2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

[bhall]

Well, the power is the same. It's just more expensive and slower.

To each his own, I suppose.

(And here I am again, starting a new page.)

[beelsebob]

Well, the power is the same. It's just more expensive and slower.

To each his own, I suppose.

(And here I am again, starting a new page.)

The torque is much higher though. The high levels of torque, and the relatively low downforce are extremely important to me. They make for a squirmy car that doesn't drive on rails through all the high speed corners. I would much rather see F1 with "worse" cars that the drivers have to actually drive than rocket ships that no driver ever needs to give any input to.

[bhall]

Yes, the power band of the current PUs is indeed wider than the previous V8s. But, in an era in which performance ultimately is capped by highly restrictive regulations, pace is found by making cars as easy to drive as possible. That was Red Bull's formula for success from 2010-2013, and it's Mercedes' advantage now. That's not to take anything away from either, as they've done the job better than anyone else; I just don't find it very satisfying.

[beelsebob]

Yes, the power band of the current PUs is indeed wider than the previous V8s. But, in an era in which performance ultimately is capped by highly restrictive regulations, pace is found by making cars as easy to drive as possible. That was Red Bull's formula for success from 2010-2013, and it's Mercedes' advantage now. That's not to take anything away from either, as they've done the job better than anyone else; I just don't find it very satisfying.

Of course it's about making cars as easy to drive as possible. That's what F1's always been about. The only thing that's changed is that limits are now set on how easy they are to drive. For a while, it got too easy to drive them.

[mrluke]

Regression is also change.

Agreed change can be both good and bad, however stagnation is only bad.

[mnmracer]

Yes, the power band of the current PUs is indeed wider than the previous V8s. But, in an era in which performance ultimately is capped by highly restrictive regulations, pace is found by making cars as easy to drive as possible. That was Red Bull's formula for success from 2010-2013, and it's Mercedes' advantage now. That's not to take anything away from either, as they've done the job better than anyone else; I just don't find it very satisfying.

Of course it's about making cars as easy to drive as possible. That's what F1's always been about. The only thing that's changed is that limits are now set on how easy they are to drive. For a while, it got too easy to drive them.

Of course not, otherwise everyone would always just drive with the highest downforce set-up. Faster cars may at times be more easy to drive, but correlation does not imply causation.

[turbof1]

Correct. For instance a softer suspension makes a car easier to drive, but you loose aerodynamics performance by doing so. In some dominant cases they do sacrifice performance for a better driveability. For instance several Ferrari cars in the 2000's were so dominant development work stopped early to develop the next car and to improve the driveability and comfort of the drivers.

Of course some developments go hand in hand with getting the car easier to drive. EBD improved downforce at the back, but also made the back much more stable.

It's all subjective though. This year's cars are definitely more difficult to drive, yet a lot of drivers enjoy this and thrive in it. Hamilton for instance seems to enjoy himself much more then last year (of course, having a dominant car might have something to do with that).

[Juzh]

(of course, having a dominant car might have not everything to do with that).

fixed.

Button said mclaren is perfectly finely balanced but just too slow. If it were 1s clear of the rest, he'd be in the same mood as ham atm.

[turbof1]

(of course, having a dominant car might have not everything to do with that).

fixed.

Button said mclaren is perfectly finely balanced but just too slow. If it were 1s clear of the rest, he'd be in the same mood as ham atm.

Fixed again .

There are other factors. Hamilton is mentally a very fickle creature, having is private life sap too much into f1. Currently he is at all fronts content, so that shows too. And his go-kart driving style is closer to these cars then last year.

(please don't shoot me editing your post; you are of course free to edit it back to what it was.

[bhall]

Yes, the power band of the current PUs is indeed wider than the previous V8s. But, in an era in which performance ultimately is capped by highly restrictive regulations, pace is found by making cars as easy to drive as possible. That was Red Bull's formula for success from 2010-2013, and it's Mercedes' advantage now. That's not to take anything away from either, as they've done the job better than anyone else; I just don't find it very satisfying.

Of course it's about making cars as easy to drive as possible. That's what F1's always been about. The only thing that's changed is that limits are now set on how easy they are to drive. For a while, it got too easy to drive them.

Of course not, otherwise everyone would always just drive with the highest downforce set-up. Faster cars may at times be more easy to drive, but correlation does not imply causation.

That's actually exactly how it works. Teams run as much downforce as possibly at every track, even Monza. You add downforce until you reach the point where drag relative to the competition becomes an issue. For teams with aerodynamically efficient cars, that point happens later than it does for the competition.

Aero 101.

[strad]

Kidding right?

[bhall]

Ok, maybe Aero 102. I'm sure Bernoulli makes up a healthy portion of the 101 lectures.

[Gaz.]

That's all motor. Given an equal motor, these three teams would be clearly behind Red Bull and Ferrari. So why is it a positive that lucky teams beat better faster chassis on a regular basis?

Because we want to watch motor sport and not chassis or aerodynamic sport. Aero tweaks are boring. But if you manage to design and program a propulsion system that gives you the power to put 2 s lap time on the oppo you have done a great job in my view. Plus the technology you have developed is useful and the money isn't wasted willy nilly just on the sport. As a car user I can expect some of the stuff they develop at Merc to show up in future cars.

You're kinda dense. My post was specifically referring to teams who actually did their job better getting beat by a team that just happened to get the right motor. You speak only of what MBHPE accomished.

Just happened to get the right motor- as Torro Rosso switched from Ferrari to Renault power, and Williams from Renault to Mercedes power, wouldn't they have had the opportunity to compare their respective power plants before choosing which PU was to be their supplier for the following season?

[WhiteBlue]

That's all motor. Given an equal motor, these three teams would be clearly behind Red Bull and Ferrari. So why is it a positive that lucky teams beat better faster chassis on a regular basis?

Because we want to watch motor sport and not chassis or aerodynamic sport. Aero tweaks are boring. But if you manage to design and program a propulsion system that gives you the power to put 2 s lap time on the oppo you have done a great job in my view. Plus the technology you have developed is useful and the money isn't wasted willy nilly just on the sport. As a car user I can expect some of the stuff they develop at Merc to show up in future cars.

You're kinda dense. My post was specifically referring to teams who actually did their job better getting beat by a team that just happened to get the right motor. You speak only of what MBHPE accomished.

Disregarding your impoliteness I can only say you are missing my point. Why should a constructor championship be dominated by chassis designers? The whole domination of teams over motor manufacturers is an unfavourable imbalance IMO. Competitiveness should be equally rewarded whether it comes from chassis or engine superior design. Unfortunately the balance has been lost since Bernie and Max have taken control of F1. IMO the FiA should reset the political power balance in such a way that engine and regeneration innovations receive a higher promotion than all this daft aero chassis work which is masturbatory IMO. 2014 F1 is one step in the right direction for F1 as I see it. As Joe Saward has expressed it in his blog: F1 lost 0.5% of performance temporarily for 33% less fuel consumption. That is a mega achievement in my view. Those like Merc who have made a great contribution to the 2014 formula should be rewarded in a big way as an incentive to carry on and for others like Honda to do even better. For this to happen the FiA needs to restrict chassis development by homologation and unfreeze some of the engine homologation which has already occurred by the lobbying of the teams. IMO teams should spend as much for propulsion development as they pay for chassis development. The big six teams should simply not win a championship without significant power plant development.

[bhall]

[...]
Why should a constructor championship be dominated by chassis [constructors]?

[...]

Oh, I dunno...