The Crudders 2013 Formula 1 Thread
Comments
-
I'm gonna say i far preferred the days of refuelling and tyres that lasted forever, because it meant the drivers could race their car to it's actual potential instead of it's tyres potential. People did far risker overtakes, cornered harder and faster and generally weren't afraid to push it and risk skidding because their tyre wouldn't blow up the next lap if they did.jairaj wrote:lawman wrote:Refuelling isn't the issue and it won't solve the problems.
The refuelling was just a way to force the cars to come for multiple pits stops. If you have to stop for fuel, you might as well burn the tyres up, driving like you stole it. No point coming in for a pit stop with plenty of life left in the tyres.
FIA tried making the tyres more fragile, but all that did was make people drive like a granny so they could prolong the life of the tyres.
You need to give the teams an incentive to actually make more stops.
Bring back the 1995-2005 formula and rules I say, 1998 was at its most entertaining ever for me that season, and that's before you consider the classic rivalry between Hakkinen, Schumacher and DC. The v10 engines were simply incredible to listen to.
Next year will be interesting from a technical point of view, we will see who gets the early lead reliability and performance wise but driver wise I think it will be nothing to write home about. There are no drivers that entertain me now and no bitter rivalries. The constructors championship will be far more important than the drivers championship (it always is, but this year moreso than ever).0 -
Thing is though F1 is, sadly, a business these days. For the manufacturers to come into the sport it has to have a positive reflection on them. With everyone trying to make road cars more fuel efficient, F1 has to reflect this, so refuelling won't be coming back any time soon, otherwise we won't have manufacturers like Renault or Honda in the sport. Pirelli have the technology to create tyres that will last a full race distance and still have plenty of grip, like we had 2005. I do feel sorry for Pirelli because whatever they do someone complains. We've had tyres that go off and exciting races, but people complaining about the tyres going off to quickly, so they go more conservative on tyres like they did in Austin and we get tyres that last and a boring race and people complain. Either way they can't win.
The art of getting the tyre compounds right is of huge importance. This year the gap between the soft and the medium tyre is too big, so the soft effectively becomes a qualifying tyre, as it was in India and lots of people pitted in the first 5 laps. Make gaps between tyres a bit smaller and it allows for different strategies and the drivers can push a bit harder. The new engines next year, and indeed the aero regs will shake the order up, as said before the banning of exhaust blown diffusers takes a huge advantage away from Red Bull, with some teams saying that Red Bull's design gives them close to half a second over any other car on the grid. Add to the fact they started the design of the 2014 very late and I think (and hope) they'll not be as strong next season. Add in engine reliability and I reckon we could have a season very similar to 2010 and the start of 2012, where we just have no idea who is going to win.0 -
Max fuel load or peak fuel flow? Capping the peak fuel flow is one of the dumbest things you can do to a motorsport imo. Capping the fuel load is also crappy but teams try to reduce the fuel they carry anyway for weight reasons so it's less damaging to a sport.Kowalski675 wrote:The Northern Monkey wrote:Tyres and fuel is.
Oh and getting rid of Ecclestone.
No idea what F1 fuel rules are, but fuel restrictions are one of the things ruining Moto GP.0 -
Hmm sorry but isn't refuelling more fuel efficient? You're running a lighter car for the race and therefore will achieve a better MPG. As for the tyres, well I never complained when we had ones that lasted all race because i'm simply not interested in what the tyres can achieve, i'm interested in what the cars can achieve. What's the point in driving a car to 70% of it's performance because the tyres would explode if you drove it any harder?lawman wrote:Thing is though F1 is, sadly, a business these days. For the manufacturers to come into the sport it has to have a positive reflection on them. With everyone trying to make road cars more fuel efficient, F1 has to reflect this, so refuelling won't be coming back any time soon, otherwise we won't have manufacturers like Renault or Honda in the sport. Pirelli have the technology to create tyres that will last a full race distance and still have plenty of grip, like we had 2005. I do feel sorry for Pirelli because whatever they do someone complains. We've had tyres that go off and exciting races, but people complaining about the tyres going off to quickly, so they go more conservative on tyres like they did in Austin and we get tyres that last and a boring race and people complain. Either way they can't win.
The art of getting the tyre compounds right is of huge importance. This year the gap between the soft and the medium tyre is too big, so the soft effectively becomes a qualifying tyre, as it was in India and lots of people pitted in the first 5 laps. Make gaps between tyres a bit smaller and it allows for different strategies and the drivers can push a bit harder. The new engines next year, and indeed the aero regs will shake the order up, as said before the banning of exhaust blown diffusers takes a huge advantage away from Red Bull, with some teams saying that Red Bull's design gives them close to half a second over any other car on the grid. Add to the fact they started the design of the 2014 very late and I think (and hope) they'll not be as strong next season. Add in engine reliability and I reckon we could have a season very similar to 2010 and the start of 2012, where we just have no idea who is going to win.
The engine is the heart of a formula one car and thus the heart of the sport. To see them have reliability issues adds to the excitement for me because as you say it's anyone's game. It's a bit mental that they're reducing the amount of engines you can use in a season from 8 to 5 before incurring a penalty mind, and they're changing it from a 10 place grid penalty to a start from the pit lane for changing an engine I believe.
KERS having it's power doubled hmm well i'm not sure if i like that or not, sure it's more eco but it's almost going to become a PlayStation game where you push X to use boost and if you time it right you win. I'll go along with KERS to a degree but DRS is bloody stupid, press a button if you're within a second of the car in front and you win the overtake, with the other car given a penalty if he blocks you. :shock: How is that racing??0 -
bennett_346 wrote:
Hmm sorry but isn't refuelling more fuel efficient? You're running a lighter car for the race and therefore will achieve a better MPG. As for the tyres, well I never complained when we had ones that lasted all race because i'm simply not interested in what the tyres can achieve, i'm interested in what the cars can achieve. What's the point in driving a car to 70% of it's performance because the tyres would explode if you drove it any harder?lawman wrote:Thing is though F1 is, sadly, a business these days. For the manufacturers to come into the sport it has to have a positive reflection on them. With everyone trying to make road cars more fuel efficient, F1 has to reflect this, so refuelling won't be coming back any time soon, otherwise we won't have manufacturers like Renault or Honda in the sport. Pirelli have the technology to create tyres that will last a full race distance and still have plenty of grip, like we had 2005. I do feel sorry for Pirelli because whatever they do someone complains. We've had tyres that go off and exciting races, but people complaining about the tyres going off to quickly, so they go more conservative on tyres like they did in Austin and we get tyres that last and a boring race and people complain. Either way they can't win.
The art of getting the tyre compounds right is of huge importance. This year the gap between the soft and the medium tyre is too big, so the soft effectively becomes a qualifying tyre, as it was in India and lots of people pitted in the first 5 laps. Make gaps between tyres a bit smaller and it allows for different strategies and the drivers can push a bit harder. The new engines next year, and indeed the aero regs will shake the order up, as said before the banning of exhaust blown diffusers takes a huge advantage away from Red Bull, with some teams saying that Red Bull's design gives them close to half a second over any other car on the grid. Add to the fact they started the design of the 2014 very late and I think (and hope) they'll not be as strong next season. Add in engine reliability and I reckon we could have a season very similar to 2010 and the start of 2012, where we just have no idea who is going to win.
The engine is the heart of a formula one car and thus the heart of the sport. To see them have reliability issues adds to the excitement for me because as you say it's anyone's game. It's a bit mental that they're reducing the amount of engines you can use in a season from 8 to 5 before incurring a penalty mind, and they're changing it from a 10 place grid penalty to a start from the pit lane for changing an engine I believe.
KERS having it's power doubled hmm well i'm not sure if i like that or not, sure it's more eco but it's almost going to become a PlayStation game where you push X to use boost and if you time it right you win. I'll go along with KERS to a degree but DRS is bloody stupid, press a button if you're within a second of the car in front and you win the overtake, with the other car given a penalty if he blocks you. :shock: How is that racing??
Technically yes, the lighter cars will possibly be more fuel efficient, but due to the car being heavier they won't be going as fast so it levels out to a degree. The main reason the 1.6 turbos have been introduced is to promote fuel efficiency and to promote the path road cars are taking, with smaller capacity turbo charged engines and energy recovery systems. Sad fact is at factory level F1 and other forms of motorsport are just a way to promote brands and sell road cars, that's why group B rallying got so insane, it was popular if you had the best car you sold more cars. The 205 T16 essentially saved Peugeot from going under.
Reducing the engines makes sense though, the engines are more expensive and it makes it more viable for the smaller teams on the grid to use less engines over the course of a season, and it puts the emphasis on reliability. Again if you're a manufacturer and your engines keep exploding, it's not gonna go down to well with consumers. It's sad but true.0 -
Why would the car be heavier? Instead of driving from the start of the race fully laden with fuel you would be starting with for arguments 50% fuel load then coming in and filling up the other 50% so you'd be lighter.lawman wrote:Technically yes, the lighter cars will possibly be more fuel efficient, but due to the car being heavier they won't be going as fast so it levels out to a degree. The main reason the 1.6 turbos have been introduced is to promote fuel efficiency and to promote the path road cars are taking, with smaller capacity turbo charged engines and energy recovery systems. Sad fact is at factory level F1 and other forms of motorsport are just a way to promote brands and sell road cars.
Reducing the engines makes sense though, the engines are more expensive and it makes it more viable for the smaller teams on the grid to use less engines over the course of a season, and it puts the emphasis on reliability. Again if you're a manufacturer and your engines keep exploding, it's not gonna go down to well with consumers. It's sad but true.
The energy recovery system on the turbo's is interesting for sure. I read somewhere that due to the difficulties in adjusting brake balance/bias with such a powerful KERS system they're allowed electronic braking in the rear axle. Will this consist of an electromagnet? An electronic motor? I believe electric trains have this type of braking sometimes.
True, you're absolutely right it's an advert for car companies at the bottom line. That doesn't mean the fans can't complain about aspects they don't like because afterall if people don't like the way it's going, they will stop watching and revenue will be lost, making it pointless
0 -
bennett_346 wrote:
Why would the car be heavier? Instead of driving from the start of the race fully laden with fuel you would be starting with for arguments 50% fuel load then coming in and filling up the other 50% so you'd be lighter.lawman wrote:Technically yes, the lighter cars will possibly be more fuel efficient, but due to the car being heavier they won't be going as fast so it levels out to a degree. The main reason the 1.6 turbos have been introduced is to promote fuel efficiency and to promote the path road cars are taking, with smaller capacity turbo charged engines and energy recovery systems. Sad fact is at factory level F1 and other forms of motorsport are just a way to promote brands and sell road cars.
Reducing the engines makes sense though, the engines are more expensive and it makes it more viable for the smaller teams on the grid to use less engines over the course of a season, and it puts the emphasis on reliability. Again if you're a manufacturer and your engines keep exploding, it's not gonna go down to well with consumers. It's sad but true.
The energy recovery system on the turbo's is interesting for sure. I read somewhere that due to the difficulties in adjusting brake balance/bias with such a powerful KERS system they're allowed electronic braking in the rear axle. Will this consist of an electromagnet? An electronic motor? I believe electric trains have this type of braking sometimes.
True, you're absolutely right it's an advert for car companies at the bottom line. That doesn't mean the fans can't complain about aspects they don't like because afterall if people don't like the way it's going, they will stop watching and revenue will be lost, making it pointless
I meant the current cars are heavier as they have more fuel, so go slower than a lighter car would, potentially using less fuel. Next years cars will be heavier because of the heavier engines and KERS systems, despite there being a 100KG fuel limit, down from this years 150KG. My interpretation of the electronic braking on the rear axle was a form of ABS, but I may be wrong.0 -
bennett_346 wrote:
Max fuel load or peak fuel flow?Kowalski675 wrote:The Northern Monkey wrote:Tyres and fuel is.
Oh and getting rid of Ecclestone.
No idea what F1 fuel rules are, but fuel restrictions are one of the things ruining Moto GP.
In Moto GP? It's a maximum fuel load limit. They're so limited now that riders can't get tyres warmed up properly on the warm up lap 'cos they have to coast round to preserve fuel, and the bikes can't complete a race at full pace - the electronics have to back the power off in the later laps or they'd never reach the finish line (bikes running out of fuel on the last lap isn't unheard of either), but the organisers and rule makers are so lost and floundering that they'll try any ridiculous ideas to try stem the ever dwindling audiences turning off their tv.0 -
F1 2014 has a peak flow limit so they can't turn the engine up for qualifying. Back in the 80's the 1.5 turbo units would run about 800bhp normally, but upto 1000bhp in quali (although iirc they also had unlimited engine changes!).
Ex-funking-actly. Tyres completely ruined the 2013 season.The engine is the heart of a formula one car and thus the heart of the sport.
The 2014 1.6Turbo engine is pretty special... heavy, yes. Not as powerful, yes (although with the electronic assist we should still see 750bhp) But, the hybrid turbo is a piece of art!
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/f1s-hy ... 1464497196
Its basically an anti-lag system and it sounds awesome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8jz_Dgb8D4&noredirect=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... redirect=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... redirect=1
I want to see drivers rag the sh!t out of it and not drive at 70% while they save tyres.0 -
The Northern Monkey wrote:Back in the 80's the 1.5 turbo units would run about 800bhp normally, but upto 1000bhp in quali (although iirc they also had unlimited engine changes!).
And the turbo lag was so bad that drivers would either left foot brake while the turbo spooled up, or judge the lag and floor the loud pedal early in the corner so the turbo was boosting by the time they exited the bend, lol. Far more interesting in those days, I haven't watched F1 for years, may as well watch paint dry.0 -
Mer that's excellent. If they really do sound like that i will be impressed.The Northern Monkey wrote:Its basically an anti-lag system and it sounds awesome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8jz_Dgb8D4&noredirect=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... redirect=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... redirect=1
I want to see drivers rag the sh!t out of it and not drive at 70% while they save tyres.
Yeah totally agree i want to see the cars being driven to their limits.0 -
Says a man who can watch a MotoGP race!Kowalski675 wrote:The Northern Monkey wrote:Back in the 80's the 1.5 turbo units would run about 800bhp normally, but upto 1000bhp in quali (although iirc they also had unlimited engine changes!).
And the turbo lag was so bad that drivers would either left foot brake while the turbo spooled up, or judge the lag and floor the loud pedal early in the corner so the turbo was boosting by the time they exited the bend, lol. Far more interesting in those days, I haven't watched F1 for years, may as well watch paint dry.0 -
bennett_346 wrote:
Says a man who can watch a MotoGP race!Kowalski675 wrote:The Northern Monkey wrote:Back in the 80's the 1.5 turbo units would run about 800bhp normally, but upto 1000bhp in quali (although iirc they also had unlimited engine changes!).
And the turbo lag was so bad that drivers would either left foot brake while the turbo spooled up, or judge the lag and floor the loud pedal early in the corner so the turbo was boosting by the time they exited the bend, lol. Far more interesting in those days, I haven't watched F1 for years, may as well watch paint dry.
I can't these days, usually fall asleep. Moto GP has been dire for years - proper snoozefest (still not as bad as F1 though). Ban all the electronics and bring back V4 two strokes. I'm not actually bothered that I won't be able to watch it next year, other than the principle of it.0 -
Kowalski675 wrote:Moto GP has been dire for years - proper snoozefest .
Really? I've only just started watching it in recent years as it seems like there is more action than F1. If Moto GP is boring these days I'd love to to have seen in before.
I like the way there is actually a few people challenging to win a race. But even if you exclude the top 3 as they are in a race of their own, there are some good battles in the mid pack. I guess I don't really know what's going on being a noob but happy just watching people battling with each other.0 -
Only problem with MotoGp is the small fields and split classes, still some decent racing.
Moto2 and 3 are a lot of fun though.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
jairaj wrote:Kowalski675 wrote:Moto GP has been dire for years - proper snoozefest .
Really? I've only just started watching it in recent years as it seems like there is more action than F1. If Moto GP is boring these days I'd love to to have seen in before.
It's dire (hence Dorna and Ezpelata running round like headless chickens, introducing whatever stupid new rule comes to mind, in a desperate attempt to stem the decline of audiences and TV revenue). Every race is just a tedious procession. Ban all the electronics and get rid of the diesels, bring back some racing instead of tedious parades. Hopefully next year's lease bikes will maybe liven things up a little (it worked to an extent in the nineties), now that the CRT bikes have had long enough to show that they'd be the unmitigated failure everyone knew they'd be.0 -
I watched the Moto 2 and Moto 3 before Mugello this year. It was sooo much better than the Moto GP that day. Constant battling. (Im surprised Bautista walked out of there alive!)The thing i like about motorbike racing is that if you go wide enough, your off. I wish all F1 tracks had very limited run off areas. They should have alot more gravel traps and put barriers in places where there isnt at the moment. Like in India.
This combined with regulations that have drivers racing at their cars full capability will produce better racing to watch, and see who is the most talented, and most likely to take the biggest risks/drive the fastest...0 -
GT-Arrowhead wrote:I wish all F1 tracks had very limited run off areas. They should have alot more gravel traps and put barriers in places where there isnt at the moment. Like in India.
Part of the reason Moto GP (I really hate that name) is crap now is that most of the tracks are all stop-start mickey mouse F1 tracks, that just don't produce good racing for bikes - you need tracks that flow. Unfortunately all the truly great tracks have been abandonded by the world championship (nobody wants to race on dangerous tracks anymore). Hockenheim (scene of Scwhwantz's epic "See God, then back off" outbraking move on Rainey in '91) was dug up and turned into housing FFS - sacrilege.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koYO2w7z6N4
The smaller classes have always produced great racing, and real needle matches. Who could forget the last round in 1990 at Philip Island (one of the few great tracks left on teh calendar)? The title down to the wire - 17 year old Capirossi v Hans Spaan. Capirossi's Italian mates ganging up on Spaan, boxing him in to let Capirossi get away, Spaan punching Gresini in the head down the straight, lol?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HknzW4VFXfg
The 250s used to produce epic racing too. Pure racing bikes, rather than the big, slow heavy Moto 2 bikes (although Moto 2 does produce great racing).0 -
Hahaha the way he just looks at him and punches him!0
-
GT-Arrowhead wrote:Hahaha the way he just looks at him and punches him!
To be fair, he was asking for it, lol.
0 -
Hilarious, never seen anything like that.
Back to F1, ive been wondering, who do people think has done the best overtake this year?
I think it might be this for me, absolute class. Look at how close he gets to the back of the McLaren.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lojgq6-mRjg
Or the move Kimi Raikkonen pulled on Bottas at the chicane in Suzuka.0 -
GT-Arrowhead wrote:Hilarious, never seen anything like that.
125 racing used to be a bit like war on wheels, lol. There's nowt new under the sun - people get all excited about Marquez getting his elbow down, but JP Ruggia was doing it back in the '80s (before proper tyres had been invented, lol).0
