F1 2013 - The begining of the end
- Thread starter Skeeter
- Start date
Yeah, why don't the WTCC diesel cars run on used chip fat"Pssssssst.... Did you know there are cars that run on old chip fat these days? I think it could be good publicity to get Harry Ramsdens into a sponsorship deal"
Renault built two championship-winning cars on nothing like the budget that Ferrari and McLaren were throwing at their efforts. Perhaps you remember the driver they had at the time, what was his name....Fred something? Or Ferdinand....Fernando! Fernando Alonso, that was it.
The mass damper is the prime example of it. They were the first to come out with the system, and the only ones who apparently made it really work. Ferrari tried it, and didn't really get to grips with it. McLaren either didn't try it, or tried it and couldn't get it to work at all (indeed, Briatore reckoned it was McLaren who complained to the FIA about the device). The mass damper gets banned....and Renault have been in no-man's land ever since, with one good win and one dirty win since the end of the '06 season.
The history of Formula One is replete with examples of smaller teams taking on larger, better funded outfits and coming out covered in glory. The British garagiste teams of the '50s and '60s, Tyrrell at many points in the past, Jordan starring on occasion (especially in '99 with Frentzen still in the title hunt until very near the end), Ligier at Monaco in '96....
I'm not sure what the respective budgets were for Renault and Ferrari, in 2005/6. But, Renault are a works team and I would hardly describe them as a small team.
This answers my question.
So we are looking at Jordan in 1999. That's 11 years ago.
The problem with giving more leeway (with regards to the regulations), to allow smaller teams to develop something ingenious (and beat the bigger teams), is that this rarely happens. More often than not the bigger teams will get a lot more out of the regulations than a smaller outfit.
But I'm sure even you wouldn't argue with me when I say that Renault are a smaller team than Ferrari, have a smaller budget than Ferrari, and did kick Ferrari's tail two years running?
Oh, you would? Okay then.
The biggest problem that teams with less funds used to have wasn't that they couldn't afford to delevop anything, or that they couldn't afford to hire truly great talent. It was that they couldn't afford a decent engine. Look at the entry list back in 2001 - Minardi, despite a pretty tidy effort by Gustav Brunner with the car design, were pretty much hamstrung by some ancient pile of crap nailed into the back of their car. Arrows were using free Asiatech motors, based on a Peugeot design so ancient that the engine block was made out of stone. Minardi's Brunner and Arrows' Mike Coughlan and Sergio Rinland designs might have been halfway decent, but we'll never know because they had no horsepower. Now that the FIA appears hell-bent on introducing a spec-engine we might see that situation change IF the FIA allow some freedom in the chassis department.
But of course, they won't. No, I'm afraid we can look forward to several more years yet of richer teams spending the money required to fund a small nuclear war (or vast conventional one) on finding little aero gains here and there to try and grab a quarter of a second.
Joygasm.
No argument there. But then Ferrari have traditionally always had the biggest budget in F1. Only when Toyota came in to F1 and had an almost unlimited budget was Ferrari's budget dwarfed.
The fact remains that Renault, in no way could be could be described as a small team. they had a great team when they won the titles - a decent designer, a great boss who had previously taken MSc to the top, a fantastic driver - all the ingredients were there.
...and this will always be the case with F1. F1 is the pinnacle of international motor racing and as such budgets are always going to be high. The top teams will always aim to have the best equipment, factories, personnel etc. The lesser teams will always struggle, no matter how much leeway the FIA give designers. Last year was a very good example, where the new teams were being referred to as the 'B' teams.
These 'B' teams, could've developed the F-Duct. They could've developed the flexi wing. They could've developed the diffuser, which makes use of exhaust gases. But they didn't. Why? Because they were concentrating on getting the basics rights. Another reason might be because the bigger teams have the best design teams in F1, so it stands to reason that the best ideas for (experimental) designs will come from these teams and not from the smaller teams. Furthermore, the more established teams have simulators which allow designs to be tested before they are ever created (for real). This allows a team to test more designs, in a shorter space of time.
Given the above, my belief is that the more leeway you give designers, the further the bigger teams will pull away from the smaller teams. This would be the case, even if all the engines being used by all the teams were identical.
Part of me still thinks that this stoppped being motor racing, as in a sport, when they didn't kick Renault to the kerb for ordering an emotionally vulnerable driver to crash in return for a contract that they had no intention of giving him anyway. Anything more that TPTB do now to ruin it....meh, so what?
The other part of me still rails at it all though, and wants to see the old Formula One back. The one that went away at the end of 1993. Doesn't have to be a close championship fight, going down to the wire with three or four contenders. It just needs to be Formula One, the pinnacle of racing technology, a glorious bunfight with constructors able to pursue ever more imaginative means of making their car quicker and drivers finding ever more imaginitive means of hanging onto it and getting past the guy in front.
We're not going to get that with everyone having to build a standard engine with a standard ECU with pretty much standardised aero on standardised tracks with a rulebook that leaves them in fear of doing anything slightly out of the ordinary like, ooh, overtaking.
If they want six wheels, let them have six wheels (but limit the pitcrews so that there is a penalty there in the time to change them). If they want a V12 engine, then fine - as long as the displacement matches the regulation, and as long as they can get it to the flag with the prescribed fuel limit then go right ahead. If they want active ride, then let them get it done - perhaps with a weight penalty. KERS - absolutely, but none of this 'can only use it for 7 seconds a lap' bull-****. Turbodiesel engines - see if Audi want to come and play with an equivalency formula. Gas turbines - that outfit that made those ones for the new Jaguar supercar concept might get involved.
Actually allow the teams and manufacturers to develop engine and electronic technology that would have real-world applications, rather than develop F1-specific stuff that could never be used for anything else, and you might see someone other than frappin' Santander get their name plastered on advertising boards around the tracks....
Exactly! And if you read what I've posted repeatedly, I don't want to see completely standardised teams. Yet you tell me I should be watching spec series because I dared to suggest I agreed with some rules. That's pretty much the definition of a fallacy. If you didn't get that my response of pretending you don't favour regulations was purely hypothetical, then don't bother working any of that out.
When I said I hoped creativity was stifled in developing aero, I don't mean I hope all creativity was stifled, just that it was encouraged in other directions, away from aerodynamics and other areas that won't be particularly conducive to good racing, towards those that might be, like better grip. or so forth.
As to how me making my own magical list of what F1 should do wouldn't be worthwhile, that's because I don't see the point. Sure, I could sit here and write up a set of ideas on what should change (rocket launchers on cars for excitement, loop-the-loops, more dancing girls), and argue for them until I'm blue in the face. Hey, I could possibly even win a general consensus from here that my ideas are quite good. Then I could grow a massive, unsubstantiated ego about how I obviously know better than the people in charge, and if my changes were ever accepted (Oh but if they would only listen!), I could revolutionise racing forever. Except that, you know, no-one in Formula 1 cares about what some random nobody on an internet computing forum says, so why bother getting myself worked up?
Far easier to just decide whether or not I like the decisions they make, and then judge the end product when it appears. Works much better for me, I find.
You obky said that you agree to the rules, so makes it hard to realise it's only some. You have now said you want devlopment, but these rules do not allow devlopment, only tiny amounts of very expensive aero. Also in a far shorter post you could say which rules uou agree with or don't, rather than writting and essay saying there's no point. There is a point so we can see your view and then we would know you dont agree with all the rules.
Last edited:
schumacher got someone going into there at suzuka im sure? rosberg tried it on someone aswell but went slightly wide
there were other ocasions where cars were going side by side around it aswell
Nope the big one they all wet themselves over was Alonso. Never seen MS pass anyone in the 130R. It just isn't possible in the dry. The car in the lead would have had to be going very slowly. It's neither wide or long enough to get alongside in the 130R.
Love to be corrected on that and see evidence of two cars side by side in the 130R at race pace
Love to be corrected on that and see evidence of two cars side by side in the 130R at race pace
That was the awesome, I remember it clearly, but seeing it again - really something else. Roll on '11.
That WAS Alonso.
Now a days he would have sat behind him for 40 laps complaining that he didn't get out of his way.
That Renault had the Mass Damper on it for one, secondly the engine was better than the Ferrari one ... so he had plenty of advantage in handling and power to pull that off
Modern cars just do not allow for that really, plus driver's are more cautious now
Yes, it did. Pity it got banned the way it did, really - it was a completely BS ruling. They should have let them run to the end of '06 with it and then banned it if they really wanted it banned. But I still don't see how it can be called a moveable aerodynamic device....
LOL, was it hell better than the Ferrari engine. He got a good run out of the Spoon curve thanks to a superior tyre, a bloody good tow up the hill, and had the move pretty much complete before they even got to 130R.
Had the tyre situation been a bit different, I'm not sure ol' Freddy would have had such an easy time taking that place. But I might be wrong. Maybe he really is 'The Daddy', as sunama says. I just don't see it myself.
Yep and as I said thats not an overtake in the 130R it was before it and he swept in to take the racing line. There is no way in hell you could go side by side at racing speeds through the 130R.
MS was mugged again, he just didn't expect it. He should have had that covered all the way.
As JRS said it wasn't so much the engine but the tyres. Expanding on that the renault traction has always been awesome exiting corners since the illegal/legal TC runnning. I remember when everyone was running illegal mapping systems in the early 2000's and watching the renault at barcelona. You could hear it was using far less TC than all the other cars by some margin.
That mixed with Alonsos ability to get the best out of tyres gave him a couple of great years.
I forgot about TC. God early 2000 cars with TC sounded dreadfull comming out of a corner! Sounded like they were running over catle grids! I can however remeber Renaults were much lighter on it, and the Jordans were the worst.
So, by previous experience, with these massive changes in 2013 it will be the team who scrap 2012 first to focus on new regulations that become champions in 2013? HRT as Constructors Champions in 2013?
So, by previous experience, with these massive changes in 2013 it will be the team who scrap 2012 first to focus on new regulations that become champions in 2013? HRT as Constructors Champions in 2013?
So, by previous experience, with these massive changes in 2013 it will be the team who scrap 2012 first to focus on new regulations that become champions in 2013? HRT as Constructors Champions in 2013?
I highly doubt this.
Yes, Honda/Brawn achieved this in 2009, however, this is the first time in a long time that this has happened. Furthermore Brawn used the MASSIVE resources of Honda to produce that car. Once the "Honda-effect" dissipated, Brawn began to go backwards.
In general, if you are competitive in a given year, the next year should see that trend to continue. McLaren suffered badly in 2009 (after winning the title in 2008) and seemed to go backwards...but this is very rare.
The previous times when we have had major revisions, in general, the status quo has been maintained.
In saying all of the above, major revisions to the regs, gives midfield teams a much higher chance of making progress towards the front of the grid (over the Winter). Expect the larger teams though, with their bigger budgets, to gradually move forward (which is what McLaren did in 2009), if they do happen to initially produce a bad car.