Poll: F1 2022 - Pre-season testing and discussion

Who will win the 2022 Formula 1 constructor's title ?

  • Total voters
    224
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
jaybee said:
I think I read that if 80% of teams agree about pretty much anything being too advantageous on a car, it can be banned. That can't be right surely? Otherwise what is the point in any team coming up with a good new idea and pushing boundaries.
I'll be really annoyed if we keep seeing cars being told to drop things like DAS and possibly these new smaller side pods. It's just more manipulation for a "show" and not the pinnacle of car design and competitivity. It hampers progress and penalises engineers for doing a good job.

It seems to be double standards as well. Braun were allowed to keep the double diffuser thing dominating for an entire season and won the champ due to it. But other teams got asked to drop things more quickly. Sometimes to drop things for the following season. I still don't like it. It's all a bit too controlled for my liking, and where you bring in control to make things "close" and "for the fans" it massively complicated where the line is between interfering and allowing racing and competitivity and winding things back in to make it all closer. Merc have suffered this with the low rake car thing as well. It just feels like Redbull (and Ferrari a lot in the past) cry "they're too fast due to X" and then the FIA sympathise for the babies. It feels very amateur. At the height of other sports we see budget capping and fair play procedures - which again are mainly financial - but never would we see a football team be told to not take corners in a certain way because they are too effective.
Click to expand...


Based on the end of last season, F1 doesn't seem to take itself seriously as competitive sport anymore. It's becoming more centered round the show/spectacle than the sport/technical innovation.

We had a driver go nuts and cut corners continuously, intentionally push people of the track, and brake test his main competitor all in the second to last race and he didn't get disqualified, or even a penalty that made any difference to him. This was clearly done to manipulate a showdown for the last race.
 
jaybee said:
I think I read that if 80% of teams agree about pretty much anything being too advantageous on a car, it can be banned. That can't be right surely? Otherwise what is the point in any team coming up with a good new idea and pushing boundaries.
Click to expand...

That's not quite correct. It's the FIA that would suggest a rule change; it's just that it now needs 80% agreement rather than 100% to get passed by the teams. The teams can't just club together to stop stuff.

I'll be really annoyed if we keep seeing cars being told to drop things like DAS and possibly these new smaller side pods. It's just more manipulation for a "show" and not the pinnacle of car design and competitivity. It hampers progress and penalises engineers for doing a good job.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think the DAS ban was peak bad-ban; let them innovate. Especially now we have a budget cap I don't see any good reason to be restrictive about it; it's not like teams can buy their way to the front in the same way anymore.
 
Mr Jack said:
That's not quite correct. It's the FIA that would suggest a rule change; it's just that it now needs 80% agreement rather than 100% to get passed by the teams. The teams can't just club together to stop stuff.



Yeah. I think the DAS ban was peak bad-ban; let them innovate. Especially now we have a budget cap I don't see any good reason to be restrictive about it; it's not like teams can buy their way to the front in the same way anymore.
Click to expand...


Surely now there is a budget cap, it is more important than ever to be more restrictive.

If one team comes up with something, it will cost loads if all others then have to copy it, taking resources away from other aspects.
 
Entai said:
If one team comes up with something, it will cost loads if all others then have to copy it, taking resources away from other aspects.
Click to expand...

Usually it costs less to copy something than develop it in the first place. But the point of a cap is to put them on an equal development footing; may the team that thrives under those rules win. Let them develop.
 
Mr Jack said:
Usually it costs less to copy something than develop it in the first place. But the point of a cap is to put them on an equal development footing; may the team that thrives under those rules win. Let them develop.
Click to expand...


Well they are all developing well, hence ten almost completely different cars.

Just that if for instance, the Merc no sidepod, does indeed turn into a huge performance advantage, all other teams will want to copy it, resulting in massive changes to chassis, power trains and packaging.

None of the other teams have budgeted to do that and it will mean dropping all development they were doing on their own design/development avenues, as money will have to be put into the other route.

Now in contrast, FIA decide to say sorry, you must have a sidepod and specify exactly what they mean by that , only one team has to redevelop, thus not making 9 other teams spend a load, only one team has to put their Barca bodywork back on.
 
Entai said:
Well they are all developing well, hence ten almost completely different cars.

Just that if for instance, the Merc no sidepod, does indeed turn into a huge performance advantage, all other teams will want to copy it, resulting in massive changes to chassis, power trains and packaging.

None of the other teams have budgeted to do that and it will mean dropping all development they were doing on their own design/development avenues, as money will have to be put into the other route.

Now in contrast, FIA decide to say sorry, you must have a sidepod and specify exactly what they mean by that , only one team has to redevelop, thus not making 9 other teams spend a load, only one team has to put their Barca bodywork back on.
Click to expand...

Equally though, Mercedes have spent their budget on a legal modification - surely the reverse is that they will be penalised for being revolutionary but being subsequently banned from using it. Should they have their development costs reimbursed / added to the budget to keep it fair?

[Edit] They probably used a considerable amount of their allotted wind tunnel time developing and testing the new pods too.
 
ci_newman said:
Equally though, Mercedes have spent their budget on a legal modification - surely the reverse is that they will be penalised for being revolutionary but being subsequently banned from using it. Should they have their development costs reimbursed / added to the budget to keep it fair?

[Edit] They probably used a considerable amount of their allotted wind tunnel time developing and testing the new pods too.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. We add complication by allowing the teams that are behind to artificially catch up. It's all a bit "make it up as you go along" for me. If you want control, turn F1 into a championship where you all race the same chassis and body work and engine. There are already motorsport classes like this all over the world though and F1 has always been about the spectacle of watching teams do battle in design as well as drivers trying to get the beasts to work.
 
Entai said:
Surely now there is a budget cap, it is more important than ever to be more restrictive.

If one team comes up with something, it will cost loads if all others then have to copy it, taking resources away from other aspects.
Click to expand...

might as well make it a spec series then incase someone comes up with something clever.
 
utajoker said:
do we think we will see any 'fast' times end of today or tomorrow?
Click to expand...


Possibly see some fast (ish) times late tomorrow or saturday, but more likely the fast times and the display of what these cars can really do will not be untill next weekends qualifying.
 
utajoker said:
might as well make it a spec series then incase someone comes up with something clever.
Click to expand...


Not at all.

I think it is right to let teams develop out of the box, but the issue comes when other teams are then forced to copy it.

Exactly as with double diffusers, and DAS etc, let the team use the benefit of their development for a year, then ban it the year after.

Will stop other teams having to copy, and that might allow others to develop something different to get the benefit of for a year.
 
The memories coming back listening to Jean Alesi.

Standing in the pit lane awaiting your car to come in, with other cars passing you at well over 120-140 mph literally inches away at times.

Then a year later, after pitlane speed limit put in, and standing there, thinking you wish your driver would get a ******* move on as it is taking ages upon ages for him to travel down the lane to your pitbox.
 
Entai said:
I think it is right to let teams develop out of the box, but the issue comes when other teams are then forced to copy it.
Click to expand...

Things other teams are forced to copy are very rare; even when something is a benefit, they need to decide whether the benefit is worth spending on. There are enough rules designed to create a level playing field now, we don't need to ban stuff just because a team comes up with something clever. Unless it is dangerous or fundamentally undermines the intent of rules changes (such as an innovation that restores dirty air in the current regs), teams that successfully innovate should be allowed to continue to profit from their innovations. This is a technical sport, after all.
 
Jono8 said:
Man I hadn't realised how bad this porpoising thing was!

https://streamable.com/wwsmng
Click to expand...

Most of the clips kicking around are examples of the worst porpoising the teams experienced during the day. If you watch more of the session (I have it on in the background) then you'll see that most of the cars, most of the time, don't have anything like that level of problem.

It's certainly a big issue for the teams, but it won't be as bad as that clip suggests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom