highlight the contribution a wet track brings to racing and the farce it turns it into.

Edited by dia6olo, 10 May 2024 - 12:37.

[le chat noir]

I am not disputing the rarity of wet races and currently because of it they have little to no bearing on the overall competition.

There were people wanting "more" wet races, it is that I don't agree with, it is that that turns F1 into a farcical lottery, it is that, that results in a car qualifying 1 second ahead of the next car, it is that, that cause a car that would normally easily be front 2 rows qualify way down the grid.

 

I understand the entertainment value of the wet and safety cars shuffling/resetting races, but however some choose to dress it up for me it's not real racing.

Lando won at Miami for example but did he really? For me no he didn't, the safety car twisted the result.

 

There's to much interference and distortion to results already without adding more wet races.

 

It's about being the fastest to the flag of your competitors in the conditions at the time.

Lando is the deserving winner because he was exactly that.

Just as Panis was in Monaco 96.

Just as Verstappen was in AD21. Oooh.

Now whether those conditions are considered fair is a question, but they all deal with the same conditions.

What's more, those conditions actually do extend beyond the race track. But they're all conditions on Formula 1.

So whether you think Masi was influenced by TPs or FIA or F1 or boredom of the same winner or excitement of a new winner, they all have equal opportunity to influence such conditions. (Excepting cases of inherent difference, ie personal bias due to an -ism).

That is why Irvine remains a deserving winner over Salo. He influenced the conditions such that when the opportunity arose he could take the benefit.

Norris influenced the conditions by going long, but also from past success to have the full set of upgrades, to await the opportunity and then take the benefit.

Weather is just another one of those conditions.

Even Singapore 08(?), or Adelaide 94 works like this. Now, here one of the final things requiring influence is not being caught, but that too has always been part of F1, or giving a balance of probabilities to the outcome if you are. See Magnusson in Miami. See Schumacher in Jerez 97. If he'd pulled it off, the judgement may well have been quite different.

Sometimes it definitely smarts - think Senna after being nerfed by Prost and then rejoining 'illegally' - but it's all part of the game and all about managing the conditions.

Weather is one of the great equalisers, where drivers find mechanical grip and display often hidden skill not masked by car performance.

Not only should there be more running in the wet when weather allows, also there should be more variance in tracks, more variance in track condition. Think old Hockenheim weeks after Monaco, think bumps at Interlagos. Think new teams and new approaches. And, if possible, more variance in reliability. It's all slowly been mollified. So the fact they're doing something to maintain some wet running is to be applauded.

Variety is the spice of racing. Dealing with the varying conditions is what breeds that interest. Without it, you're much more likely to get periods of aero-enhanced dominance - think Vettel aceing quali then building the gap and waiting for the flag. A fan who no longer goes for variety in conditions, is no longer a fan - Senna (or something).

[IrvTheSwerve]

I am not disputing the rarity of wet races and currently because of it they have little to no bearing on the overall competition.

There were people wanting "more" wet races, it is that I don't agree with, it is that, that turns F1 into a farcical lottery, it is that, that results in a car qualifying 1 second ahead of the next car, it is that, that cause a car that would normally easily be front 2 rows qualify way down the grid.

 

I understand the entertainment value of the wet and safety cars shuffling/resetting races, but however some choose to dress it up for me it's not real racing.

Lando won at Miami for example but did he really? For me no he didn't, the safety car twisted the result. Not picking on Lando here, just pointing out that it happens rather frequently that races are won undeservedly because of stupid F1 rules that are only there to manipulate the "show".

 

There's to much interference and distortion to results already without adding more wet races.

I don’t think it was people wanting ‘more’ wet races, per se, it was people wanting races to be actually run when it rains rather than the tedious red flags and delays that are becoming more and more common. At the end of the day, if it rains, it rains. F1 should be prepared to run in those conditions.

[Myrvold]

See above the farce that is qualifying in changing wet conditions. It perfectly highlight the contribution a wet track brings to racing and the farce it turns it into.

 

But... I mean. Examples?

[Clatter]

I am not disputing the rarity of wet races and currently because of it they have little to no bearing on the overall competition.
There were people wanting "more" wet races, it is that I don't agree with, it is that, that turns F1 into a farcical lottery, it is that, that results in a car qualifying 1 second ahead of the next car, it is that, that cause a car that would normally easily be front 2 rows qualify way down the grid.

I understand the entertainment value of the wet and safety cars shuffling/resetting races, but however some choose to dress it up for me it's not real racing.
Lando won at Miami for example but did he really? For me no he didn't, the safety car twisted the result. Not picking on Lando here, just pointing out that it happens rather frequently that races are won undeservedly because of stupid F1 rules that are only there to manipulate the "show".

There's to much interference and distortion to results already without adding more wet races.

I don't see a problem with any of those things. If they were artificially wetting the track, then that would be a different argument, but we are talking about an outdoor sport, open to the elements. There seems to a great sense of entitlement by some that everything must be perfect, and that the fastest car must prevail. Well in wet conditions the fastest car may not be the one you expect.

[dia6olo]

I don't see a problem with any of those things. If they were artificially wetting the track, then that would be a different argument, but we are talking about an outdoor sport, open to the elements. There seems to a great sense of entitlement by some that everything must be perfect, and that the fastest car must prevail. Well in wet conditions the fastest car may not be the one you expect.

Like I said I don't have a problem with the wet races we get, it's the people wanting to see more of them and there were people wanting to see more of them.

As for artificial, the resetting of races with safety cars is artificial, the powers that be at F1 know that and they more importantly know exactly why they don't change it, it's called the "show", it's another tool they use and it creates fake racing as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by dia6olo, 10 May 2024 - 13:25.

[Sterzo]

As for artificial, the resetting of races with safety cars is artificial, the powers that be at F1 know that and they more importantly know exactly why they don't change it, it's called the "show", it's another tool they use and it creates fake racing as far as I'm concerned.

There is absolutely no evidence whatever for the safety car being sent out in F1 races to improve "the show." The call is always, but always, made in response to a dangerous situation. The decision has to be made quickly with imperfect information so there will be some variation in the quality of the decision. The race director is trying to spice up the racing by sending out the safety car? A ridiculous conspiracy theory.

[dia6olo]

There is absolutely no evidence whatever for the safety car being sent out in F1 races to improve "the show." The call is always, but always, made in response to a dangerous situation. The decision has to be made quickly with imperfect information so there will be some variation in the quality of the decision. The race director is trying to spice up the racing by sending out the safety car? A ridiculous conspiracy theory.

At no point did I imply we don't need safety cars.

My point was that there is no reason to wipe away drivers leads/gaps, we could easily start again behind a safety car and re-establish the gaps like in a virtual safety.

Yet they choose not to, I wonder why... Because it's much better for the "show" that's why.

Edited by dia6olo, 10 May 2024 - 16:23.

[IrvTheSwerve]

Like I said I don't have a problem with the wet races we get, it's the people wanting to see more of them and there were people wanting to see more of them.

Isn’t that a bit of a moot point as we can’t control the weather?

[FLB]

The 'mud flaps' are being dropped: F1 abandons rain wheel cover idea after latest test (autosport.com)

[ANF]

The 'mud flaps' are being dropped: F1 abandons rain wheel cover idea after latest test (autosport.com)

"The latest covers were deliberately over the top because the FIA wanted to better understand how much of an improvement visibility would be if there was no spray thrown up by the wheels.

The conclusion after the test, based on video analysis, was the benefit was marginal – as there remains a tremendous amount of water thrown up by the diffuser.

The conclusion from the FIA was immediate that the wheel cover idea is no longer worth pursuing, so other options to try to help in treacherous conditions are now being evaluated."

[pdac]

"The latest covers were deliberately over the top because the FIA wanted to better understand how much of an improvement visibility would be if there was no spray thrown up by the wheels.

The conclusion after the test, based on video analysis, was the benefit was marginal – as there remains a tremendous amount of water thrown up by the diffuser.

The conclusion from the FIA was immediate that the wheel cover idea is no longer worth pursuing, so other options to try to help in treacherous conditions are now being evaluated."

 

Wow, who would have thought?

[F1 Mike]

The conclusion from the FIA was immediate that the wheel cover idea is no longer worth pursuing, so other options to try to help in treacherous conditions are now being evaluated

How about a really good wet tyre like Bridgestone used to make?

[Sixteen3]

Just bring back the Monsoon tyres....

[PayasYouRace]

How about a really good wet tyre like Bridgestone used to make?

 

 

Just bring back the Monsoon tyres....

Those worked so well because they threw up tons of water into the air.

[Bleu]

Talking about monsoon tyres, did they ever have three different rain tyres in use? I recall that until 1996 there were only slicks and wets. But the tyre war in 1997 meant that intermediate tyre was made to be between slicks and wets. And it has been mostly like that since then, regardless of whether there has been tyre war or not. 

[PayasYouRace]

During the Bridgestone/Michelin war you had intermediates, hard and soft wets and monsoons. So four types of wet weather tyre.