Malaysian GP 2009 - Race 2/17

NightSt@lk3r · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:02

AcidHell2 said:
and body work and size rules so relaxed, that cars look ultra different and you will get vastly different designs,

then your back to boring follow the leader precession like the last few years, no thanks.

Glaucus · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:02

Nismo said:
I seriously doubt F1 will ever see such openness to car design.

You are right, but it sad. The only time i can think of when cars will be very different again. Is when they allow fuel cells and electric motor combo.
Half running petrol, half running electric.

rypt · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:03

Nismo said:
I seriously doubt F1 will ever see such openness to car design. The fact that it used to happen and doesn't anymore should be telling.

It's telling of how the FIA have royally screwed over the idea of motorsports with both rally and F1 by limiting what can and can't be done arbitrarily (beyond a certain point .. ie F1 cars should be formula cars yes not LMP cars).

Glaucus · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:03

NightSt@lk3r said:
then your back to boring follow the leader precession like the last few years, no thanks.

but it wouldn't as the cars would be so different. And it's follow the leader again this year. There is no design difference between the cars.

rypt · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:04

Christo said:
The restrictions are in place for safety and passing reasons

As I said, safety can be mandated in other ways without making cars slower

NightSt@lk3r said:
then your back to boring follow the leader precession like the last few years, no thanks.

Moveable aero solves that problem

Christo · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:07

rypt said:
As I said, safety can be mandated in other ways without making cars slower

So you'll admit your original argument about weather, which you seem to have shifted to one of general regulations is ridiculous?

rypt · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:08

Christo said:
So you'll admit your original argument about weather, which you seem to have shifted to one of general regulations is ridiculous?

I still say that unless you seriously cannot see where you are going that the race should go on, even if it rains are cars aquaplane badly.
(ie Fuji last year should not have had an SC, as while bad visibility it was not "darkness" like today)

Pete19s · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:12

rypt said:
I want F1 cars to have fewer restrictions placed on them and have the season throw all sorts of curve balls with respect to race conditions so that different teams take different approaches to their cars.

The teams do all take different approaches to the cars, bar the Red Bull & Torro Rosso no 2 cars are similar. You just have to look at them too notice that. Currently the cars are designed to be quick at every track, whats the point on going hmmm there may be very heavy rain in Malaysia so better make a car thats quick in heavy rain and compromise it at every other race? The restrictions are there for a reason, the new rules are there to try and make the racing more exciting which it has, cut costs and driver safety.

Christo · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:13

rypt said:
I still say that unless you seriously cannot see where you are going that the race should go on, even if it rains are cars aquaplane badly.
(ie Fuji last year should not have had an SC, as while bad visibility it was not "darkness" like today)

Well the race would have gone on and most cars would have crashed out, even so designers design their cars for maximum points, hence not for extreme conditions. It would make little difference to the design of cars - to address your original point. Again making your original point moot.

rypt · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:13

Pete19s said:
The restrictions are there for a reason, the new rules are there to try and make the racing more exciting

Moveable aero would have done that even with last year's cars.

dannyjo22 · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:15

Today was a bad downpour, but there does seem to have been a shift in the thinking of letting them race in the wet. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next race when rain falls reasonably hard to see how quick they stop them racing.

I was pleased to see Jenson wasn't one of the drivers walking up and down the pitlane telling all and sundry how bad it was and they should stop. He was still focused and concentrating on the race if it re-started. The rest of them had lost their heads and you could tell even if the sun came out they were not going racing again.

Kitchster_uk · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:16

rypt said:
I still say that unless you seriously cannot see where you are going that the race should go on, even if it rains are cars aquaplane badly.
(ie Fuji last year should not have had an SC, as while bad visibility it was not "darkness" like today)

The drivers couldn't see today because of spray...

NathanE · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:27

rypt said:
Moveable aero would have done that even with last year's cars.

You know more than all the F1 technical directors then. Clearly.

JRS · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:28

Christo said:
Correction. That we know of..

No, once again my point stands. McLaren lied ineptly - they got caught. Others, if they have lied, haven't been caught and thus weren't inept

rypt · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:31

NathanE said:
You know more than all the F1 technical directors then. Clearly.

I know more than Max Mosley yes.
Moveable aero would have also made cars faster

Wolf11 · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:32

I am pleased the regs are so tight as they have made the racing on the whole much closer this year.

Imagine if the regs were "anything goes" how you might have one team that has a car that can lap the whole field and win every race -would be totally and utterly boring to watch.

NathanE · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:33

rypt said:
They might be the fastest motorsport car, but they are not the pinnacle as they could be even faster. Much like today's rally cars, they could all be a lot faster (Group B anyone?)

A sport without rules or with lax rules is just chaos though. And as technology advances so to does the amount of ways that the rules can be exploited.

You will always hear people asking why don't they just go back to the rules from the 1970's. A golden era for F1. But if they did that the cars would not look anything like they did back then. Because those rules back then were designed to prevent "obvious exploits" back then, not for today.

F1 is the pinnacle because no other motorsport lets cars travel so fast and corner so fast.

Just because, in theory, they could go EVEN faster does not mean it is not the pinnacle. There are always going to be limits. Whether to make things fair between the teams in terms of budget or safety reasons...

NathanE · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:36

rypt said:
I know more than Max Mosley yes.
Moveable aero would have also made cars faster

MM has nothing to do with it. The new rules were designed by the Overtaking Working Group (OWG). This is basically just all the influential F1 technical directors.

Point the front wing of a 2008-spec car in different angles it was not designed for (like you are asking) is just going to ruin the airflow over the rest of the car and it will lose critical downforce and crash. This is WHY the 2009 cars look completely different... because major changes had to be made in order to get the cars racing closer together.

TaKeN · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:36

Was a great race to watch until the rain called it off!

Some great competition

Christo · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:40

JRS said:
No, once again my point stands. McLaren lied ineptly - they got caught. Others, if they have lied, haven't been caught and thus weren't inept

I agree that they just shouldnt have got caught! (and I agreed with you before..) But the comment I was commenting on you just flat out implied McClaren are the only ones doing it - which is rather an incorrect statement.