F1 2009 Season discussion/development thread

Overlag said:
uk government wont even pay for upgrades to silverstone, so why the hell pay for honda? lool
Click to expand...

Because honda actually employs around 700 people, I very highly doubt silverstone employ that many - add to that there is no chance of silverstone going under (losing the British Grand Prix should actually help their bank balance somewhat).
 
Honda already discounted that claim. They have looked for advice from the body, not money.

Today is the last day, although they may have already been bought but no announcement thus far.
 
Anyone see this yet?

Linkydink

It's a look at how the GP championships over the years would have worked out if medals ruled the day rather than points. Some interesting changes, helping some drivers and screwing others over.

I can see where Bernie is coming from with this. A win needs to mean something more than an extra two frappin' points. Otherwise, what's the point? Just drive a season like Keke Rosberg in '82 - win once, and make sure you finish every other race high enough that you can take advantage of your faster rivals stacking it (the medal system would have meant Didier Pironi took the '82 title, irritatingly). And when he did that there was a three point gap between winning and finishing second.

I don't think medals are the answer. That's just silliness. I think a serious re-think of the points system might be an idea though. There needs to be a much bigger gap between each placing in the standings. I keep thinking and re-thinking the idea. My current one is this:

1st - 20
2nd - 15
3rd - 10
4th - 6
5th - 3
6th - 1

The 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system was brought in to halt the Schumacher-Ferrari juggernaut. It failed miserably. Oh, sure, the first season was reasonably close (although never really in doubt after Indy). But 2004 was a redwash. They needed to hobble Bridgestone in '05 to let someone else have a real chance - and even then, the rule change for that led almost directly to the Indy '05 debacle with a bit of help from some Michelin muppetry. So why don't we try a points system that rewards going for a higher placing as opposed to sitting back and consolidating the position you have? The fans want overtaking, because they want something to watch. TPTB want overtaking, as they need the fans. And the drivers would overtake if it was worth the risk.

So lets make it worth the ******* risk!
 
Its a good article that one.

But one thing is evident. Despite his knockers, even under different points scoring systems, MS still finishes ahead of everybody else.
 
JRS said:
TPTB want overtaking, as they need the fans. And the drivers would overtake if it was worth the risk.
Click to expand...

I think the TPTB want to manipulate the championship to make it as close as possible. I dont think they really want to see more overtaking.

In 2008, it appeared that whenever there was a hard overtaking manouvre, the driver in question was getting penalised. Its a shame, as that will definitely alter the way some drivers think during the race, with regards to overtaking. Luckily though, Hamilton is so damn aggressive, he doesnt seem to give a damn and just continues to drive aggressively.

This year's championship should be very interesting, as the rule changes have been so comprehensive.

Personally, I think that once again the 2 Ferraris and Hamilton will be the ones who will win most of the races.

The wildcard is Alonso - we just dont know how good the Renault will be. If its good, then he could well win this year's title.

Although CSI wont like me saying this, I feel Red Bull in 2009 are going to be playing catch-up, due to the late release of their car. Given that testing is being limited, it is catastrophic to miss any of the testing sessions that are available to teams and Red Bull will (and have already) done exactly that. Its a shame because for the first time, they actually have a top-line driver.

Needless to say, I can't wait for Australia.
 
The FIA want to see a bigger difference between the two tyre compounds Bridgestone bring to each race next year. They feel that there hasn't been enough difference in the past, leading to their bull**** rule about having to use both compounds in a race being a bit of an exercise in pointlessness.

I just got this crazy idea. Instead of Bridgestone having to bring two tyres with big differences which will inevitably lead to one being utterly unsuited to serious racing, how about they bring just one tyre and we scrap this utterly retarded rule?

Also, RIP Teddy Mayer :(
 
JRS said:
I just got this crazy idea. Instead of Bridgestone having to bring two tyres with big differences which will inevitably lead to one being utterly unsuited to serious racing, how about they bring just one tyre and we scrap this utterly retarded rule?
Click to expand...


Would fit in well with the whole cost cutting side of the FIA master plan, so I think the chances of it happening are low. Also sad news about Teddy Mayer.
 
gord said:
I concur, why develop 1 tyre when you can develop 2 for twice the price?
Click to expand...

Much like another great idea, want to cut your costs? Well why not develop an expensive, complicated and possibly unreliable KERS system! While your at it why not completely re-design your cars to yet another rule change!
 
I'm all for getting rid of the 2 tyre rule - It is retarded.
The FIA want drivers to win on out and out merit - yet force them to have to use a lesser tire, granted all drivers have to use it, but why? There isn't a single positive behind it for anyone watching.
 
Bridgstone would still need to develop several different compounds as different ones are more suited to certain tracks.

I do agree though, the utterly artificial "must use 2 different compounds in a race" rule is a bit ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom