2018 Season Launch and Testing Thread

[Hammerdown]

Well, precisely that. I would hope that someone actually there and with more knowledge and contacts would bring more insight than just relying on times. Or am I assuming too much. Time will tell, and not long to go.

[E.B]

Raikkonen summed up well by admitting Ferrari could have gone faster had they wanted to.... and suggesting others were the same

Speaking after the final day of testing before the 2018 season opener in Australia later this month, Raikkonen said Ferrari had more pace to unleash.

“We’ll see in two weeks,” he said when asked if Ferrari could be on pole in Melbourne. “I’m sure if we want to go faster, we can, but it doesn’t mean anything here.

“In two weeks everybody will know where everybody is. Until then, we are only guessing, like we were before testing started.”

[S griffin]

Well let’s hope more teams are up there this season, would be help the sport no end

[insane014]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Well let’s hope more teams are up there this season, would be help the sport no end

Absolutely. I would welcome a tight fight for the 4th and 5th WCC as it would give us more fun than watching F/RB trying to dethrone MB and fail for the fifth straight time. FIA has missed the boat on that one long time ago. Periods of single recipe domination like MB in this case shouldn't be allowed for this long, they need to find the mechanism to act faster in the future to shake up the field.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by insane014

Absolutely. I would welcome a tight fight for the 4th and 5th WCC as it would give us more fun than watching F/RB trying to dethrone MB and fail for the fifth straight time. FIA has missed the boat on that one long time ago. Periods of single recipe domination like MB in this case shouldn't be allowed for this long, they need to find the mechanism to act faster in the future to shake up the field.

Too right they need a mechanism to act faster and shake up the field.

Funny how they can regulate oil burning in the combustion chamber in one week flat, yet they cannot sort out other things in 20 years.

Wonder how long it will be before they are all over Ferrari for spewing oil smoke out the back of the cars, not an environmentally responsible or a good look you'd think!

[wnut]

Anyway, following preseason testing, I think it is quite safe to ink Mr Hamilton in as 2018 WDC!

Probably 2019, 2020 and 2021 as well.

[AdrianM]

They seem to have no problem with changing the tyre rules to stop Ferrari or the aero rules to stop Red Bull but they don't seem interested in doing anything to stop Mercedes . Perhaps because other teams have the same engine but they don't have over 1,000 staff and a half-billion budget to go with it.

I doubt they'll bother now which leaves us with another three years of Hamilton domination.

[insane014]

Originally Posted by AdrianM

They seem to have no problem with changing the tyre rules to stop Ferrari or the aero rules to stop Red Bull but they don't seem interested in doing anything to stop Mercedes . Perhaps because other teams have the same engine but they don't have over 1,000 staff and a half-billion budget to go with it.

I doubt they'll bother now which leaves us with another three years of Hamilton domination.

Mercedes/Hamilton combo is too strong of a lobby right now, they got their way when they threat FIA to leave if their engine specs were not adopted as regulation. We will be stuck with them being WDC/WCC until 2021

[F1Guy]

But the rules were changed to try and stop Mercedes dominance when the new aero rules were introduced for 2017, was it not?? It was a primary motive behind the rule change.

It was hoped the Red Bulls would benefit from the change to the aero, but RB's car turned out to be not as good as hoped. Ferrari benefitted from the rule change for sure. And looks like Red Bull may have a stronger aero package this year.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

But the rules were changed to try and stop Mercedes dominance when the new aero rules were introduced for 2017, was it not?? It was a primary motive behind the rule change.

This philosophy really irks me and is part of the problem with F1. It simply demonstrates the main issue with the whole platform, which is "we must build in fairness." Whilst at the same time it legislates against competition.

If they'd simply make the rules less technical and allow teams to build cars to fit the regs with whatever engine (of a certain volume) they wanted, there'd be no need to legislate against success.

Admittedly there have always been technical disqualifications (the Lotus 88 comes to mind), driven by other interests and these will no doubt continue. But to make power units so technical and expensive that only the big manufacturers can build and supply them automatically puts those manufacturers in the driving seat. Then they legislate against them because oops, they have an advantage.

It's a joke.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

He’s been pulling Alonso off for a while now.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

This philosophy really irks me and is part of the problem with F1. It simply demonstrates the main issue with the whole platform, which is "we must build in fairness." Whilst at the same time it legislates against competition.

If they'd simply make the rules less technical and allow teams to build cars to fit the regs with whatever engine (of a certain volume) they wanted, there'd be no need to legislate against success.

i’d love to see this happen, but couldn’t help but think it’d price all but the massive teams out of the market?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by insane014

Absolutely. I would welcome a tight fight for the 4th and 5th WCC as it would give us more fun than watching F/RB trying to dethrone MB and fail for the fifth straight time....

this to me is why F1 requires a budget cap or at least the removal of special payments.

Williams and Force India on similar budgets and the same engine should have given us closer battles in 4th and 5th but each year Williams stops development mid season, reallocates resources to next years car, and essentially gives up trying to fight.

financial realities being what they are this makes sense but imo its still wrong they make more money then FI does by effectively tanking their season and its wrong that some teams can effectively be more successful by losing then they can be by winning.

if winning truly mattered, Williams would push development to seasons end and pick better drivers and Ferrari would have parted ways with Kimi a couple of seasons ago...but they have no incentive to do so.

imo unless the financial underpinnings are corrected, ad hoc rule change aimed at upsetting the order will only serve to maintain the status quo.

sure maybe Merc will be knocked off its current perch but then another big budget team will just slot in to dominate the new formula and in a few years people will be saying the FIA/FOM should react faster, change more rules, end the domination etc. which in turn will just reward the 'special' teams as they take turns on the top of the ladder.

anyways feel like i have read this story a few times now.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

This philosophy really irks me and is part of the problem with F1. It simply demonstrates the main issue with the whole platform, which is "we must build in fairness." Whilst at the same time it legislates against competition.

i guess i would fall into the 'build in fairness' camp but i would like to see financial fairness being the platform it is built on.

anyways, dont want this to go off topic so here is something i saw on reddit today. its a series of graphs covering info that they put together from the winter tests sessions. looks like a lot of work went into this.

https://i.redd.it/ypuspqusefl01.png

all credit to the original poster, original link here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/co...esting_in_one/

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bella

i’d love to see this happen, but couldn’t help but think it’d price all but the massive teams out of the market?

It's what it was and it didn't. Sorry but making it so technical has created the problem.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

It's what it was and it didn't. Sorry but making it so technical has created the problem.

it was actually an innocent question about your suggestion. i'll repeat it in a different way - how in your opinion would that go if they went that way for 2019 with current team structures? with the testing rig and dyno setups the big guys use wouldn't it just continue the arms race as per usual? or would you imagine some sort of resource restriction to go along with that?

don't get me wrong, i love the idea of engineering freedom and it'd move things forward far quicker than the current status quo. but i can't see how it'd work now we've opened pandora's box.

[Peter Mallett]

I see your point and agree it will never happen. We are, to coin a phrase, "too pregnant". Having got here the only way is further down.

As you suggest too many jobs rely on this farce and nobody is going to put people on the streets. But this is what happens when you legislate against competition.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Other Renault's are reliable, so it has to be installation issues with McLaren surely?

Renault have confirmed that they are having issues with the thermal conditions of installing the engine.

Perhaps McLaren had pushed this a bit further than others? Isn't that what testing is for though?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I see your point and agree it will never happen. We are, to coin a phrase, "too pregnant". Having got here the only way is further down.

As you suggest too many jobs rely on this farce and nobody is going to put people on the streets. But this is what happens when you legislate against competition.

The conundrum is that if nothing is done to legislate the Mercedes dominance, F1 will go the same way that CanAm (which had no rules - comparatively) went when Porsche decided to outspend and out tech everybody else in the series. We are already seeing the fans and sponsors walking away, so the beginnings of the end are clearly evident.

How many good series have manufacturers ruined by coming in and absolutely dominating? CanAm, Champcar, Touring Cars ...

Lack of action through being "too pregnant" seems to be the highest risk approach, the inevitable collapse caused by pursuing the current path will lead to far more unemployment when the series collapses.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Ferrari would have parted ways with Kimi a couple of seasons ago...but they have no incentive to do so.

To be fair on Kimi, he was far better last year and would have had the same amount of wins as Bottas had, if Ferrari had allowed it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

The conundrum is that if nothing is done to legislate the Mercedes dominance, F1 will go the same way that CanAm (which had no rules - comparatively) went when Porsche decided to outspend and out tech everybody else in the series. We are already seeing the fans and sponsors walking away, so the beginnings of the end are clearly evident.

How many good series have manufacturers ruined by coming in and absolutely dominating? CanAm, Champcar, Touring Cars ...

Lack of action through being "too pregnant" seems to be the highest risk approach, the inevitable collapse caused by pursuing the current path will lead to far more unemployment when the series collapses.

I would hate to see dominance of any team legislated. I would rather another team come along and knock Mercedes off their perch. However, if by legislating you mean rule changes, I'm all for that because something needs to be done, as the racing is dull and the Mercedes dominance boring.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I would hate to see dominance of any team legislated. I would rather another team come along and knock Mercedes off their perch. However, if by legislating you mean rule changes, I'm all for that because something needs to be done, as the racing is dull and the Mercedes dominance boring.

I'm all for changes that would bring about a fairer financial playing field by ripping up the nonsense that sees some teams being paid for being who they are rather than for what they are doing.
That said when did this idea that F1 was "monotonous" gain credence?
The racing is fast, reliable, interesting technically and gradually getting even better.
If you follow the sport for as long as I have we have had periods of domination. We have seen once mighty names disappear. It will, or should keep happening unless we allow the teams to legislate themselves a dictator like lifetime power structure. No team is indispensable.
Fairer distribution of money, rules that encourage development rather than stifle or channel it up blind alleys, and an even broader manufacturer involvement might not increase the number of passes per race, but would certainly broaden the fan base.
The FIA, Liberty and the teams should all have a vested interest in ensuring this happens with the renegotiation of the Concord and the setting of the technical rules post 2021.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I would hate to see dominance of any team legislated. I would rather another team come along and knock Mercedes off their perch. However, if by legislating you mean rule changes, I'm all for that because something needs to be done, as the racing is dull and the Mercedes dominance boring.

Terrible phrasing on my part, I mean rule changes yes.

The current dominance was effectively reinforced when the axle weights were legislated and the teams were forced to run the KERS and ERS systems instead of the more performance effective (for some) ballast.
Even better also take 200 kg off the min weight of the cars and make KERS and ERS optional.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

I'm all for changes that would bring about a fairer financial playing field by ripping up the nonsense that sees some teams being paid for being who they are rather than for what they are doing.
That said when did this idea that F1 was "monotonous" gain credence?
The racing is fast, reliable, interesting technically and gradually getting even better.
If you follow the sport for as long as I have we have had periods of domination. We have seen once mighty names disappear. It will, or should keep happening unless we allow the teams to legislate themselves a dictator like lifetime power structure. No team is indispensable.
Fairer distribution of money, rules that encourage development rather than stifle or channel it up blind alleys, and an even broader manufacturer involvement might not increase the number of passes per race, but would certainly broaden the fan base.
The FIA, Liberty and the teams should all have a vested interest in ensuring this happens with the renegotiation of the Concord and the setting of the technical rules post 2021.

I don't know how long you have been following F1 but I believe it's probably longer than most people on Ten Tenths? My first race was the Daily Express Trophy in 1973 at Silverstone. I was 12 at the time and I've been hooked ever since. I agree with you about having a fairer financial playing field but I would hope legislation would be the last recourse.

True, there have been other periods of domination. Before Mercedes it was quite recently Red Bull and Vettel, though two of those Vettel WDCs went down to the wire in 2010 and 2012, with Alonso the runner up on both occasions. Since Mercedes have dominated, no other team/driver combination has come close. Prior to Mercedes and Red Bull, the last time a team totally dominated like that was Ferrari with Schumacher. I actually stopped watching F1 during that period because it became monotonous and I think it's becoming so again and I don't think I'm the only one. Otherwise in the past, teams/drivers have dominated for about two seasons in a row but nothing like we have seen recently.

I still find it technically interesting, especially as the rules are so rigid it leaves little room for innovation and teams have to find solutions to produce a faster car. Therefore I too would also like to see development encouraged rather than stifled. F1 is more reliable but I do miss the attritional aspect.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Terrible phrasing on my part, I mean rule changes yes.

The current dominance was effectively reinforced when the axle weights were legislated and the teams were forced to run the KERS and ERS systems instead of the more performance effective (for some) ballast.
Even better also take 200 kg off the min weight of the cars and make KERS and ERS optional.

I thought rule changing is what you meant and I think that needs to happen.