I agree. I think the tyres are rubbish. The marbling is silly and on some tracks will stop overtaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Printable View
I agree. I think the tyres are rubbish. The marbling is silly and on some tracks will stop overtaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
But remember that poor old Pirelli are only doing what people asked of them.
IMHO I don't think the tyres really drop off as much would actually make for better racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
People, what people? Maybe donkeys asked for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Looks like Canada will need around 7 stops and everything will run out of tires halfway through the race if everything stays the same, though I believe that the teams are pushing Pirelli hard to come up with a real racing tire instead of chewing gum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
*raises hand*Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I must be a donkey then. Pirelli have done exactly what I wanted them to do. Drivers can either do a four stop sprint, or a two stop conservation run.
Without these variables (DRS, KERS, Tyres) the race result - thanks IMO to very tight parc ferme conditions - would be set on Saturday afternoon.
Yes. The passing is too easy now, completely worthless. I hate DRS even more now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
They made both overtaking and defending racing skills redundant with one stupid move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
DRS a bit gimmicky today but tyres gave us a good show. I think drivers should be given free reign in dry, race conditions.
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
The problem I have with the ACO is not fair racing (Dave Richards STFU and build diesels, blah, blah, blah) its not true competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The problem with LMP1 is that the ACO has dictated that diesels are faster than a NA car around La Sarthe.
Thinking about the DRS... it was brought in to basically negate the turbulent air off the car in front so cars could feasibly get close enough to pass. However, judging by today, cars seem to be able to follow each other much more easily now the double confuser has been banned, so maybe the DRS isn't necessary after all?
The DRS has nothing to do with dirty air. Dirty air has a big influence on the front wing and the stability of the front of the following car.Quote:
Originally Posted by christophulus
DRS has been introduced to artificially create overtaking, overtaking moves void of any overtaking skills as the driver only needs to push a pedal/button to get extra 20km/h on the straight and breeze by the car in front. Apparently it's some kind of entertainment that I fail to grasp.
Which it did because it thought it served a purpose for a while. Now it seems to be realising that it no longer suits its needs and is moving away from its pro-diesel stance. This has often been the FIA's way in the past, not least in terms of the process that led to the three new teams joining the grid.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
There are petrol, diesel and hybrid engined cars in the ILMC/ALMS/LMS series while in F1 teams are playing in teh sand with frozen V8s, very imited KERS and a gimmicky DRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Let's be honest, it is difficult to compare the level of the two regulation sets.
You're missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The point I'm making is that if you look at the major international championships there is an 'equivalencey' formula - nee formula to manipulate the competition in their respective regulations.
I think that this is the absolute crux of the argument:
:up: Hear hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I understand that the FIA wants a better "show", but I tend to ask is that the point of Formula One? Motor Racing at its heart is about who can build the best machinery or in a spec series, who happens to be the best driver. I don't think that either the DRS or the KERS push to pass buttons meet these ends.
Such a thing works very well on video games like Daytona USA or Mario Kart, but the point is that motor racing is neither a video game (although Petrov did try to throw his PS3 controller away in yesterday's race); nor is it played "for fun".
One analogy that I've heard is that it's a bit like the “Hot Ball” in the old Amiga game Speedball 2.
Even with things like extra ballast penalties in Touring Car racing, they don't actively change the behaviour of the car mid-race and mid-lap. A car following already gets a benefit by following in the slipstream of the car in front because the car in front has already punched a hole in the air, giving the following car a second benefit of the DRS is a wee bit silly in my not very paid opinion.
We saw a few great scraps yesterday. Alonso versus Hamilton. Webber versus Kob. Schumacher versus Kob.
We wouldn't have seen the the great battle between Alonso and Hamilton if the Ferrari DRS was working. He would have sailed past and Hamilton wouldn't have been able to defend regardless of how many 'moves' he made.
The Webber versus Kobayashi scrap was made because Marks KERS wasn't working. Without DRS Webber wouldn't have been able to fight back.
I think that the tyre regs and smaller diffusers are enough to make the cars capable of passing more this year. I'd be in favour of getting rid of DRS and keeping KERS.
A driver needs to be intelligent to use his KERS in a way that gives him the best possible advantage. But I'd like to see slacker retrictions on how team can develop their KERS. A technological breakthrough with KERS could really benefit road car efficiency.
I've never moaned about the lack of overtaking on some of Tilke's circuits such as Sepang or Shanghai in previous years, but maybe our view on DRS will change after Catalunya and Valencia.
For me, DRS should act like a dating agency: make the introductions but leave it up to the two people concerned to hit it off.
DRS should give a driver an opportunity to make a pass, but it should still be up to the driver to do the hard work once he's close enough. In Malaysia this worked, more or less. If it simply results in one car breezing past another down the straight then that's artificial.
DRS should act like a forum? :P
I agree absolutely. However, there seems to be an increasing realisation that the endless march of progress has diluted the racing (as opposed to 'show') element to such an extent as to render the sport boring. I can well understand this view, because my interest in Grand Prix racing has nothing to do with strategy or technology. I don't think this makes me the sort of moronic casual viewer these new 'innovations' are supposed to appeal to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
And F1 has always been an equivalency formula, on top of which we get crappy KERS and gimmicky DRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
I guess I'll continue missing your point unless I agree with you.
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Since they made rules that limit everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Nowadays they even have to build the same engine architecture.
But you said 'always'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. Good night.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It was quite a fundamental one in terms of your argument, though. But you are forgiven. Good night!Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Formula One IS an "equivalency" formula. There are loads and loads of regulations including engine capacity, number of cylinders, control tyres, dimensions of body work, car widths, car lengths, ride height, weight distribution, centre of gravity, location of various fluid systems... <Yul Brynner> etcetera, etcetera, etcetera </Yul Brynner> and extends to 72 pages of formula. For goodness sake, it's even called Formula One.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
It's only in the rarefied atmosphere of the uppermost tiers of motorsport where thousandths of a second in difference in performance count.
I wouldn't use that modern phrase in relation simply to the age-old application of certain technical parameters, personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
"Certain technical parameters"???
The regs which define Formula One are probably the most exhaustive set of regulations for any motorsport category in the world. The only other qualifier I can think of would be the BTCC which uses the general principle that if the rules don't say it, then you can't do it.
Even in something like the V8Supercars where the word "parity" was being bandied about as though it was some magical being, the regulations still tinkered with the relative dimensions of various components on the two brands of car to bring them in line with each other.
In principle the whole idea behind the DRS isn't to make the cars "equivalent" anyway, it's specifically to provide the car following with an advantage.
Yes, those certain ones (no matter how many) that, at any one time, have formed the basis of the technical regulations. The term 'equivalency formula' is a modern phenomenon that I consider to be entirely removed from the basic application of technical regulations to the formula.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I agree with that assessment. Equivalency formulas (formula as in equation, not as in recipe) are about adjusting different sets of technical regulations to make them evenly matched. In F1 everyone works to a single set of technical regulations now, so equivalency formulas don't come into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
F1 has had an equivalency formula for long periods of its history though, with different capacity limits for turbo and normally-aspirated engines. In the 80s when the FIA was doing things like restricting boost and increasing the NA capacity from 3 to 3.5 litres, those were adjustments to the equivalency formula.
I thought that 'equivalency formula' was when you get two cars that are built to different regulations competing? Like with the BTC versus Super2000 versus NGTC ?
And what do you think is the effect of imposing a certain engine formula, limiting the revs to 18000 / min and then freezing it?! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
That's not an equivalency formula, for the reasons given by others above — as stated, an equivalency formula is when efforts are made to even out the performance of, say, turbo or non-turbo cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I'd more say it's a formula intended to limit maximum performance. Based on "equivalency" you would think there are spec cars on the track, and that the Virgin should be just as fast as the Red Bull.
And in the current Formula, they have DRS and KERS. Like it or not it's here for now.
well carving through all the bullish!t posts here - I kinda like the system so far.
Hear, hearQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Today's motorsport is about parity, cost cutting and the 'show'.
This flappy wing was and still is a joke. I noticed that the DRS activation zones have been put in place for the Chinese Grand Prix. I wonder what will be the DRS activation zones will be at Monaco. Laughable!
This is what Alonso said after Malaysia: "If the system (DRS) had worked, I could comfortably have got past Hamilton on the pit straight and I would not have found myself having to fight him wheel to wheel and taking risks."
But isn't that what we want? Would be interesting to see how this years new tyres would have affected "natural" racing without DRS.
Do the drivers still have a front wing adjust?
No Jon, that's gone