2018 Season Launch and Testing Thread

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

Indeed. This would probably involve less downforce, less grip and longer braking zones. I imagine the drivers woul moan like hell at that prospect. Will be interesting to see how Indycar get on with their approach.

So far so good. The opening round at St. Pete, which can be the least exciting race on the calendar, was above average for once. Obviously one race a season does not make but the general consensus amongst the drivers, during pre-season testing and now post race, is it works well. The next round is Phoenix, an oval.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I was listening to a podcast recently (Moral Maze - The Morality of Competition IIRC). One point that was put across was connected to providing a 'level playing field' and equal chance for all. I tend to agree with the point that the deck should be stacked against most competitors.

Every entrant into a sport comes from a different position - whether it is a financial power, engineering excellence, genetic ability or many others. The fact that all entrants have a differing chance of success is what makes the competition.

Would 20 robots all programmed identically lead to competition - or would the result then be purely down to chance?

I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want to see a sport where all results were decided based on chance alone - I want to see certain traits rewarded, but an environment where others could overcome a perceived disadvantage and also have results.

But - I also wouldn't want the underdog to always be successful - this isn't a Roy of the Rovers sport. The best (whether that is ability, resource, skill) should be the most successful, just that there should be a possibility for others to improve their own position to make them the best in future...

Not sure if this is fully a commentary on my comment about level playing field, or you are just tagging along with the line of thinking.

It should be obvious from the entirety of my posts that I am for competition. Don't mistake "level playing field" for "spec series". I mention a spec series as you used the identical robots analogy.

There has to be some happy medium between full spec series and "We all live on the same planet, so aren't we all equal?" (basically a bootstrap argument). You don't like outcome to be generated by chance alone. Do you like outcome that is pretty much defined by budget? I know that is not 100% accurate. Money does not always equal success, but it is a requirement for success at the moment.

My point of level playing field is...

* How the sport is organized. Such as... Why does Ferrari have a veto right? And spare me the commentary about how much Ferrari brings to the sport, etc. If the sport can't work on it's own and needs to be propped up by Ferrari... then please just let it die.

* How revenue is shared. In short, stop having favorite children that you lavish gifts upon and then at the same time wonder why the less favorite children do so poorly. People should read up on the idea of the bootstrap fallacy.

* How resources can be reasonably limited. Is this motor sports, or a competition as to who can generate the most money? To me, it seems to be about money and less about competition on track.

For me the competition would be about how to intelligently use resources and less about who has the most resources. I think everyone likes to talk about how Force India seems to punch above their weight. What they really are saying is they are more successful than their budget should allow. Imagine if everyone was running the same budget. Why do we think everyone would perform the same?

Going back to your 20 robot example. Imagine you didn't give each team the same robot, but gave each team the same amount of raw material and said "build a robot". Would they end up identical? Might some be better than others?

Isn't Force India the perfect example of how this could work and that there is still room for creativity, skill and execution as a way to stand out in a competitive environment?

Richard

[Oldtony]

[QUOTE=Richard Casto;3808198]

My point of level playing field is...

* How the sport is organized. Such as... Why does Ferrari have a veto right? And spare me the commentary about how much Ferrari brings to the sport, etc. If the sport can't work on it's own and needs to be propped up by Ferrari... then please just let it die.

* How revenue is shared. In short, stop having favorite children that you lavish gifts upon and then at the same time wonder why the less favorite children do so poorly. People should read up on the idea of the bootstrap fallacy.

* How resources can be reasonably limited. Is this motor sports, or a competition as to who can generate the most money? To me, it seems to be about money and less about competition on track./QUOTE]

Nail on Head Richard

*Liberty and FIA have to renegotiate the Concorde to remove special privileges enjoyed by some. Clean the stables of the mrd left by Bernie.

*Reward the teams for what they do, not who they are. Distribute funds on the basis of finish of last season in Constructors Championship with a rolling fund to reward teams in season by race results to keep rewards that help competition to the end of season.

*Homologate both aero and engine specs at event 1 of the year with re homologation at races 5, 10 and 15 to allow new developments to be incorporated.

If Liberty want to own an asset with a long term future, the terams want to stay in business and FIA want continuing income they all should cooperate.

[Armco Bender]

Liberty negotiate with Ferrari......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i96VS_z8y7g

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Not sure if this is fully a commentary on my comment about level playing field, or you are just tagging along with the line of thinking.

More a tagging on with the line of thinking, compared to a proposal put forward in another medium.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

There has to be some happy medium between full spec series and "We all live on the same planet, so aren't we all equal?" (basically a bootstrap argument). You don't like outcome to be generated by chance alone. Do you like outcome that is pretty much defined by budget? I know that is not 100% accurate. Money does not always equal success, but it is a requirement for success at the moment.

I don't think money alone should be the only determinant of success. But applying more resource should earn more likelihood of reward - otherwise why would teams invest in something if they are not likely to see a return?

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My point of level playing field is...

* How the sport is organized. Such as... Why does Ferrari have a veto right? And spare me the commentary about how much Ferrari brings to the sport, etc. If the sport can't work on it's own and needs to be propped up by Ferrari... then please just let it die.

* How revenue is shared. In short, stop having favorite children that you lavish gifts upon and then at the same time wonder why the less favorite children do so poorly. People should read up on the idea of the bootstrap fallacy.

* How resources can be reasonably limited. Is this motor sports, or a competition as to who can generate the most money? To me, it seems to be about money and less about competition on track.

For me the competition would be about how to intelligently use resources and less about who has the most resources. I think everyone likes to talk about how Force India seems to punch above their weight. What they really are saying is they are more successful than their budget should allow. Imagine if everyone was running the same budget. Why do we think everyone would perform the same?

The point I feel is that there is not, and should not be, such a thing as a level playing field. Anything done to make the playing field level will be by its very nature artificial.

Would you be happy as a Mercedes, Red Bull or Ferrari fan if your team was being regularly beaten by Haas because they had been given a measure to 'level the playing field'?

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Isn't Force India the perfect example of how this could work and that there is still room for creativity, skill and execution as a way to stand out in a competitive environment?

Good results for Force India are precisely what I look for in the sport -
Resource was not the only factor in their successes, but was a contributing factor.

I think a good example recently was Leicester winning the Premier League - a team with less resource than others, but through a combination of other factors were able to achieve success. For this to become a regular, long-term situation though, resource is required for sustainment.

I'm not saying football is a perfect example, but that is a sport where money can buy some success - but is not a guarantee.
Ask most football fans what they want from their club, and the response would quite often be - more investment in the team, sign expensive players. Yet in F1, we seem to be against teams being able to spend more?

Top level sport in 2018 sees massive sums of money spent, that is just the way of the world.
So why aren't Ferrari and Red Bull fans asking 'their' team to spend more to keep up with Mercedes?

[F1Guy]

Wonder if any tentenths.com F1 forum members are featured in this add?
Us being Formula 1 superfans and all...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtqq_KbfUx0

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The point I feel is that there is not, and should not be, such a thing as a level playing field. Anything done to make the playing field level will be by its very nature artificial.

Would you be happy as a Mercedes, Red Bull or Ferrari fan if your team was being regularly beaten by Haas because they had been given a measure to 'level the playing field'?

i wont pretend that creating financial equality/resource restriction would be a magic bullet to fix all of F1 ones problems but from an optics point of view i think i would appreciate a Merc/Ferrari/RB winning all the time more because i would not be able to as easily dismiss theirs wins as simply a function of them having more money to spend.

likewise i think i would appreciate a Haas win more (under the level playing field scenario) as i would see that win as more merit based as opposed to just a pure chance/fluke (which is how i would view it if they won under the current regime).

i suppose i liken this to the use of PEDs...its not so much their use that bothers me (because anyone can use them) as much as it is their use by those that have money because it is money that truly unlocks the power of PEDs.

rather money allows for the use of better PEDs, money allows for better doctors/laboratories to monitor their usage, provde for clean results, bribe all the right people. adding money creates an advantage that cannot be overcome imo.

in F1 thats what money does. it provides for better facilities, more staff, better materials, better build quality etc etc. access to money is the underlying multiplier and the more you have the greater your advantage. then you add in special payments and the cycle continues and the divide grows.

the technology component of F1 makes this a hard one to compare against other sports mind you.

in soccer/football/baseball/basketball/hockey more money will allow you to build a better team, pay more for top players and i am ok with that because those sports also limit the number players on the roster.

also there is a growing movement in some sports towards the analytics approach combined with salary caps which is forcing teams to fundamentally change how teams go about building their rosters and it does so in a way the dosent necessarily require a financial advantage...if anything it punishes those that overspend on players.

anyways, along those lines, i guess if i could make one immediate rule change i would say that there should be limits to the size of staff a team can have. i dont have the numbers handy but the number of technical staff that Merc employ is ridiculous.

sure i am advocating that many people should lose their job but if one wants to see more competition then by reducing staff size would mean the cream of the crop would be the ones who make the cut.

long story short, i wont speak directly to Richards points (although i do agree with all of them) but i do sincerely believe there is a way to level the playing field while dramatically improving the level of true competition we all essentially want to see play out on track.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Wonder if any tentenths.com F1 forum members are featured in this add?
Us being Formula 1 superfans and all...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtqq_KbfUx0

have to admit that commercial got me pretty excited for the new season!

[S griffin]

That advert really was something to stir the blood

[littleman]

Well edited F1 clips look amazing......it's the 99% of dross that goes with it that nobody wants to watch.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I don't think money alone should be the only determinant of success. But applying more resource should earn more likelihood of reward - otherwise why would teams invest in something if they are not likely to see a return?

Two ways to look at this...

1. Are teams investing because money = performance?

2. Why would teams invest something less than the top teams if they feel there is little chance for success?

Both IMHO are true. And both speak to the decline of top series that are budget driven. Who in their right mind would create a new F1 team today unless they could outspend the top players and also with realization that given the financial kickbacks, some of those top players would NOT need to spend as much (out of pocket) as you would? F1 to a new team makes little logical sense (given the financial scenarios). Is that not an indication of a problem?

Also... I would like to think that teams think they can win on skill vs. having to rely upon deep pockets

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The point I feel is that there is not, and should not be, such a thing as a level playing field. Anything done to make the playing field level will be by its very nature artificial.

The entire sport is artificial by definition. Even things such as the technical regulations are part of the existing attempt at "level playing field". Otherwise someone will show up with a nuclear powered car out of the blue.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Would you be happy as a Mercedes, Red Bull or Ferrari fan if your team was being regularly beaten by Haas because they had been given a measure to 'level the playing field'?

As phrased hard to answer. No fan is happy if their team does not win. Let me flip it. As a fan, would you be happy if your team won knowing that someone had given them an initial advantage over the competition? Bit of a hollow victory.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm not saying football is a perfect example, but that is a sport where money can buy some success - but is not a guarantee.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think a good example recently was Leicester winning the Premier League - a team with less resource than others, but through a combination of other factors were able to achieve success. For this to become a regular, long-term situation though, resource is required for sustainment.

I think your point that... "Money can buy some success, but that it is not a guarantee" is pretty much a strong argument for my point. I would say the part you are missing is that the example of team field sports (soccer, etc.) are HEAVILY based upon principles that "level the playing field".

First, teams can only have so many players on the field at any one time. Second, players are generally biologically limited at some maximum performance level (ignoring the issue of performance enhancing drugs). So no matter how much money you spend you can only put X number of humans on the field. So when it's all said and done, you can have a quality team come from out of nowhere and have them succeed.

Imagine if Soccer rules worked differently. That the amount of money you spent allows you to put more players on the field. Things would not seem particularly fair at that point would it? What is deceptive about F1 is that externally they look the same (it's just one car and one driver), but under the skin is evidence of the disparity of resources.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Yet in F1, we seem to be against teams being able to spend more?

I don't have strong opinions on how much (more or less). I know that the general thinking is that less allows more to find funding and that caps help to stop significant disparity. Even then... is anyone seriously making an argument for F1 teams to spend even more money than they already are?

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Top level sport in 2018 sees massive sums of money spent, that is just the way of the world.

It doesn't actually have to work that way and there are clear examples in which it doesn't. It has been posted here a number of times, but the American Football League (NFL) uses a salary cap system to create success. And when I say "success" I mean that who wins is not "random" or "contrived", but it is also not totally dominated by a VERY select few. Other top tier sports do the same. F1 could be no different.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So why aren't Ferrari and Red Bull fans asking 'their' team to spend more to keep up with Mercedes?

Well in general fans just ask for their teams to "do better". But who is saying that fans for those teams are not asking for it? It is just how they do it. RBR fans might ask for better solutions (better engines, better cars, better something). All of those ultimately (today) likely boil down to financially driven solutions.

McLaren recently tried this by paying Honda a massive amount of money so McLaren would no longer be a "customer" team. Given that it failed also proves my point that even if you magically gave each team the same amount of money, someone is going to do a better job at producing a total solution. And that hopefully the disparity between teams may not be so huge that racing might actually become... broadly competitive? THAT is the version of F1 I would like to see.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by littleman

Well edited F1 clips look amazing......it's the 99% of dross that goes with it that nobody wants to watch.

I also liked the racing clips but the people in the wind tunnel didn't do it for me. I think clips of the drivers, interspersed with the racing clips, would have worked better.

[F1Guy]

The power of dreams, or are they nightmares?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqjp8CY67RA

[littleman]

If anyone wants to see what F1 could be.......just watch today's first MotoGP of the season from Qatar. MotoGP goes from strength to strength.....the perfect alternative for disillusioned F1 fans looking for a new home.

In addition, MotoGP also contains the solutions to F1's problems....Concessions!

To help teams/manufacturers who are not fully competitive, they give them a number of rule breaks designed to help them get on the pace as soon as possible.Concessions include more testing,increased engine allocation,on-going freedom to develop engines, increased fuel allowance, total freedom of tyre use,development of electronic systems etc.

Once a team/manufacturer are competitive all the concessions cease.This approach levels the playing field quickly and the entire sport benefits.Imagine where Renault and Honda could be today if they'd had these concessions from day one.Mercedes entered the hybrid era with a clear performance advantage and F1 rules don't allow for their competition to catch up fast.Great for Mercedes.....a disaster for everyone else........ie: Formula One !

If, after say a couple of seasons, your competitive position has gone into decline, you will qualify for concession status again...or, in the case of Mercedes,for the first time.

Concession Status is results driven, the in depth quality of the product is enhanced, the entire F1 package is improved.

If in any doubt, start watching MotoGP for proof.

[bella]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I also liked the racing clips but the people in the wind tunnel didn't do it for me. I think clips of the drivers, interspersed with the racing clips, would have worked better.

the point of including non-f1 people in it is to demonstrate just that. introducing the fan as an important part of the new season of f1. it’s not meant to do anything for you, it’s just a message. but it’s an interesting thing to release next to the usual rah rah power, dynamics, grrr, drama tv channel f1 adverts.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by bella

the point of including non-f1 people in it is to demonstrate just that. introducing the fan as an important part of the new season of f1. it’s not meant to do anything for you, it’s just a message. but it’s an interesting thing to release next to the usual rah rah power, dynamics, grrr, drama tv channel f1 adverts.

The purpose of the advert is to get my interest and excitement up, what with the 2018 season almost upon us. However, the people in the wind tunnel didn't do that for me, hence my my comment.

[bella]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The purpose of the advert is to get my interest and excitement up, what with the 2018 season almost upon us. However, the people in the wind tunnel didn't do that for me, hence my my comment.

felt like another statement of intent to me, rather than generating excitement. i’m not sure it was aimed at us old fogeys though, maybe they need to run a dual campaign for the majority of the people who actually (can afford to) watch f1 at the moment

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by bella

felt like another statement of intent to me, rather than generating excitement. i’m not sure it was aimed at us old fogeys though, maybe they need to run a dual campaign for the majority of the people who actually (can afford to) watch f1 at the moment

They could run a dual campaign but watching F1 on Sky is too expensive afaic.

[Richard C]

Is anyone going to create a race weekend thread? I would create one myself (and have in the past), but I don't have the time this week to do it the justice it deserves.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Is anyone going to create a race weekend thread? I would create one myself (and have in the past), but I don't have the time this week to do it the justice it deserves.

Richard

Maybe check with Born Racer, just in case it's being written up?

[chillibowl]

Renault race poster from down under!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Renault race poster from down under!

Isn't the race officially over 4 days? IIRC, there was some displeasure over this new arrangement a few months ago?

http://annefed.com/5-minutes-with-20...ooke-meredith/ 'I will be attending the four race days and also the launch party' 'The Formula 1® 2018 Rolex Australian Grand Prix will run from Thursday, March 22 to Sunday, March 25. For more information and to purchase tickets head to grandprix.com.au.'

[Greem]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Isn't the race officially over 4 days?

The *meeting* is four days. The F1 bit is still only three.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Isn't the race officially over 4 days? IIRC, there was some displeasure over this new arrangement a few months ago?

http://annefed.com/5-minutes-with-20...ooke-meredith/ 'I will be attending the four race days and also the launch party' 'The Formula 1® 2018 Rolex Australian Grand Prix will run from Thursday, March 22 to Sunday, March 25. For more information and to purchase tickets head to grandprix.com.au.'

The race has ALWAYS (even Adelaide) been over 4 days. Many years ago when F1 cut to 3 days the Thursday was always retained for Support category (V8's, GTs, Carrera Cup etc) Practice, qualifying, and racing. F1 pitlane walk access is only for the Paddock Club poseurs and Premium ticket holders.

Here is this years Thursday programme of events:

THURSDAY

Track Activity 2 Seater Demonstration Laps - 07:25 - 08:40

Formula One Paddock Club Pit Lane Walk - 09:00 - 10:20

Track Activity Historic Demonstration - 10:30 - 10:50

Track Activity Track Demonstration (GL) including Formula SAE - 11:00-11:40

Australian GT First Practice Session - 11:50 - 12:10

Porsche Carrera Cup First Practice Session - 12:20 - 12:40

V8 Supercars First Practice Session - 12:50 - 13:20

Air Display RAAF Roulettes (TBC) - 13:30 - 13:45

Formula One Paddock Club Pit Lane Walk - 13:35 - 14:05

Track Activity Historic Speed Comparison Practice Session - 13:45 - 14:05

Track Activity Stunt Display (TBC) - 14:15 - 14:35

Australian GT Qualifying Session - 14:45 - 15:05

Formula One Press Conference - Press Room - 15:00

V8 Supercars Second Practice Session - 15:15 - 15:45

Porsche Carrera Cup Qualifying Session - 15:55 - 16:15

Track Activity Historic Speed Comparison Demonstration 1 - 16:25 - 16:40

V8 Supercars Qualifying Session - 16:50 - 17:20

Porsche Carrera Cup First Race (TBC Laps) - 17:35 - 18:00

Australian GT First Race (TBC Laps) - 18:15 - 18:40

Formula One GP Advantage Pit Walk - 18:40 - 19:40

Other days schedules : https://www.grandprixevents.com/f1-r...-race-schedule

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Greem

The *meeting* is four days. The F1 bit is still only three.

I guess I got confused by their own (Grand Prix Australia) website stating the Formula 1 Grand Prix runs 22-25 March.

Perhaps Renault won't be taking part in the Paddock Club Pit Lane Walks on Thursday?