|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
5 Feb 2016, 23:12 (Ref:3612177) | #1426 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
I am not quite sure which thread should contain this, but some good thoughts on why people remember and enjoy racing, together with some ideas on what should be done.
Chariots of thunder! http://www.pitpass.com/55438/Chariots-of-Thunder "it's a fair bet this (fictional) crowd ambled home discussing the actual events of the afternoon, rather than the legal size of the axles, the minimum weight of a chariot or the questionable use of "advanced hay" as horse food to power past the opposition. Yes what actually transpired within the race would have been the major topic of excitement and discussion." |
|
|
6 Feb 2016, 00:17 (Ref:3612199) | #1427 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
Everyone has an idea and that is mine for what it is worth. I know it is radical but it actually puts limits on engineering spend to a huge degree because the complicated data and engineering used at the tracks will no longer exist. It will also cause cars to be less predictable in race performance which can't be a bad thing, unpredictability is one of the things needed to upset the metronome like performance we see these days. Chaos is self perpetuating and F1 has got that down to a fine art. |
||
|
6 Feb 2016, 12:08 (Ref:3612348) | #1428 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Casper, I was far more focused on the chariot racing analogy than the solutions that were proposed to the current state F1 finds itself in.
I think your idea to remove the telemetry is a good one, and they should also limit the number of people allowed to work on the cars during the race weekend. Tom Kristensen states in a podcast (http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ra...ensen-podcast/) I have just posted in "Is F1 attracting the best talent" thread that his LeMans car had 12 people working on it in 2000 and 147 in 2015. Engineers, you have to love them! Part of the problem I think is allowing them to increase the weight of the cars allowing more gadgets to be introduced KERS, they should have reduced the minimum weight when carbon fibre was introduced and the safety standards improved, you just plain can't wedge so much fat (extra gadgets and telemetry) into a lean racing car! You will just get beaten! |
|
|
7 Feb 2016, 20:58 (Ref:3612848) | #1429 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,849
|
Quote:
Quote:
Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
7 Feb 2016, 22:26 (Ref:3612872) | #1430 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
8 Feb 2016, 01:17 (Ref:3612922) | #1431 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,849
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are limiting resources and making the organization smaller, but you are not addressing the "waste" that you are complaining about that causes the problems. I don't even agree that wasteful spending is the problem. I have faith that the larger teams (be it F1, WEC, whatever) know what they are doing. They have smart people in various positions and generally know where and why they are spending money. I am sure that internal budget planning is quite serious business. They are spending money on engineers because they feel it gives them a competitive advantage (I am not sure who you count as "engineers", but I am counting anyone on the technical side, be it design, construction, trackside, etc.). They are deciding that the headcount works for them. To my point above, engineers don't just show up and demand jobs. I will be honest, I know the comments are not directed at me, but I can't help but to take them a bit personally. I am an engineer by training, but work in the software business. You can have "engineer gone wild" organizations, but that is organizational (lack of proper oversight) issues, not a core part of how engineers think or who they are. I think this issue is just more complex than you and wnut think and that you are placing blame in the wrong place. Richard |
||||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
9 Feb 2016, 14:59 (Ref:3613385) | #1432 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
Thickening the rule book almost never resulted in a cost reduction or an unpredictability that was sustainable. In fact, the very opposite is achieved every time. The stricter the rules, the more regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and the more cars tend to converge. And the more cars tend to converge, the smaller performance differences will be. This makes overtaking virtually impossible and forces teams to work into the smallest details, something that has proven to be very expensive.
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
9 Feb 2016, 15:21 (Ref:3613395) | #1433 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
9 Feb 2016, 16:10 (Ref:3613407) | #1434 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
Quote:
This changed when flat bottoms became mandatory in 1983. As a consequence, all teams were effectively forced to seek for turbo-engines. Where in early-eighties no less than five teams had a proper chance of winning the world championship, Formula One faced a prolonged domination by Honda powered teams in late-eighties. To make things clear, I am certainly not proposing a Formula Libre. But instead of constant rule thickening that involves the banning, homologating and standardizing technology, Formula One should look at regulating performance parameters. However, this is a subject about which I will start a new thread shortly. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
9 Feb 2016, 16:49 (Ref:3613420) | #1435 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,849
|
I hate posting anymore as it seem like I am just being negative and contrary to what others are saying. And I don't feel that negative, or want to appear to be confrontational
But I will keep posting... I think there are correlations between rules freedom (open, closed) and cost. But I also think its difficult to nail down. One minute you think you have it figured out and the next it is moving in a direction you don't want. I am not convinced that something like "lack of passing" (I take that as "passing for position") is determined by rule freedom and solution convergence. Tight rules will result in quick solution convergence. Open rules will still result in solution convergence, but at a slower pace. I actually believe that "passing for position" is less likely in the time period in which there is large differences between solutions. The field will be all over the place with large chunks not being on the same lap at the leader. I also firmly believe that if you are talking about controlling costs, that you hit that head on vs. trying to tweak other factors (rule complexity) in the hope that a desired effect is achieved. So I am a proponent for cost and resource caps. Without artificial caps, the budget (and amount of money spent) will be purely dependent upon the economics of how much money you can obtain and likely is not driven much by things like technical regulations. What I think the real problem in F1 in general is the general predictability of the entire thing. It has become a math problem with a number of stable variables. Look at a number of other sports such as American Football, Soccer, etc. Each of these has a large amount of "human element" within a given team. Each person is an exquisite random performance machine. Each one is able to perform to a specific level +/- a good amount of day to day variability. Add it all up across a number of participants on the field and it results in enough unpredictability to keep it interesting. With F1, you generally have a small set of drivers who (plus or minus) are the cream of the crop. So you have a much smaller group and therefore a much smaller chance of random events, or unexpected performance. The cars are very well prepared, highly reliable and not likely to break over the course of a relatively short sprint race. So their performance is generally fixed and known in advance. The random factor for a given race is very low. It is only when other factors show up like weather (unpredictable), lack of reliability (unpredictable), team strategy (human factor), poor pit stops (human factor), etc. that you can occasionally see something unusual occur such as a mid field team making it to the podium. Dynasties (Mercedes today, RBR recently and Ferrari in the past) become long lasting and hard to break. Other racing series that seem to do well have a lot less predictability. In something like WEC, you have much longer races that allow unreliability to creep in. You have multi-class racing that brings in a certain amount of extra difficulty for the drivers (an injection of unpredictability). Add all of that on top of the other stuff I list above. It makes the races less predictable and for the viewer, more enjoyable. Then you have the inequities in F1. Teams who run at different funding levels and frankly have zero chance of winning. This is another reason things are predictable. But inequities can be resolved and that creates a more level field so that performance gaps between teams are smaller and dynasties are shorter in duration. Look at US Football (NFL) for example. Revenue sharing results in more diversity with respect to year to year winners and losers. We can talk about open rules, more or less technical freedom, etc. But in my opinion, at the end of the day, the problems with F1 are structural and deep. Between the commercial rights holder and the top teams, there is a strong desire to keep the status quo, or at least something that looks very close to the status quo. The entire money side would need to be totally restructured to make any type of revolutionary improvement to the system. Things like removing the token system and lowering costs of customer engines are good and all, but they are just small tweaks. Sadly... I feel like nothing new is really being said here. It's one big echo chamber with the same ideas (some of which are contrary to what I say above) bouncing around with really no ability from us to make any type of change. We will likely be having the same discussions next week, next month and next year. Has anyone seen the movie Groundhog Day? Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
9 Feb 2016, 17:33 (Ref:3613434) | #1436 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
A key question is: how do drivers pass, if their lap times are almost the same?
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
9 Feb 2016, 18:18 (Ref:3613449) | #1437 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,738
|
with the midfield teams we saw a lot of passing this year with the STR's making up in the corners what they lost out to others on the straights vs the same time two Mercs following each one cannot pass the other unless one makes a mistake.
of course not ideal that the best stuff happens in the midfield but the one common element of the midfield teams have is lack of money...so for me im still inclined to fall on the size of budgets being the bigger issue over restrictive rules. although restrictive rules probably favour those with the most money so perhaps it actually is the same problem. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
10 Feb 2016, 20:34 (Ref:3613793) | #1438 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
10 Feb 2016, 22:30 (Ref:3613822) | #1439 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,700
|
I'm not doubting your data, but can I ask, is that genuine overtakes on the track, or does it include changes of position as a result of pitstops?
|
||
|
10 Feb 2016, 23:30 (Ref:3613841) | #1440 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,381
|
Judging by the fact it's gone down in the refuelling I would say no
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
11 Feb 2016, 05:39 (Ref:3613887) | #1441 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Good summary of the tyres and aero problems here:
http://www.f1reader.com/#/news/somet...e-tyres-137582 "But the drivers are about the only significant group not getting an input into this. I mean, they’re only sat behind the wheel with the best sense of all of what lets them follow closely and what doesn’t… “At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what we [as drivers] say because it can’t happen” said Lewis indeed in that Interlagos press conference. “The big bosses make the decisions and whether or not they make the right ones for many years, who knows.” Seb agreed: “Unfortunately the sport is very political with different interests from different people" |
|
|
11 Feb 2016, 14:02 (Ref:3613956) | #1442 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
11 Feb 2016, 19:57 (Ref:3614037) | #1443 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,849
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
12 Feb 2016, 15:13 (Ref:3614222) | #1444 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
Quote:
http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/ |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
12 Feb 2016, 16:01 (Ref:3614236) | #1445 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,849
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have toyed with the idea of starting a website that does much of what they are doing, but in a reproducible way that lists the source code for both data sourcing and analysis so that others can do their own analysis as well as validate any results I might show. I just don't know if I have the time to devote to it. Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
15 Feb 2016, 17:38 (Ref:3614872) | #1446 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,738
|
what year was it, 2012 Chinese gp?, where Kimi's tires hit the cliff?
in a matter of one or two laps he dropped from 2nd to 12th....that counts as 10 on track overtakes but magnified as this would happen to one or two drivers in each race during the early Pirelli years. dont want to rehash the Pirelli debate here but isnt it fair to say that the overtake numbers from the early Pirelli years were artificially high as teams got to grips with the then new tire characteristics. so if we could look at this in isolation of the effect that tires have had, i wonder if the other rule changes (aero rules, new PU etc) have had a positive effect? sort of a 'real overtake' statistic if you will. just not sure how anything can be measured in isolation of the tires though. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
15 Feb 2016, 22:13 (Ref:3614966) | #1447 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 717
|
Quote:
|
||
|
16 Feb 2016, 03:45 (Ref:3615025) | #1448 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,849
|
Both good points (tires, DRS). Ideally, assuming the number of overtakes was accurate (and even more ideally, it wasn't just a number per lap, but tied to a given car, lap and position on track) AND you had any other numbers of other data elements (tires, weather, timing for other cars, etc.), you could do all kinds of other interesting statistical analysis. Hopefully interesting facts will start to show up as likely correlations. But the problem with a single metric (overtakes per year) is that it just leaves you frustrated as you really can't do anything with it. Is it significant? If so, why? Is it down to chance?
Oddly enough, I think that the FIA, FOM or maybe even the larger teams likely has this data and could do this analysis if they wanted (and maybe they have). It would be interesting to see the results vs. anecdotal evidence. Not that I am saying it isn't likely that some things we have mentioned are not part of "why", but it would just be nice to see the conclusions via repeatable statistical analysis. I particularly like chilibowl's comments around the teams getting a handle on the new tires performance and that means... less variability/randomness, so a greater likelihood of fewer and fewer passes one season after the other. If nothing else changed there is probably some asymptote we would approach with respect to number of average passes per race. Richard Last edited by Richard C; 16 Feb 2016 at 03:50. |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
16 Feb 2016, 09:50 (Ref:3615059) | #1449 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,551
|
One of the fascinating things about F1, and motor racing in general, is that through stabilty, teams and engineers are able to get a full understanding of how parts of the car, whether it be the tyres or wings or aero bits, work best.
However, having said that, that is the theory, and yet we often see that some teams are able to fully utilise that understanding whilst other teams either just "stand still" in relation to progressing in their development of the car, and in fact we also see some teams, even with all that knowledge, going backwards. It all depends on how those teams/designers/engineers utilise that knowledge. |
||
|
16 Feb 2016, 11:03 (Ref:3615079) | #1450 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1...dwell-podcast/ He reminisces that in 1974 McLaren ran and built the following cars, all in house F1 - Team 1 for Fittipaldi and Hulme F1 - Team 2 for Hailwood Indy - Won the 500 Rutherford Can Am (??? Claim) F5000 - Won the Championship with Gethin F2 - Won several races Total staff 34 including 2 tea ladies and an accountant. McLaren currently more than 1000 people to "not build 2 F1 cars". "What do they do?" Caldwell Don't know the complete accuracy of the story, but it certainly conveys a point. Last edited by wnut; 16 Feb 2016 at 11:09. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |