Man of Honour
I don't get this - Spa is full of gradient changes, and is arguably the best F1 track. Surely it's a good thing, and not dangerous if done right?
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 2010, Yas Island Marina Circuit - Race 19/19
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
I don't get this - Spa is full of gradient changes, and is arguably the best F1 track. Surely it's a good thing, and not dangerous if done right?
Spa isn't a new track though.
I don;t get it either but it must be what FIA state. Or DC/designers are lying but I don;t see why they would do that. Just like how FIA state run offs barriers and the rest.
I think the opposite - its just too easy for the car in front to recover from a mistake to prevent an overtake more than anything nowadays on top of the aero issues caused by running too close...
Its my thoughts that F1 to keep itself relevant to the real world and justify the costs involved should produce technologies and aero advantages that can be implemented into mass-market car design (the reason why KERS exists) so I just cant see the justification of having such front/rear wings. Id be more than happy to get shot of them - perhaps a distract viewpoint but you get my gist...
I think Alonso is just happy to be in a team that revolves around him and as a bonus has a car that could win the championships from the off...
Looking at how often he retires I wouldnt be surprised if he does ring the neck of his cars - he definitely didnt appear to look after his tyres or brakes that well last season...
Think Bernie gets nectar points or something
ps3ud0
Last edited:
I would love to see the front and rear wings completely removed. The problem is that the car itself is now generating so much aerodynamic down-force, that removing the wings completely, may not make much difference to the problem regarding overtaking.
I would like to see more powerful engines, grippier tyres. All wings/winglets removed.
The dependence on aerodynamic down force is what is ruining the spectacle.
Wouldnt the dirty air syndrome be drastically reduced because of the removal of the wings? The remaining aero parts would produce a far more reduced affect compared and therefore allow tighter racing which (naively) should produce better chances to overtake.
It seems the general consensus is that lower formulae dont have the same issues regards overtaking that F1 has and they use similar technologies - I agree that its more to do with driver error that produces these opportunities so maybe we need to make a F1 car just harder to handle?!? (I actually dont agree with this)
Which leads me to think that Id love to see more 'poorly surfaced' tracks (like Monaco and Brands Hatch) that have their own bumps and cambers to make the racing line not so point A to B. I want tracks with character...
EDIT: I did mean drastic and not distract in my last post :/
ps3ud0
It seems the general consensus is that lower formulae dont have the same issues regards overtaking that F1 has and they use similar technologies - I agree that its more to do with driver error that produces these opportunities so maybe we need to make a F1 car just harder to handle?!? (I actually dont agree with this)
Which leads me to think that Id love to see more 'poorly surfaced' tracks (like Monaco and Brands Hatch) that have their own bumps and cambers to make the racing line not so point A to B. I want tracks with character...
EDIT: I did mean drastic and not distract in my last post :/
ps3ud0
Last edited:
Soldato
Indeed,
I still maintain my wish that the FIA change tact on aero, and hand out an absolute downforce/spoilt air profile that teams must adhere to, with only minimal ruling on wing/bodywork size etc..
The issue is that using silly rules that try and limit the size of a wing just makes teams still spend oodles of cash just trying to get uber creative and get them back any aero lost due to rule changes.. The net effect is a double whammy, extracting more downforce from less area = more spoilt air (in general terms)..
I'm thinking that a windtunnel with rollers that link front/rear wheels and apart from airspeed, the wheels speed must match, and a standard gear ratio set such that the engine must be 'exhausting' gas etc. And come up with some easy measure of 'spoilt' air, i.e. a car sized unit placed a fixed distance behind, and a profile of how much air must hit it at any given speed.. This should just about remove any element of flexi floor/wing and quadrillion rear diffuser ideas, and free up a ton of cash..
Of course, they then need to loosen ruling in more key areas to keep the technological differentiation alive.
I'd rather see more suspension/engine/KERS type things being developed and really mixing things up then watching drivers who are 1.5s a lap quicker have no hope in hell of overtaking because they are stuck in dirty air..
Nobody driving in F1 is a nobody. Even test drivers are big names amongst racing fans.
Ah yes, Monza, that was the race that qualifying got flipped-turned upside down by rain with what I assume you would call the nobodies near the front and the somebodies near the back. Did that not annoy you having a nobody on pole? Clearly Vettel being a nobody at the time didn't deserve to win that race? Your logic is so twisted it can be used against you. Grow Up.
the front wings are like snow plows though they must be effected a lot by the low rear wings we have, i remember when the wings were much higher up.
the cars barely even have a slipstream these days :S
Not a good way to win a race or championship imo.
Last edited:
And a different era of racing that really isnt that relevant anymore - the ethics of racing have changed...
ps3ud0
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,216
Hopefully removing the diffusers will help (along with the more artificial changes). I remember the whole point of the new aero rules were to help clean up the turbulent air produced by the cars and to make it easier for the cars to follow each other. Then of course the loophole was found that essentially went completely against this. Incidently, had this loophole not been found we would have been looking at Red Bull dominance for two years in a row. Still impresses me that they have gotten such a leap on the likes of McLaren and Ferrari.
Caporegime
I don't get that either. Even if you had a designer with a track record of great tracks it doesn't make sense to give them every new track - a variety of designers is much more likely to deliver varied and interesting racing.
Associate
That can't be completely accurate, doesn't the new Indian track have significant gradient changes in it?
Just because X or Y driver stated (and actually did) that he would take out another driver, 5/10/20 years ago doent mean it should be allowed now.
Schumi won a race in the pits , but no one tried it this year even though Im sure the tyres were capable of it (thank god they didnt too)
Interlagos would be a nothing track if it werent for the gradients involved (I though Texas was meant to have gradient changes too?) - but its had some really great races in recent years with decent overtaking (I love spa as well but that was mentioned above)
Schumi won a race in the pits , but no one tried it this year even though Im sure the tyres were capable of it (thank god they didnt too)
Interlagos would be a nothing track if it werent for the gradients involved (I though Texas was meant to have gradient changes too?) - but its had some really great races in recent years with decent overtaking (I love spa as well but that was mentioned above)
Soldato
Who designed the new Silverstone layout?
And a different era of racing that really isnt that relevant anymore - the ethics of racing have changed...
ps3ud0
In what way have the ethics changed?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,216
http://www.planet-f1.com/news/18227/6510099/Hamilton-Vettel-must-savour-his-triumph
If only Alonso could have been this decent
If only Alonso could have been this decent
Quite simple - a driver couldnt get away with the statements/situations you keep dragging up from the past which you think are relevant to todays motorsport and use as reasoning...
For example the biggest scandal of the race was 'will Vettel move aside for Webber if its a RB 1-2' not 'will Webber/Hamilton/Alonso/etc crash into Vettel/Webber/Hamilton/etc'. The level of (public) professionalism just doesnt allow it...
EDIT: Im not trying to be rude - just that the comparison is really IMO null and void. Theres far more at stake in todays racing with all the politics and power plays to attempt to think that drivers own emotions are the only thing they listen to and act upon...
ps3ud0
Last edited:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
What happened in the past is perfectly relevant.
Many drivers have done questionable things in order to gain an advantage over their rivals, which are "gentlemanly".
Recently, I would look towards 2009, when Hamilton lied in Australia (I think it was), in order to gain a few extra points and get another driver (Trulli, I think it was), disqualified from the race.
Go back to 2007, Hamilton broke team orders during Hungarian qualifying, to gain an advantage over Alonso. Alonso responded by holding Hamilton up in the pits, to prevent him from having a final qualifying run.
Go back to the Scumacher years - he had no qualms about taking people off the track, if it meant he could win the title. Furthermore, in Monaco 2006 (I think it was), he parked his car across the racing line to ensure nobody could go faster than him. MSc got up to many tricks during his career and this was not long ago.
Go back further in time and you will see Senna, who would think nothing of taking other people off the track, if only to teach them a lesson or make a point.
I have absolutely no doubt that Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton, will get up to "tricks" during the next few years. This won't change. The Stewards are much stricter than they have been in the past, however, to this end, drivers have become smarter and found new ways of gaining an advantage.
The only difference between 1990 and 2010 is that in 1990, drivers performed their tricks in a more obvious manner. In 2010+, drivers are more discreet.
The ethics (if that is indeed the word you mean to use), have not changed one bit. To win at all costs always has and continues to be, the aim of top drivers (perhaps Button, excluded).
What happened in the past is perfectly relevant.
Many drivers have done questionable things in order to gain an advantage over their rivals, which are "gentlemanly".
Recently, I would look towards 2009, when Hamilton lied in Australia (I think it was), in order to gain a few extra points and get another driver (Trulli, I think it was), disqualified from the race.
Go back to 2007, Hamilton broke team orders during Hungarian qualifying, to gain an advantage over Alonso. Alonso responded by holding Hamilton up in the pits, to prevent him from having a final qualifying run.
Go back to the Scumacher years - he had no qualms about taking people off the track, if it meant he could win the title. Furthermore, in Monaco 2006 (I think it was), he parked his car across the racing line to ensure nobody could go faster than him. MSc got up to many tricks during his career and this was not long ago.
Go back further in time and you will see Senna, who would think nothing of taking other people off the track, if only to teach them a lesson or make a point.
I have absolutely no doubt that Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton, will get up to "tricks" during the next few years. This won't change. The Stewards are much stricter than they have been in the past, however, to this end, drivers have become smarter and found new ways of gaining an advantage.
The only difference between 1990 and 2010 is that in 1990, drivers performed their tricks in a more obvious manner. In 2010+, drivers are more discreet.
The ethics (if that is indeed the word you mean to use), have not changed one bit. To win at all costs always has and continues to be, the aim of top drivers (perhaps Button, excluded).
Quite simple - a driver couldnt get away with the statements/situations you keep dragging up from the past which you think are relevant to todays motorsport and use as reasoning...
For example the biggest scandal of the race was 'will Vettel move aside for Webber if its a RB 1-2' not 'will Webber/Hamilton/Alonso/etc crash into Vettel/Webber/Hamilton/etc'. The level of (public) professionalism just doesnt allow it...
EDIT: Im not trying to be rude - just that the comparison is really IMO null and void. Theres far more at stake in todays racing with all the politics and power plays to attempt to think that drivers own emotions are the only thing they listen to and act upon...
ps3ud0
I think you said exactly what I was attempting too - thank you
The other thing is that even since 1990 the value of the F1 circus has grown astronomically, and its a lot more in the spotlight than it was before.
Senna was incredibly well known before hand.....but in one sense I still think he has become more famous because of how he died and because of the safety proceedures introduced since he died (I feel for Roland Razenburger -sp? - who died on the same track the day before who is usually completely forgotten about)
Its a bit dificult to tell how big a thing the internet (and the availability of information in general) has changed things like this from 20 years ago - when most people would only be reading a paper (with very limited space in it) or heairng a bief tv headline. Now we are surrounded by any information we want within a few seconds and this puts an artificial bias on more recent years (sorry bit of a rant but hopefully you can see where Im going)
Sports betting has also seemingly got much bigger (I know there were bookies decades ago, but I seem to recall the majority of them really only catered for horse racing and not as much varied sports as it is today)
Just some of the reasons why I dont thnk the same things that Senna et al got away with nearly 1/4 of a century ago are as relevant today
Last edited: