Chinese Grand Prix 2013, Shanghai - Race 3/19

The FIA tried to get the 2014 rules to have significant cuts in aero grip.
The team didn't like the plans.
The rules now don't include anywhere near as extreme reductions in aero.

Its a battle we wont win. Big changes mean big costs and big risks (look at how the order at the front changed in 2009). The teams don't want the expense and the risk. They would rather carry on as they are now.
 
Andrew Benson BBC 'There are rumours that Pirelli will supply more durable tyres from the start of the European season in Spain next month - which they will not comment on for now - but is hard to imagine them deviating too far from a model they have pursued for three years.

Of course, it is possible to engage in a wider philosophical argument about whether F1 wants the current model to stay, but for now Raikkonen summed it up nicely when he was asked which form of the sport he preferred. "It makes no difference," he said, "because this is what we have and you'd better like it or do something else." '
 
Some race fans, paddock folk and media thought the race was boring which confuses me to be frank. I thought it was a really solid race and we didn't know the podium line up until the last few metres with the Hamilton/Vettel fight. We had six different leaders, nine lead changes, and an intriguing split strategy.

A very key aspect was that many of the midfield and tailenders elected to start on the soft compound, as the top seven were obliged to do. This meant that when the sharp end of the grid had to pit very early in the race they had a lot less traffic to contend with when they emerged from the pits, and it cost them very little time against the new leaders like Hulkenberg, Vettel and Button who had started on the much more durable medium compound. And so thankfully, those who had bothered to do a qualifying lap were rewarded.

I remember the painful days when we used to line the cars up with the fastest at the front and the slowest at the back on super durable tyres, and then be disappointed that they finished largely in that order. So I'm happy to stand on the grid having conversations with people much cleverer than me who also have no idea who's going to win. I do think that the tyre degradation and difference between the two compounds are a little extreme right now, but Alonso showed perfectly well that it's manageable. As did Red Bull in Malaysia.

It does mean though that you really have to pay attention to the race and frankly anybody in the grandstands who doesn't have clear and consistent commentary or pictures and data available must be in the dark as to what's happening once the many and varied pit stops begin. They are complex races without doubt.

Martin Brundle - http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1...class-but-qualifying-and-DRS-far-from-perfect
 
I prefer them to the alternatives, just. DRS is less crap than endless laps of drivers stuck behind each other, and the Pirelli tyres causing overtaking are less crap than everyone just passing in the pits with refueling.

Yeh I'm inclined to agree, as much as I find it frustrating at times! Can't have everything :)
It's never going to all be pure wheel to wheel racing with nothing artificial with the level of aerodynamics that the cars have at the moment.

Like Mr Men said, on paper having less aero, steel brakes and manual gear boxes would make the racing more exciting.

I think the thing that bugs me most at the moment, isn't the easy DRS passing or the tyres going off. It's the sheer amount of marbles making going off the driving line something that is actually going to cost you so much time due to lack of grip!
 
Brundle said:
We had six different leaders, nine lead changes, and an intriguing split strategy.

This comment from Brundle intrigues me. Does he think that lead changes, when the leader of the race pits earlier and the second place man briefly becomes leader means that the race is more exciting than when the leader pits later and retains the lead? Because from where I'm sitting, that doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
 
This comment from Brundle intrigues me. Does he think that lead changes, when the leader of the race pits earlier and the second place man briefly becomes leader means that the race is more exciting than when the leader pits later and retains the lead? Because from where I'm sitting, that doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Indeed. I think brundle is just trying to big it up so he doesnt end up out of a job :p

To be honest the commenators always try and inject some excitement when someone else takes the lead, especially if it is a fast car/top runner. Most of the time it is utterly meaningless as it just means everyone ahead of them has already pitted. Big woop.
 
Also, to get the 'intriguing split strategy' we had to suffer a complete farce of a Qualifying session.
To be fair, the intriguing bit came through only what happened in the last session. Jenson was never going to get higher than 8th anyway so it made sense to go out and do a slow lap on the harder tyre. It was only Vettel and Hulk who didn't bother.

The lack of anyone coming out for the majority of the early sessions was separate to the split strategy and just due to a lack of tyres. I hope Pirelli do start providing more tyres, even if they don't provide longer lasting ones.

Silverstone last year was really frustrating seeing barely any track action until a few qualifying laps.
 
Just watched the highlights (silly oclock racers are too early in the season for me to get up for them)

Start and finish good fun, shame the middle bit was so boring it could be cut out.

Fred for the title everyone yeah?
 
Morning races are great - means you are free for the rest of the day.

It also means you can record them and fast forward the fluff.

I'd much rather wake up to the final result than get up at 9am and watch a 1hr build up of Mr Damon "camp" Hill talking about tyres.
 
Also, to get the 'intriguing split strategy' we had to suffer a complete farce of a Qualifying session.

Two things to consider here (while Im not disagreeing with q3 being a farce)

1) If teams are forced to put in a proper qualifying time, you are also forcing them to be less competitive (and all that this involves, including potentially less income at the end of the year, and therefore loss of jobs etc etc)

2) F1 is more about the race than about qualifying. Its unlikely JB and SV would have led the race for as long as they did/ at all if they hadn't gone with the strategy they chose on Fri/Sat. If 1) Is forced upon them you might get more interesting qualifying but a less interesting race........which is more important? To most fans I would suggest its the latter.

In a perfect world, you would have interest in both qualifying and the race (current situation with three different sessions isn't much better than the 1 session of one hour from years ago in some cases) but if its between one or the other , it has to be more interest in the race.
 
Back
Top Bottom