This thread is fully off topic, but I will roll with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
The FIA allowed the engineers to spend a lot of time engineering the "Schumacher" factor out of F1 by reducing the front end grip of the cars so they become understeer limited and less "prone" to driver input.
The rules now set axle weights to ensure the same basic handling fault.
If a driver enters a corner over the limit, the car will basically just plough off speed and the driver can collect it up again and try to get it right. This is how the cars are dumbed down. If everything is on the limit it all tends to let go at the same time and tear up the scenery, no recovery.
|
It's unfortunate that the weight balance is so strictly controlled. But doubt it has anything to do with engineering out specific driving styles. I am sure cars can be setup to be "loose" at the rear and very "pointy" on the front end if so wished. I suspect we see more under steer conditions on track these days due to the front loosing aero grip while trying to follow another car closely. I suspect the tight regulations is all about predictability for the design of the spec tires. If you know the total weight and balance within a handful of kilograms, then it makes it easier to engineer the tire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
Currently they are basically nursing the front of the car around the corner, and conserving fuel and tyres, hence your race lap times are about 5 seconds or more off the pole time, essentially just touring around within the prescribed parameters.
|
That I can agree with. It is a sad situation from that perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
As far as the simulators being advanced play station, I would love to see the driver who learned the old Nurburgring on a simulator post a top time, the modern tracks have had all the bumps, camber changes and surface changes taken out of them, "dumbed down" so that there are less variables to put into the simulator!
|
I am not sure how smoother tracks fit into the conversation about simulators. Other than it makes it easier to simulate. The tracks gravitate toward smooth surfaces regardless of simulation technology. Granted, it does make it easier to drive on if they are that smooth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
P.S. I do agree driving one of these cars to the possibilities of its performance with limited testing and only "PlayStation" time must be very challenging and difficult. I have no idea what it must feel like trusting a simulator limit on a track is like when you haven't felt what the actual car does on a particular circuit/corner.
|
It would be interesting to have more visibility into questions like that. I suspect that part of this is that it likely allows a particular skill set to bubble to the top. Those we have existing experience in lower formulas, but who are also able to perform well in the simulators. If they are able to do both well, and the simulators are as accurate as they can be, then maybe that is part of the explanation of relatively smooth transitions into F1 for the "simulator generation". Others might potentially do well in F1, but don't do well in the simulator and just never make it to F1?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett
Agreed although I'd still like to see it. My point is ( I may continue flogging this dead horse) that there is just not enough difference between the various formulae thus a rookie can be on the pace immediately. And that IMHO is plain wrong.
|
I am also flogging a dead horse here in that I think you are really missing a large fact. They are not just "on the pace immediately". What they ARE is turning lap times that are close enough to those at the front that
decades ago would have fit the definition of "on the pace". Today, "on the pace" is a much smaller window.
(Note, I say this without having crunched the numbers. It would be interesting to see some true statistical analysis. My argument supposes that the bell curve that will define the general range of performance for a set of drivers will be much narrower than it has been in the past. That the time delta, or better said, the percentage off the best time between the best and the average is decreasing over time. Or for the math geeks, I suspect the standard deviation is trending smaller.)
Anyhow... Ultimately only one can be the winner. And we are not seeing a slew of rookies winning races. Or if someone is young and does stand out (i.e. Max), it is likely that person actually has exceptional skill. Granted, in F1 the entire package matters (chassis, engine, crew, etc.) and that is a big factor in this current turbo era. But in identical cars you are going to see an even distribution of results between experienced and rookie drivers? Take Mercedes for example. Drop the average young rookie into that car and do you think Hamilton is going to win 50% of the time? Absolutely not. It's highly likely Hamilton would crush that rookie teammate over the course of a season. The same goes for a handful of other top level drivers. To me this is a fact. And give this fact... these rookies can't be "on the pace". But if your definition of "on the pace" means that they are somewhere close, but not fighting for wins, then yes they are on the pace.
Richard