F1 - Montreal

tailwindhome

EKE_38BPM wrote:

dhope wrote:

And not a sport? How? What *exactly* qualifies something as a sport. F1 not a sport, but touring cars are, or Moto GP? Or nothing with engines. How about Snooker, or Darts?

I don't see Golf or Darts as sports. To me, even many athletic events are border-line.
I think that in a sport you should be able to effect and interfere with your opposition (a tackle in football, moving your opponent around the court in Tennis, an overtake in motorsport etc) to prevent them gaining an advantage or scoring points.
In Golf, all you can do is play your own game as well as you can and hope the pressure you apply puts your opponent off their game.
Connect 4 is more of a sport than Golf.

I fully expect to get flamed, but I don't see my mind being changed.
I'm with Lee Evans when it comes to Golf: Golf is long distance snooker for w4nkers.

That's the most bizarre opinion ever.

By that definition Formula One is more of a sport than a cycling time trial.

dhope

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I don't see Golf or Darts as sports. To me, even many athletic events are border-line.
I think that in a sport you should be able to effect and interfere with your opposition (a tackle in football, moving your opponent around the court in Tennis, an overtake in motorsport etc) to prevent them gaining an advantage or scoring points.

Kind of agree, but then if Golf isn't a sport then neither is the 100m final, and not sure I'd agree there. Just two types of sport.

Apply the logic to cycling and individual pursuit wouldn't be a sport (fewer tactics, just go fast) but individual sprint would be.

desweller

I don't have a problem with DRS. It's simply a formalised version of the blown rear wing that McLaren invented last year, except a bit more controlled and a bit safer.

The alternative with the current aerodynamic regs is lap after lap of faster drivers stuck behind slow ones, so until they mandate generation of front end downforce by means other than the front wing they have to give the drivers a way of compensating for the loss of front-end grip when following another car closely.

Almost no form of motorsport is a test of the driver. In F1, the car and team are arguably the most important elements of getting the performance right; a mediocre driver can win in a great car. If you want a driver-only contest then go watch one of the one-make series.

dhope

DesWeller wrote:

Almost no form of motorsport is a test of the driver. In F1, the car and team are arguably the most important elements of getting the performance right; a mediocre driver can win in a great car. If you want a driver-only contest then go watch one of the one-make series.

A mediocre driver can win a few races with a great car, or the other way around. Certainly you can get good (but not always legendary) drivers winning championships but the technology is part of the draw for me. I like Brawn's double diffusers, Red Bull using the exhaust during braking to generate increased downforce and picking the correct moments to pit to exploit an undercut. It's a team sport, and the mechanics' ingenuity is just as important as the drivers' racecraft.
As you say, if you want driver skill only then head to karting or A1 but know that the best drivers wont be there either as they'll be looking to move onto F1

DonDaddyD

I disagree it's still about the driver (but also about the car).

A car can be faster or clearly fastest around the track.

A faster (more skillful) driver on race day can win the race in a slower car because he should be capable of getting past the slower and less skillful driver around the track (especially if he attacks in corners as we've seen with past greats inc Hamilton).

We saw this yesterday. The Red Bull's are arguably faster than the McLaren's, however, Mark Webber wasn't able to fend off Button despite having the faster car and couldn't keep up with Button because Button was faster around the track (tyres be damned). Alonso in a Ferrari has also demonstrated many times being in a slower car but faster during the race around the track than cars faster or as competitive as his.

Currently what we have is one of the fastest drivers, in Vettel, in arguably the fastest car. DRS ain't gonna do much you just have to drive better than him. Still, take him out of the equation for a moment and it's a toss up between Alonso, Button, Webber and Hamilton regardless of the car.

Paul E

DonDaddyD wrote:

I disagree it's still about the driver (but also about the car).

We saw this yesterday. The Red Bull's are arguably faster than the McLaren's, however, Mark Webber wasn't able to fend off Button despite having the faster car and couldn't keep up with Button because Button was faster around the track (tyres be damned). Alonso in a Ferrari has also demonstrated many times being in a slower car but faster during the race around the track than cars faster or as competitive as his.

During the race the red bulls were not faster than button, otherwise vettel would have walked away from button when he was told button was closing on him, they have comparable tyres so that can be ruled out.

Sorry but being faster round the track means the car is faster.

dhope

Paul E wrote:

Sorry but being faster round the track means the car is probably not significantly slower.

meanredspider

Paul E wrote:

Sorry but being faster round the track means the car is faster.

Simply untrue.

CiB

Can't agree chaps, certainly not about DRS making it all about the car.

Go back to when F1 was routine & dull. There was no overtaking because of the similarity between the cars, so no matter how good a position a driver was in a successful overtake was usually unlikely in the short space available. DRS allows a driver who has created a possible overtake to have more chance of completing it.

And despite what anyone might think, trying to bring the speed down on a damp track in an open wheeler doing close on 190 to get though the next corner takes some degree of talent. I can't go with the idea that the driver is just a passenger, certainly not for the top boys. The argument that it's more about the the car than the driver is irrelevant. Except for the odd few - Senna, Villeneuve (G) and Shooomackuh, all of whom could drive anything onto a podium - top drivers & quickest cars will always attract each other. The driver has to be good enough to make the car work though.

And a big high-five for the driver that DDD flagged up, drifting to a few inches from the wall in Q on Saturday. That was neat, and dare I say it, cool. It was a good race to come late to like we did. I put the telly on at 9:20 thinking it was the highlights package.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

But you have to make it stick - if you can't pull more than a one second lead over the next lap, you get taken back. It is pretty good therefore at clearing out genuinely slower cars who are holding position by timing their one move on the straight to block the passer.

But DRS makes it all about the car.

I would argue that the more skillful driver is able to defend his position, by blocking the driver in the faster car while going around the track - especially the bends. I mean if your only chance of actual overtaking is on a straight because you're in the faster car added by DRS then I'm not really seeing any skill. It's why - despite my criticism - Hamilton is both an exciting and arguably most skillful driver on the track, he is prepared and has the skill to overtake during the race around the corners and not only rely on DRS.

But overtaking is almost always about the car. A simple pass on the straight is about one car have better aerodynamics, or more power, or lower weight (fuel) than the other car. A pass into a corner is about a car having tyres or brakes in better condition, or less fuel so it can brake later. Passes going into corners are as much about having large cojones, and being willing to risk the other guy turning in on you and crunching your front wing as much as anything else.

All that said, Lewis is definitely in a bad place mentally ATM. He's a very talented driver, but when he gets frustrated he makes mistakes very easiily.

Blocking by weaving is a bit crap, IMO. Blocking because the track is narrow is a challenge for the overtaker, but it can distort the race considerably: eg after the last SC, Shoemaker was holding up Webber and Button. But he had better traction out of the corners than Webber, so Webber had great difficulty getting close to Shoemaker on the straights.

Paul E

dhope wrote:

Paul E wrote:

Sorry but being faster round the track means the car is probably not slower.

another way of saying what I said in another way, if you go round a track quicker than someone else, your car is quicker than the other car, at that point in the race.

In canada, maclaren compromised thier qualifying for a better race setup which showed in the fact button went from being at the back to the front, their race pace has apart form a couple of races at the start been as good or better than the red bulls.

Red bulls tricky engines maps for qualifying may give them quick lap times over a single lap but are useless for long runs as it uses too much fuel and would burn out the exhaust system and the valves in the engine.

neiltb

wet weather was the equaliser yesterday. Was Vettels car faster than Buttons? Who was on pole again? The rain added uncertainty and dramatically increased the importance of the driver. Button was on it, finding grip before others and made fewer errors.

DRS was a huge factor yesterday, the problem was realising passing was difficult, it was good for getting you close and causing errors from those in front.

Great race spoiled by the over zealous use of the health and safety car.

EKE_38BPM

Button was faster partly because he went onto slicks two laps earlier than Vettel meaning his tyres were warmer and could give him more grip. Martin Whitmarsh said so in the interviews after the race.
Mclaren also set their car up for a wet race. It seems that the difference in set up is minor when compared to days gone by, but there is still a difference. Button had five pit stops, one drive through penalty, he went from 21st to 1st and may well have won without Vettel going off.

He was in a fast car, no doubt about that, but he is well known as being good in the wet.

A rubbish driver in a good car won't do as well as a good driver in a rubbish car.
It would be fun to see the drivers from the top three teams swap with the drivers of the bottom three teams. Vettel in a HRT, Button in a Virgin etc. I bet the lap times would be a dramatic improvement on what the usual pilots could manage and that the times of Karthikeyan et al would be way down on what Vettel would do in a Red Bull.

dhope

Paul E wrote:

dhope wrote:

Paul E wrote:

Sorry but being faster round the track means the car is probably not slower.

another way of saying what I said in another way, if you go round a track quicker than someone else, your car is quicker than the other car, at that point in the race.

In canada, maclaren compromised thier qualifying for a better race setup which showed in the fact button went from being at the back to the front, their race pace has apart form a couple of races at the start been as good or better than the red bulls.

Red bulls tricky engines maps for qualifying may give them quick lap times over a single lap but are useless for long runs as it uses too much fuel and would burn out the exhaust system and the valves in the engine.

I adjusted it to 'not significantly slower'. Alonso in a Hispania isn't going to get anywhere, certainly. Alonso in a Ferrari, he might just make it look competitive. Kovalainen in a McLaren wouldn't have driven through the field but Button in a McLaren on his day might just beat Vettel in a Red Bull. Buttons McLaren was faster at that point of the race because Button had found the confidence to drive it that way, not solely because the car was quicker.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

nation wrote:

. You can't run single-seaters when there's standing water on the track.

They used to. Spain '96 anyone?

It's worth taking a look at.

The way the cars are developing means they are not as stable in the wet as they used to be.

The authorities should look at that. Rain at races does happen, and the cars should be able to cope, else they rob the public of the spectacle.

Ah yes, but remember Suzuka in 1994. Red flagged for quite along time (then restarted with aggregated times, which was v tricky).

Bridgestone used to make a monsoon tyre. Can't recall the commentators referring to a Pirelli equivalent.

meanredspider

Greg66 wrote:

But overtaking is almost always about the car.

I can't agree - especially where cars are broadly in qualifying position. Then it's all about exiting the corner. Pretty much all of driver training is about having as much speed as possible OUT of the corner. Many (most) passes are either because one driver has done really well in the corner or (more likely) the other driver has cocked up. Take Lewis's attempted pass on Jensen - two (for all intents and purposes) identical cars but Lewis had him out of the corner & would have nailed him on the straight had there not been contact.

Based upon your premise, series like A1GP would be very very dull.

neiltb

dhope wrote:

Alonso in a Hispania isn't going to get anywhere, certainly.

It could be worse you could put him in a virgin.....ooer!!

desweller

Paul E wrote:

Red bulls tricky engines maps for qualifying may give them quick lap times over a single lap but are useless for long runs as it uses too much fuel and would burn out the exhaust system and the valves in the engine.

This is completely unfounded speculation (unless you work for Renault's F1 engine department or Red Bull Racing).

It could just as easily be that their DRS is much more effective than everyone else's, so their relative performance during races is less pronounced as they don't get to use it as much.

neiltb

nation wrote:

You can't run single-seaters when there's standing water on the track.

comments like that are what gives us red flags and safety cars at the first sight of rain..

The marshals did really well on the clean up, but the circuit did by a load of water clearing stuff for the NASCAR race they do, they had a wet race in that a few years ago after similar rain.

greg66_tri_v2.0

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Button was faster partly because he went onto slicks two laps earlier than Vettel meaning his tyres were warmer and could give him more grip. Martin Whitmarsh said so in the interviews after the race.
Mclaren also set their car up for a wet race.ll.

The heat in the tyres would have been lost under the last SC though. When it was Button chasing down Vettel, Button was simply able to conjure more grip from somewhere.

I remember the TV team saying Mclaren had gone for a wet race set up after qaulifying too. Also Christian Horner saying they had gone for a set up that covered wet & dry conditions (which I found pretty hard to believe at the time).

desweller

To be fair, Vettel did peg Button somewhat until he made his mistake. I think Vettel's analysis that he was too conservative is an accurate one; he had the pace to match Button but he didn't use it early enough, and perhaps he found it difficult to respond as he wasn't in the groove, leading to his mistake. I don't think Button would have passed him if he hadn't slid wide.

EKE_38BPM

Greg66 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Button was faster partly because he went onto slicks two laps earlier than Vettel meaning his tyres were warmer and could give him more grip. Martin Whitmarsh said so in the interviews after the race.
Mclaren also set their car up for a wet race.ll.

The heat in the tyres would have been lost under the last SC though. When it was Button chasing down Vettel, Button was simply able to conjure more grip from somewhere.

I remember the TV team saying Mclaren had gone for a wet race set up after qaulifying too. Also Christian Horner saying they had gone for a set up that covered wet & dry conditions (which I found pretty hard to believe at the time).

You know more than Martin Whitmarsh? Maybe Vettel never got a chance to get up to full temperature but Button did (over the two previous racing laps) and managed to keep some of that heat whereas Vettel never got up to temp so had none to keep.

Simontheintrepid

DesWeller wrote:

To be fair, Vettel did peg Button somewhat until he made his mistake. I think Vettel's analysis that he was too conservative is an accurate one; he had the pace to match Button but he didn't use it early enough, and perhaps he found it difficult to respond as he wasn't in the groove, leading to his mistake. I don't think Button would have passed him if he hadn't slid wide.

That's true enough, but Vettel was much more on the limit to keep at that pace. If you look at the coverage of those last laps Vettel was really ragged around some of the corners.

This is why for me it was still a great pass. Although it looked gifted, it only happened because Button's relentless pace scared Vettel into an error. I suspect Button could have turned it up even more if he'd needed to.

neiltb

DesWeller wrote:

Paul E wrote:

Red bulls tricky engines maps for qualifying may give them quick lap times over a single lap but are useless for long runs as it uses too much fuel and would burn out the exhaust system and the valves in the engine.

This is completely unfounded speculation (unless you work for Renault's F1 engine department or Red Bull Racing).

It could just as easily be that their DRS is much more effective than everyone else's, so their relative performance during races is less pronounced as they don't get to use it as much.

Paul E's comment sound a bit anti red bull fan boy. Not too long ago McLaren had a Brazillian driving for them who got special Q tyres from good year and special qually engines and set up that used to put him on the pole most weekends too. RBR just change the map and have a car that's at least as quick in the dry than anyone else. I am not a RBR fan boy.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

But you have to make it stick - if you can't pull more than a one second lead over the next lap, you get taken back. It is pretty good therefore at clearing out genuinely slower cars who are holding position by timing their one move on the straight to block the passer.

But DRS makes it all about the car.

I would argue that the more skillful driver is able to defend his position, by blocking the driver in the faster car while going around the track - especially the bends. I mean if your only chance of actual overtaking is on a straight because you're in the faster car added by DRS then I'm not really seeing any skill. It's why - despite my criticism - Hamilton is both an exciting and arguably most skillful driver on the track, he is prepared and has the skill to overtake during the race around the corners and not only rely on DRS.

But overtaking is almost always about the car. A simple pass on the straight is about one car have better aerodynamics, or more power, or lower weight (fuel) than the other car. A pass into a corner is about a car having tyres or brakes in better condition, or less fuel so it can brake later. Passes going into corners are as much about having large cojones, and being willing to risk the other guy turning in on you and crunching your front wing as much as anything else.

All that said, Lewis is definitely in a bad place mentally ATM. He's a very talented driver, but when he gets frustrated he makes mistakes very easiily.

Blocking by weaving is a bit crap, IMO. Blocking because the track is narrow is a challenge for the overtaker, but it can distort the race considerably: eg after the last SC, Shoemaker was holding up Webber and Button. But he had better traction out of the corners than Webber, so Webber had great difficulty getting close to Shoemaker on the straights.

But neither Webber or Button had any problems passing Mercedes other driver who presumably had the same traction into and out of the corners. A good portion of Schumacher's ability to hold them off was down to his driving ability..

EKE_38BPM

I know Mclaren supply the standard ECUs used in F1, but do the ECUs still allow the teams to make custom maps (I presume they do)? How many maps can the cars hold in their memory. What is to stop all teams making custom quali maps to go with their wet weather maps and blown exhaust maps etc.

A friend of mine is friends with Lewis and tunes road, race and drift cars. A large part of what he does is engine mapping so he has put an economy map on his road car. He can go from a very economical, but slow, 100bhp to a scarily fast 500bhp+ at the press of a button. Every race weekend he changes his Facebook profile picture to one of him laughing with Ron and Lewis in the pits at Silverstone.

gtvlusso

I am not a fan of F1, IMHO it is a bunch or arrogant overpaid premadonnas who blame everyone else but themselves for their losses.

Anyway, a bit of rain halts the F1 GP. The rain at Silverstone was easily as bad this weekend, but the old Motogp chaps were at it hammer and tongs anyway - 2 wheels and rain is a bad mix. Colin Edwards even rode to a 3rd place with 13 titanium screws in his collarbone after an accident last week!!!!!

F1 is kinda like the wet lettuce in a chilli beef sandwich.....

And I bet no one watched the Le Mans coverage and watched Alan Mcnish's crash....

Just sayin'

gert_lush

neiltb wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

Paul E wrote:

Red bulls tricky engines maps for qualifying may give them quick lap times over a single lap but are useless for long runs as it uses too much fuel and would burn out the exhaust system and the valves in the engine.

This is completely unfounded speculation (unless you work for Renault's F1 engine department or Red Bull Racing).

It could just as easily be that their DRS is much more effective than everyone else's, so their relative performance during races is less pronounced as they don't get to use it as much.

Paul E's comment sound a bit anti red bull fan boy. Not too long ago McLaren had a Brazillian driving for them who got special Q tyres from good year and special qually engines and set up that used to put him on the pole most weekends too. RBR just change the map and have a car that's at least as quick in the dry than anyone else. I am not a RBR fan boy.

I was lead to believe that everyone in paddock knew RBR blown deffuser/hot gases mapping system was by far the best which why they have such great qualifying pace as Paul E mentions.
The Renault engine can use almost 100% off throttle heated gases in the exhaust while Ferrari/Mclaren are less efficient at around 85%. As suggested this means fuel efficiency drops massively when its cranked up, but in qualifying it makes sense to carry the extra fuel for the few laps and utilise the extra downforce it creates in the high speed corners.
For the race its not so advantages to run the blown gases off throttle at such a high rate as the extra fuel required for the whole race is not beneficial as they would be soooo much heavier at the start,l so they bring it down and hence everyone else catches up in race pace.

neiltb

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I know Mclaren supply the standard ECUs used in F1, but do the ECUs still allow the teams to make custom maps (I presume they do)? How many maps can the cars hold in their memory. What is to stop all teams making custom quali maps to go with their wet weather maps and blown exhaust maps etc.

A friend of mine is friends with Lewis and tunes road, race and drift cars. A large part of what he does is engine mapping so he has put an economy map on his road car. He can go from a very economical, but slow, 100bhp to a scarily fast 500bhp+ at the press of a button. Every race weekend he changes his Facebook profile picture to one of him laughing with Ron and Lewis in the pits at Silverstone.

The maps are likely just for the final output to injectors and to ensure no more than 18Krpm, your fuel/air map will be your own concern so McL don't learn your own secrets, a few years ago you were restricted to I think 6 maps but don't know now.

Have your friend ask Lewis :roll:

EKE_38BPM

gtvlusso wrote:

And I bet no one watched the Le Mans coverage and watched Alan Mcnish's crash....

Just sayin'

McNich's crash was spectacular. Even more spectacular was the photographer (in the blue vest) who didn't flich when two cars smashed into the barriers and bits of car were flying through the air (still at very high speed) just a few metres away.
I'm not sure if they were really cool or just oblivious!