But that hasn’t ever and won’t ever happen in F1, regardless of what the regs feasibly could change to.
But that hasn’t ever and won’t ever happen in F1, regardless of what the regs feasibly could change to.
2009 was pretty close to that wasn't it?El Scorchio wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 01:29But that hasn’t ever and won’t ever happen in F1, regardless of what the regs feasibly could change to.
+1El Scorchio wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 01:29
But that hasn’t ever and won’t ever happen in F1, regardless of what the regs feasibly could change to.
There are definitely seasons when there were more different winners than in this present era, but to find anything like 10 in 10 is simply not going to happen. In 2009 only 6 drivers actually won a race. I’m sure I can remember a 4 in 4 at some point in recent history but not any more than that.JordanMugen wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 01:502009 was pretty close to that wasn't it?El Scorchio wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 01:29But that hasn’t ever and won’t ever happen in F1, regardless of what the regs feasibly could change to.
Brawn, Red Bull, McLaren and Ferrari were all winners, and Toyota scored many poles but stuffed up their chances to win. BMW scored some podiums, but probably should have been further up there if they hadn't stuffed up their car.
2012 had a bunch of different winners at the start of the season I think... 7 of 7?Hoffman900 wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 02:03+1El Scorchio wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 01:29
But that hasn’t ever and won’t ever happen in F1, regardless of what the regs feasibly could change to.
I’ve been around a lot of spec racing. The same drivers and teams always win and are at the front. This happens for a reason. It may look closer on paper, but in a series like that .4 might as well be a mile in qualifying.
Yeah, but over the season, it doesn't play out like that.Zynerji wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 02:222012 had a bunch of different winners at the start of the season I think... 7 of 7?Hoffman900 wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 02:03+1El Scorchio wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 01:29
But that hasn’t ever and won’t ever happen in F1, regardless of what the regs feasibly could change to.
I’ve been around a lot of spec racing. The same drivers and teams always win and are at the front. This happens for a reason. It may look closer on paper, but in a series like that .4 might as well be a mile in qualifying.
TimW wrote: ↑20 Jun 2021, 20:11On F1technical I'd expect more people to watch for the engineering aspects, and thus welcome rule changes.nzjrs wrote: ↑20 Jun 2021, 18:59FWIW I watch it for the construction sport. I'd be happy with a complete rule rewrite every 3 years. In the context of a cost control formula it shouldn't matter how frequently they flip the script.
I'm sure I'm abnormal in this belief.
But I do appreciate that while it is close it is a better product and best for the health of F1.
New rules every year, drastic changes, rulebook publicised in October. That would bring back a lot of visible creativity and new ideas. With the current steady rule set there is mostly fine tuning and optimization, even for engineers it is difficult to spot the developments.
So, spend more on tech changes?TimW wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 06:26TimW wrote: ↑20 Jun 2021, 20:11On F1technical I'd expect more people to watch for the engineering aspects, and thus welcome rule changes.nzjrs wrote: ↑20 Jun 2021, 18:59
FWIW I watch it for the construction sport. I'd be happy with a complete rule rewrite every 3 years. In the context of a cost control formula it shouldn't matter how frequently they flip the script.
I'm sure I'm abnormal in this belief.
But I do appreciate that while it is close it is a better product and best for the health of F1.
New rules every year, drastic changes, rulebook publicised in October. That would bring back a lot of visible creativity and new ideas. With the current steady rule set there is mostly fine tuning and optimization, even for engineers it is difficult to spot the developments.
No because the 2021 rules are artifical and handicaps old chassis that were never designed for them. Goes against the spirit of F1.
The point is that if you have drastic changes, teams have to overhaul their designs, do concept changes, and that will spark creativity and new developments. Not just optimization like you have now, but bigger changes over a season and bigger differences between teams.Zynerji wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 12:58So, spend more on tech changes?TimW wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 06:26TimW wrote: ↑20 Jun 2021, 20:11
On F1technical I'd expect more people to watch for the engineering aspects, and thus welcome rule changes.
New rules every year, drastic changes, rulebook publicised in October. That would bring back a lot of visible creativity and new ideas. With the current steady rule set there is mostly fine tuning and optimization, even for engineers it is difficult to spot the developments.
I'm not understanding your point.
I point to the Q2 times in Azerbaijan.Hoffman900 wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 15:55Stable rules always close up the field. This goes for every race series I've seen this happen.
Drastic rules changes reward the teams with big pockets / resources. Even in the cost cap era, teams that have the infrastructure in place have better CFD correlation models, better engine models, better tire models, so even if they are limited on this time, they can use their time more productively than a smaller team. A team like Mercedes is going to use their limited CFD time for actual research and development, and not chasing correlation issues.
When the rules are stable over a period of time, the gains become smaller, so the teams that are on the back foot slowly catch up to the front. It doesn't mean they are close, just that .5s is the new 1s. It looks closer on paper, but isn't, but that's okay for most fans and it's easier to hype.
Right, but honestly, endurance racing is more interesting from an engineering perspective. More diversity, good examples of using road based engines as race engines (and that development), less limited technologies, etc.