Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
I know it was because it´s Singapore so since no car can overtake they go that slow to avoid any more pitstop than necessary, but it still is ruining what racing is about, wich in my humble opinion is pushing to the limits. Out of your own 107% is going sooo slow that to me it´s become a parody of his own
Did you get it now?
I get your point, but in my humble opinion the racing is about winning the grand prize.
If you can do it with the least amount of risk (ie chance of crashing) as possible, that's superior. That's the same for anything in life - reduce the risk and increase the prize.
Of course, and I agree with that, drivers and teams do what they must, winning asuming the least possible amount of risk
It´s the rules wich allow or make possible that drivers and teams can win doing this what I hate, F1 is becoming too artifical, real battles on track are dissapearing, now not even with artifical rules they can fight each other
Bottas ranting about not being able to lap Hulkemberg because in this track he couldn´t get into the 1.2 seconds window to show blue flags was another good example, overtake delta has become so irrationally big that now not even lapping is possible depending on the track. If lapping is a problem, how are we going to see any real battle between cars with similar pace?
Now you're just changing your argument. First it was the lap time's too slow and strategy is too important, now it's the overtake delta's too big.
It´s all related, with a smaller overtake delta strategies like that we saw in Singapore would not exist as overtaking will be easier and 2 stoppers will be doable because they will not lose as much time while passing slower cars, so top cars can´t go so slow or someone with a different strategy may pass. Or even with same strategy if the leader is so slow the chasing car will be able to get closer and try an overtake.
It´s the enormous overtake delta what make possible and even the best strategy to go that slow to nurse the tires, cars with same strategy will always be behind because they can´t get close, and cars with a different strategy will get stuck into traffic specially after his first pitstop and will loose so much time they will never be a threat for the leader
I just randomly looked at the italian Grand prix in 1990, the fastest lap was 3.7 seconds slower than pole. 2018 italian grand prix fastest lap was 3.3 slower than pole.
Couple more examples,
2011 difference from pole to fastest lap 3.9 seconds.
2016 difference from pole to fastest lap 4.2 seconds.
So nothings changed recentlyand we even had similar gaps 30yrs ago.
GoLandoGo
Lewis v2.0
King George has arrived.
New found love for GT racing with Assetto Corsa Competizione on PS5 & PC
Except with that conditions you´re describing it was 11-12 seconds, not 6, 6 was for the fastest lap with empty tank.
Do you still think 11-12 seconds per lap slower is not that much
I know it was for the fastest lap, I SAID that. I mentioned the difference between fastest lap and pole for F2 as well.
Shouldn't I be comparing apples to apples here? What am I missing?
Read the red part, you stated with 13% added weight, etc. 6 seconds arent´all that much. That´s wrong, with 13% added weight difference is 11-12 seconds. 6 seconds is the difference for the fastest lap at the end of the race, with similar weight to qualifying
The weight is similar, but from brand new Ultra/Hypersofts to worn Softs there's another big difference.
Pole lap: 1:36.0
First laps in the race 1:47-1:48
Fast lap in race 1:42.9
We all know about fuel load, racing is not qualifying, blah blah blah... 11-12 seconds slower than in qualifying is, IMHO, embarrasing for F1. The fast lap for Lewis with empty tank was still 6.9 seconds slower than his own Q lap.
6.9 seconds. There was a time when this was unconceivable in f1. Today people don´t even notice...
Anyone who has ever raced at anything know how SLOW you must go to increase your laptimes 7 seconds, even if the tyres are 3 seconds slower (wich they are not), it´s still a 4 second difference. Still a difference wich means drivers are not racing, they´re just cruising around.
I´m the only one who can´t cope with this?
Toni Cuquerella (spanish tv) once said a thing wich did explain it all. Today computers are so advanced they can simulate almost everything, so teams know exactly what´s the fastest strategy, no room for feelings or talented drivers anymore, computers are telling the pace drivers must go, and cruising (tyre managment) and coasting (fuel managment) are faster on a GP length than going full attack mode
We can´t ban computers, but we can shorten a GP length so long term strategies makes no more sense and they´re forced to race again. Any other idea will be welcome
Sorry for the rant
I have the answer for this... Increase the benefit and reduce the penalty of a pitstop...
That will incentivise drivers to push on each stint.
REDUCING PITSTOP DISADVANTAGE
The engineers want to keep tyre energy constant to maintain the maximum life at a good clip.
WEIGHT X LAP SPEED^2 = CONSTANT
In a pitstop you loose 25 seconds.
To make up back for this over a stint you have to be pumping in times over 2 seconds faster not plainly in clear air pace but to cut through traffic with these aerodynamics. Ooops! too much tyre energy.. Over the cliff you go! your pace is mud!
So in my opinion.. The pistop time is fixed for the most part and you need to pump in those blisetering laptimes to catch up so that cannot be changed.
So that leaves vehicle weight to reduce.
REDUCE VEHICLE WEIGHT!
IMPROVE PITSTOP BENEFITS
Hey.. Main thing you get out of a pitstop is fresh tyres. That's a good benefit yeah but not enough to pitstop twice!! How about putting something in the pitstop that you need to go much much faster??? Or to be more extreme something you need in order to finish the race... I know.. How about fuel! If you have to stop for fuel what more incentive do you need?
BRING BACK REFUELLING!!
And that is my two pronged proposal to increaee the spectacle!
Reducing the pitstop disadvatange is a good idea actually. A simpler way might be to remove the team principals from their prat perches and then without so many people crossing the pitlane, the pitlane speed could be increased by 20-40km/h.
At the end of the day the teams and the spectators will always be opposed. The teams will want to bring the car home in the points as slow as possible without risk of popping an engine or leaving half the car in a tyre barrier, and with team orders to further reduce the risk.
The spectator's wet dream of a driver 'on the limit all the way' is just simply never going to happen. Nobody's perfect so being on the limit involves occasionally going over it and the teams and even drivers won't take that risk.
I just randomly looked at the italian Grand prix in 1990, the fastest lap was 3.7 seconds slower than pole. 2018 italian grand prix fastest lap was 3.3 slower than pole.
Couple more examples,
2011 difference from pole to fastest lap 3.9 seconds.
2016 difference from pole to fastest lap 4.2 seconds.
So nothings changed recentlyand we even had similar gaps 30yrs ago.
If you randomly go to one of the easiest track to overtake in the calendar thanks to one of the longest straights, then obviously yes, they can´t cruise around as different strategies are possible and even others with same strategy may pass
Anycase I never said this is happening constantly, and even mentioned, repeatedly, it´s Singapore what made this possible. But it´s something wich had never happened in F1 and a clear symptom of a problem wich is increasing with time
If you may find some race where fastest lap is almost 7 seconds slower to pole lap, then you´ll prove me wrong tough
I know it was for the fastest lap, I SAID that. I mentioned the difference between fastest lap and pole for F2 as well.
Shouldn't I be comparing apples to apples here? What am I missing?
Read the red part, you stated with 13% added weight, etc. 6 seconds arent´all that much. That´s wrong, with 13% added weight difference is 11-12 seconds. 6 seconds is the difference for the fastest lap at the end of the race, with similar weight to qualifying
The weight is similar, but from brand new Ultra/Hypersofts to worn Softs there's another big difference.
Obviously, but then difference is 6.9 seconds. If you add 13% of weight wich was your point, difference is 11-12 seconds
If you may find some race where fastest lap is almost 7 seconds slower to pole lap, then you´ll prove me wrong tough
I don't have time to search, but I guess if we look at the first turbo era, with qualification engines much more powerful than race ones we can find such a difference between fastest race lap to pole lap.
Andres, you are looking for Sunday race action when, during the last decades, Formula One has become an Engineering contest where the driver skills and action during race is not more than the cherry on top of the cake.
For me today, the only entertainment in F1 is to follow the "behind the scenes" action in this forum and other sources.
There has been a long time since I watched the last race (pre pay-per-view in Spain). I will not pay any cent to watch this kind of races on TV. To see one live, perhaps yes, because you can see a lot of things you miss on TV.
Sunday race spectacle are on spec series with low aero influence and this is not what Formula one has become. And there is no way back, it is what it is.
Or stop saving all kinds of crap and let them use as much fuel and as many tires and engines as they like. Also give them tires that are not made of cheese.
I´m afraid that´s not the solution. Fuel is limited to 100kg, but they don´t even use that amount at many GPs because for a GP lenght it´s faster going with a lighter car and coasting. They use under 90kg at several GPs, not only Monaco
That´s the reason I did mention sofisticated computer simulations wich minimize drivers and strategiests roles, everything is calculated and they only follow computer simulations wich will always provide the best result. Well, at least while they introduce the correct data obviously
They only use 90kg because there is another stupid limitation - 100kg/hour. Also the problem in the last GP was mostly the tires which you chose to ignore in my argument. At some tracks the tires will be the limiting factors on others it will be the fuel. Ultimately all of the saving has to go.
I think this, and the rules for construction being so restrictive is the main cause. Id there were different ways to build the car, the cars would have better performance in different areas. The best example is at the start of the previous turbo era. Option one, nimble car, advantage around corners and twisty bits. Option 2. brute force, fly by on the straight.
With all cars the same weight engine type and basic design where one is good/not-so-good they all wil be.
With more open rules, or different formula's, you get lots of different concepts the first year and the winning one will be copied the year after, with all the teams that choose wrong on the back foot and with massive budget spendings. Next to that, if you have two choices, lets say, a v4 or v6, a team like mercedes will develop both to choose which one delivers best, while with a mandated v6, they only need the budget to develop one. etc etc
But they will spend the same amount in F1, if its all on one concept or spread over several. Either the concept has to be simple enough for new builders to get up and running in a couple of years or there needs to be a 'back door' such as Haas have used. For instance, and this is just off the top of my head, so do not get into the nitty- gritty, if an alternative car option of say 500kg 1ltr 4 cyl but limit to 1000cc. I know the problems now are going to be the weight of the safety 'cell' but just an example. Also, it took the gumption of Renault to make the dive to turbo to make it happen. There is not similar opportunity today. You fit this engine full stop.
That there aren't any possibilities anymore for cleaver "around the rules" tricks has also a lot to do with the current size and state of engineering. In "the good old days" you had someone like Gordon Murrey or Colin Chapman who with a very small team came up with clever little tricks. These days with 1000+ engineers, computer simulation, the manner they understand and can calculate the use of materials that is just not possible anymore. The time of a few technical mavericks on a small budget is gone. The Brawn team was really the exception. Because they understand all the details so much better, the innovation is also in the details. I still find the split turbo idea from Mercedes a good example or when STR stated to put a radiator behind the drivers head. The current level of F1 makes the 70is and 80ies look like scrapheap challenge.
I hate to state the obvious, but there is no magical formula that will fulfill all dreams on what F1 should be.
The overtake delta is not always the same. How much it is, depends on the layout of the track, where the overtake takes place and, assuming it's on a DRS straight, how effective DRS is. It also depends on tire grip, surface grip, relative car performance etc.
On some tracks, the delta is higher - usually where there are fast flowing highspeed corners and cars are very dependent on aero - other tracks where the delta is lower, cars can follow more closely which brings down the required speed differential required for a headache-free and successful overtake. On one hand of the spectrum of these tracks, you have Monaco and Singapore, on the other, you have tracks like Monza.
As I said in a previous post - it's good not all tracks offer the same kind of spectacle. Where overtaking is difficult, it increases the importance on qualifying and optimizing your strategy. Pit stops are costly, which is why stint management and not getting yourself stuck in traffic is important. On other tracks where overtaking is a straightforward process, you have different considerations to make to optimize your race.
Take Singapore; thanks to its unique layout, it allowed Alonso in a McLaren to score points and defend his position. It also allowed Sirotkin to play a significant role in the outcome of many drivers race and result. If overtaking had been easy, they would have been meaningless factors in a 61 lap/2 hour race.
If overtaking were that simple and straightforward (e.g. the delta extremely low), every race would finish in the order of their performance, which is usually how they qualify. Every race would be a natural procession, the quickest disappearing on the horizon, the slowest at the back.
Thanks to different circuit layouts with different demands, deltas and challenges, we get to see races with different outcomes. A mistake has an impact because it sends you into traffic you might not overcome. Or like at Singapore into barriers that result in a DNF and triggers a safety car that then has an impact on others too. It also allows the unique situation that on some very few tracks, cars can drive extremely slow for strategic purposes. That's something worth having. If we didn't, everyone would just be racing 100% and we'd be witnessing a natural progression of cars finishing in the order of their performance. Like racing on an oval.
People advocating changes would be well advised to consider how this impacts the sport across the season, not just a single race. For every problem, there may be a solution, but that solution in turn will lead to new problems or issues. It's a never ending cycle, because there isn't any perfect formula.
Last edited by Phil on 21 Sep 2018, 14:00, edited 1 time in total.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
People advocating changes would be well advised to consider how this impacts the sport across the season, not just a single race. For every problem, there may be a solution, but that solution in turn will lead to new problems or issues. It's a never ending cycle, because there isn't any perfect formula.
I think that this is something that is really missing as of late. Opinions are generally one dimensional(ie. more overtaking = better race), and seem to ignore the fact that it is a CHAMPIONSHIP. To think, or require, that person x is going to battle for first when a 7th place is enough to win the championship is frankly just stupid and makes a mockery of the whole competition.
There have been a lot of complaints about Singapore, how boring it was. But I don't think the case; the race would have played out very differently had VER come out of track behind VET. Different races play out differently, and there are a whole lot of variables that changes the race, and by extension can change the whole championship.
I hate to state the obvious, but there is no magical formula that will fulfill all dreams on what F1 should be.
The overtake delta is not always the same. How much it is, depends on the layout of the track, where the overtake takes place and, assuming it's on a DRS straight, how effective DRS is. It also depends on tire grip, surface grip, relative car performance etc.
On some tracks, the delta is higher - usually where there are fast flowing highspeed corners and cars are very dependent on aero - other tracks where the delta is lower, cars can follow more closely which brings down the required speed differential required for a headache-free and successful overtake. On one hand of the spectrum of these tracks, you have Monaco and Singapore, on the other, you have tracks like Monza.
As I said in a previous post - it's good not all tracks offer the same kind of spectacle. Where overtaking is difficult, it increases the importance on qualifying and optimizing your strategy. Pit stops are costly, which is why stint management and not getting yourself stuck in traffic is important. On other tracks where overtaking is a straightforward process, you have different considerations to make to optimize your race.
Take Singapore; thanks to its unique layout, it allowed Alonso in a McLaren to score points and defend his position. It also allowed Sirotkin to play a significant role in the outcome of many drivers race and result. If overtaking had been easy, they would have been meaningless factors in a 61 lap/2 hour race.
If overtaking were that simple and straightforward (e.g. the delta extremely low), every race would finish in the order of their performance, which is usually how they qualify. Every race would be a natural procession, the quickest disappearing on the horizon, the slowest at the back.
Thanks to different circuit layouts with different demands, deltas and challenges, we get to see races with different outcomes. A mistake has an impact because it sends you into traffic you might not overcome. Or like at Singapore into barriers that result in a DNF and triggers a safety car that then has an impact on others too. It also allows the unique situation that on some very few tracks, cars can drive extremely slow for strategic purposes. That's something worth having. If we didn't, everyone would just be racing 100% and we'd be witnessing a natural progression of cars finishing in the order of their performance. Like racing on an oval.
People advocating changes would be well advised to consider how this impacts the sport across the season, not just a single race. For every problem, there may be a solution, but that solution in turn will lead to new problems or issues. It's a never ending cycle, because there isn't any perfect formula.
People should just stop thinking that an F1 race must entertain them at every second, that's why after every race we get 1000 people saying what their ideal vision of F1 is, and why the FIA is wrong for not doing exactly what they think should be done.
I don't know about a single motorsport series that will entertain you for most of the time you're watching it, I don't even know a single sport that does that. Also, entertainment is not even close to F1's sole purpose. There are engineering, economic, strategic and skill battles to be won on every session and every championship, so when a car has to drive "boring" 5 seconds off qualifying pace to go fastest from start to finish, don't expect them to be worried about your entertainment.
Wanna watch a racing championship that's all about entertainment? I think our american friends already have that taken care of.
Nobody is asking for extremelly low overtake delta, only to not be extremelly high, it´s different
Nobody is asking for entertaining races constantly, only for races where there´s some entertainment from lap 3, it´s also different.
Phil, do you think racing was boring and processional before aerdynamics came into play? That´s what you´re suggesting with your argument of "with low overtake delta racing will be a natural progression of cars finishing in the order of their performance". I really can´t disagree more with this argument...
Edit, btw, I´ve not missed a single race in last.... maybe 2 decades? If I couldn´t watch some live, I downloaded it later and watch it some other day. I know not all races are boring, China this season was one of the best races I can remember for example. But I think none can deny the tendecy, wich is adding artificial rules to promote on track battles because aero is a big handicap for this. DRS is embarrasing, providing an unfair advantage to some car so he can overtake, but it really add another problem, the car is still too slow in corners due to dirty air, and too fast in straights due to drag reduction, so we still can´t see a real battle becasue both cars are simply too different. I can´t wait to see FE season 5 for this reason, I think they went the route modern racing should go, getting rid of wings and aero wich do not provide too much downforce so they can fight on equal conditions
