F1 Chat Thread
09-26-2018, 07:53 AM
#2501
Le Mans Master
Have a good one,
Mike
09-26-2018, 09:47 AM
#2502
Race Director
Thread Starter
The new McLaren 600LT:
https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-mclare...-ve-1829219025
I'll take mine in black...
Key questions going into the final stretch:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...owards_finale/
Haas has a mighty good chance of finishing best of the rest.
The Hulk and Alonso neck-and-neck for 7th.
https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-mclare...-ve-1829219025
I'll take mine in black...
Key questions going into the final stretch:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...owards_finale/
Haas has a mighty good chance of finishing best of the rest.
The Hulk and Alonso neck-and-neck for 7th.
09-26-2018, 10:01 AM
#2503
Team Owner
Yep, I do like the strategy aspect. But as I was thinking about this there's another thing that could limit the "light weight- screaming through the field" scenario, and that's the limit of ONLY THREE ENGINE SETUPS PER YEAR (can you tell what my opinion is of that?). Light fuel loads and sticky tires only go so far if you still have to run the engine at 70% power to make it last 6 races (grrr...)
Have a good one,
Mike
Have a good one,
Mike
No doubt, F1 at this point has many problems. It is #1 Mercedes drivers championship to give away until regulations are freed up on aero development, and engine regs opened up while decreasing cost at the same time (yes I know conflicting goals) or actually equalized.
Last edited by 93Polo; 09-26-2018 at 10:02 AM.
09-26-2018, 12:52 PM
#2504
Race Director
Thread Starter
I do think RBR is having more problems with their engines as they have an inferior engine from the other top 2 teams but they are willing to burn them down for a W and thus would risk the light weight schedule. They have been rather honest they are in a nothing to lose scenario.
If they didn't they wouldn't win a single race.
No doubt, F1 at this point has many problems. It is #1 Mercedes drivers championship to give away until regulations are freed up on aero development, and engine regs opened up while decreasing cost at the same time (yes I know conflicting goals) or actually equalized.
It's tough to be a fan sometimes...
09-26-2018, 01:35 PM
#2505
Le Mans Master
That's why I've always thought it's best to appeal to your core fan base, and not go squirrel chasing after groups that don't want to have anything to do with you in the first place (hence the "hybrid" movement).
Have a good one,
Mike
09-26-2018, 02:23 PM
#2506
Team Owner
NASCAR is an excellent point as you can overly cater to the entertainment side. NASCAR lost their core base in pursuit of TV ratings.
However, the core fan base does watch for entertainment, and the core base is becoming less enchanted with the on track product. Racing like so many other things in today's world has had boundaries blurred by the advancement of technology and the ability of massive corporations to spend ever more massive sums of money to push their name with wins.
However, the core fan base does watch for entertainment, and the core base is becoming less enchanted with the on track product. Racing like so many other things in today's world has had boundaries blurred by the advancement of technology and the ability of massive corporations to spend ever more massive sums of money to push their name with wins.
Last edited by 93Polo; 09-26-2018 at 02:23 PM.
09-26-2018, 03:48 PM
#2507
Race Director
Thread Starter
OK, straight up....tell us 5 Positive Changes for F1: GO.
09-26-2018, 05:33 PM
#2509
Team Owner
Less aero more mechanical grip dependent
Gravity fed refueling
I'd like a rules study on cleaning up the air coming off the back of the car.
Manufacturers must supply current spec engine to customers.
Gravity fed refueling
I'd like a rules study on cleaning up the air coming off the back of the car.
Manufacturers must supply current spec engine to customers.
09-27-2018, 12:56 AM
#2511
1. Simplified aero package
No DRS, no multi plane elements, no vortex generators, etc
2. More standardized components
Just using the same gearbox would allow teams to fit whatever engine
3. Simplified tire options that do not artificially degrade
Two compounds and neither will go a full race distance. Stops based on how well you manage wear.
4. Ban carbon brakes in favor of larger iron disc
18” or 19” wheels will allow for more efficient iron disc that will increase stopping distance
5. Equal distribution of funds.
No more favored status or forcing new teams to go without
No DRS, no multi plane elements, no vortex generators, etc
2. More standardized components
Just using the same gearbox would allow teams to fit whatever engine
3. Simplified tire options that do not artificially degrade
Two compounds and neither will go a full race distance. Stops based on how well you manage wear.
4. Ban carbon brakes in favor of larger iron disc
18” or 19” wheels will allow for more efficient iron disc that will increase stopping distance
5. Equal distribution of funds.
No more favored status or forcing new teams to go without
09-27-2018, 07:38 AM
#2512
Le Mans Master
First off, Welcome to the forum! We have a good thread going here; discussions, debates, respectful disagreements, etc. You'll love it!
That's pretty much what Indycar has. F1 has always touted itself as being the sharp end of the technology spear (we can debate whether that's true or not, but that's what they say), so I don't know how F1 fans would react to spec aero and hardware.
Not sure what you mean by "artificially degrade". Tires degrade; the harder the compound the longer they last. Having to use 2 compounds is already in place.
I think that's what you were meaning. I like the idea of iron discs, which require the larger wheels, but honestly I don't think that's going to reduce costs much. Carbon-carbon rotors/pads are a known commodity these days and coming down in price. I do like the idea of increasing the braking zone distance.
I don't like the idea of equal distribution of funds; smacks of communism. However, I do think there should be a minimum amount that's distributed to the teams, then additional funds based on performance.
Have a good one,
Mike
That's pretty much what Indycar has. F1 has always touted itself as being the sharp end of the technology spear (we can debate whether that's true or not, but that's what they say), so I don't know how F1 fans would react to spec aero and hardware.
3. Simplified tire options that do not artificially degrade
Two compounds and neither will go a full race distance. Stops based on how well you manage wear.
Two compounds and neither will go a full race distance. Stops based on how well you manage wear.
4. Ban carbon brakes in favor of larger iron disc
18” or 19” wheels will allow formore less efficient iron disc that will increase stopping distance
18” or 19” wheels will allow for
5. Equal distribution of funds.
No more favored status or forcing new teams to go without
No more favored status or forcing new teams to go without
Have a good one,
Mike
09-27-2018, 09:13 AM
#2513
Thanks, Mike!
I have been lurking here for some time and finally signed up a couple of months ago. I am contemplating another track car, and I think that is going to be a C6. I know next to nothing about the LS platform and have been cramming old threads.
I typed out that post on the iPad which doesn't lend itself to lengthy replies. Let me add some depth.
Simplified aero, not spec aero. The new rules are in that direction, but it should be taken further. The front wing endplates and barge boards create too much of wake for the following car as you know. Simplified wings would be less costly and establish a greater reliance on mechanical grip.
Manufacturers care about the engine program (why we have our current package) more than anything else. Having more standardized parts would reduce cost, help level the field, and still leave teams free to design the chassis. Teams are already using gearboxes (and in some cases entire rear sections) designed by other teams.
Pirelli's current agreement with F1 calls for tires to degrade artificially (the idea being teams would have to pit more often). That is what is causing the excessive buildup of marble off the racing line. This requirement is one reason Michelin opted to not bid as a potential supplier.
I was trying to say (poorly) that having a larger wheel would allow for a larger brake rotor, and a larger rotor is more efficient than a smaller of course. Current rules limit the disc to 278mm, which is fine for carbon, but not cast iron (at least in F1). You could get say a 380mm (15") rotor under a 19' wheel, and that (presumably) would last and increase braking zones.
Equal distribution of funds based on teams competing, not equal amounts. The distribution of FOM revenue is/was whack under Bernie, but supposedly Liberty is looking into to that (despite Ferrari's whining).
You can read about it here
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12...-2017-revealed
I have been lurking here for some time and finally signed up a couple of months ago. I am contemplating another track car, and I think that is going to be a C6. I know next to nothing about the LS platform and have been cramming old threads.
I typed out that post on the iPad which doesn't lend itself to lengthy replies. Let me add some depth.
Simplified aero, not spec aero. The new rules are in that direction, but it should be taken further. The front wing endplates and barge boards create too much of wake for the following car as you know. Simplified wings would be less costly and establish a greater reliance on mechanical grip.
Manufacturers care about the engine program (why we have our current package) more than anything else. Having more standardized parts would reduce cost, help level the field, and still leave teams free to design the chassis. Teams are already using gearboxes (and in some cases entire rear sections) designed by other teams.
Pirelli's current agreement with F1 calls for tires to degrade artificially (the idea being teams would have to pit more often). That is what is causing the excessive buildup of marble off the racing line. This requirement is one reason Michelin opted to not bid as a potential supplier.
I was trying to say (poorly) that having a larger wheel would allow for a larger brake rotor, and a larger rotor is more efficient than a smaller of course. Current rules limit the disc to 278mm, which is fine for carbon, but not cast iron (at least in F1). You could get say a 380mm (15") rotor under a 19' wheel, and that (presumably) would last and increase braking zones.
Equal distribution of funds based on teams competing, not equal amounts. The distribution of FOM revenue is/was whack under Bernie, but supposedly Liberty is looking into to that (despite Ferrari's whining).
You can read about it here
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12...-2017-revealed
09-27-2018, 09:46 AM
#2514
1. Simplified aero package
No DRS, no multi plane elements, no vortex generators, etc
2. More standardized components
Just using the same gearbox would allow teams to fit whatever engine
3. Simplified tire options that do not artificially degrade
Two compounds and neither will go a full race distance. Stops based on how well you manage wear.
4. Ban carbon brakes in favor of larger iron disc
18” or 19” wheels will allow for more efficient iron disc that will increase stopping distance
5. Equal distribution of funds.
No more favored status or forcing new teams to go without
No DRS, no multi plane elements, no vortex generators, etc
2. More standardized components
Just using the same gearbox would allow teams to fit whatever engine
3. Simplified tire options that do not artificially degrade
Two compounds and neither will go a full race distance. Stops based on how well you manage wear.
4. Ban carbon brakes in favor of larger iron disc
18” or 19” wheels will allow for more efficient iron disc that will increase stopping distance
5. Equal distribution of funds.
No more favored status or forcing new teams to go without
a) Caveat to this, look at F2 racing. It's amazing. The cars have less downforce than F1 cars, but not by a significant amount (is my understanding), and the cars can still race and follow. I think we'll see good things in 2019, if Liberty has done their job with the research into these new front wings.
2. Personally, I wouldn't want to see this. The engines already have standard attachment points, but how they are shaped outside of that is up to each team. Personally, I like that, and the differences in cars it creates.
3. I agree with this. And they're going towards at least the illusion of it next year, by just calling the 3 compounds the same thing at every event, even though they're keeping the 5 or whatever compounds that they have now. So at least visually, we're headed towards that for next year, but yeah, it would be nice to have more differential in the tires used during the race.
4. I don't think this will happen. F1 has to at least have the appearance of the highest technology form of motorsports, so the cars almost have to have carbon brakes. But extending the braking distance would be awesome for overtaking.
5. This needs to happen. At least getting rid of the "preferred team" status or whatever.
09-27-2018, 11:56 AM
#2515
Le Mans Master
Pirelli's current agreement with F1 calls for tires to degrade artificially (the idea being teams would have to pit more often). That is what is causing the excessive buildup of marble off the racing line.
I was trying to say (poorly) that having a larger wheel would allow for a larger brake rotor, and a larger rotor is more efficient than a smaller of course. Current rules limit the disc to 278mm, which is fine for carbon, but not cast iron (at least in F1). You could get say a 380mm (15") rotor under a 19' wheel, and that (presumably) would last and increase braking zones.
The distribution of FOM revenue is/was whack under Bernie, but supposedly Liberty is looking into to that (despite Ferrari's whining).
Have a good one,
Mike
09-27-2018, 12:25 PM
#2516
Ehh, this happens for every racing series I've watched. IMO, the tires degrade due to their softness (or lack of same). So the clag is just a normal byproduct of a REALLY soft tires. I picked up some tire debris after qualifying at COTA last fall, and it literally started dissolving into my skin!
Have a good one,
Mike
Have a good one,
Mike
09-27-2018, 12:35 PM
#2517
Race Director
Thread Starter
Honda is dead serious:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...nts_in_Russia/
Very smart decision to test now.
If they can pull it off for next season, it would be great for the sport.
Renault's "C-spec" engine can't run at high altitude:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...high_altitude/
Grrrr...frickin' Renault.
Vettel sure he and Ferrari can catch up:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...ns_title_lead/
He is correct; there is time.
BUT everything has to fall their way to make it happen.
Miami will play host to the final F1 Festival of the year:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...i_F1_festival/
Who lives near Miami?
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...nts_in_Russia/
Very smart decision to test now.
If they can pull it off for next season, it would be great for the sport.
Renault's "C-spec" engine can't run at high altitude:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...high_altitude/
Grrrr...frickin' Renault.
Vettel sure he and Ferrari can catch up:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...ns_title_lead/
He is correct; there is time.
BUT everything has to fall their way to make it happen.
Miami will play host to the final F1 Festival of the year:
http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/6...i_F1_festival/
Who lives near Miami?
09-27-2018, 01:10 PM
#2518
Race Director
Thread Starter
Wow, great stuff.
BTW, welcome aboard Chris.
It seems to me F1 has to make a fundamental decision whether they want to be known as "the sharp end of the stick" or the greatest show in racing.
We know where Liberty stands.
The biggest resistance comes from MB and Ferrari (RB has always been about pushing their brand)...the smaller teams just want to make money.
FWIW:
A) Very simple hybrid powerunits. Simple enough to barely qualify as "hybrid."
B) Either aero that allows for close following without destroying tires OR front tires that are indestructible.
C) I don't want to say it BUT...some form of refueling that is safe. A new, nonflammable fuel possible?
D) Again, I don't want to say it BUT: spec engines...OR identical powerunits for all customers, including programming. No super-secret special modes.
E) Prize money to be more equitable dispersed.
F) Greater fan access to drivers and cars.
G) A race in Vegas, baby!
BTW, welcome aboard Chris.
It seems to me F1 has to make a fundamental decision whether they want to be known as "the sharp end of the stick" or the greatest show in racing.
We know where Liberty stands.
The biggest resistance comes from MB and Ferrari (RB has always been about pushing their brand)...the smaller teams just want to make money.
FWIW:
A) Very simple hybrid powerunits. Simple enough to barely qualify as "hybrid."
B) Either aero that allows for close following without destroying tires OR front tires that are indestructible.
C) I don't want to say it BUT...some form of refueling that is safe. A new, nonflammable fuel possible?
D) Again, I don't want to say it BUT: spec engines...OR identical powerunits for all customers, including programming. No super-secret special modes.
E) Prize money to be more equitable dispersed.
F) Greater fan access to drivers and cars.
G) A race in Vegas, baby!
09-27-2018, 01:28 PM
#2519
Le Mans Master
If I've done my math right, if Vettel runs the table and Hamilton finishes 2nd in each race, Vettel wins WDC by 8 points. Problem is, Ferrari haven't shown that kind of performance at any point this year.
Have a good one,
Mike
Have a good one,
Mike
09-27-2018, 01:29 PM
#2520
The tire drama has been going for some time. I thought it was common knowledge
From 2015
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/34313145
Most (if not all) drivers dislike the current tires
I wouldn’t bet on Vettle pulling off six in a row
From 2015
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/34313145
Most (if not all) drivers dislike the current tires
I wouldn’t bet on Vettle pulling off six in a row
Last edited by Chris_ATL; 09-27-2018 at 01:31 PM.