|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
7 Sep 2017, 08:57 (Ref:3765145) | #51 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,891
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
When asking; "Is he joking?" Best assume yes! |
7 Sep 2017, 09:04 (Ref:3765146) | #52 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
I agree that a point FL would probably see drivers giving up fighting for a higher position in order to set that fastest time
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
7 Sep 2017, 09:25 (Ref:3765152) | #53 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,703
|
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
7 Sep 2017, 09:50 (Ref:3765157) | #54 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,891
|
|||
__________________
When asking; "Is he joking?" Best assume yes! |
7 Sep 2017, 10:16 (Ref:3765159) | #55 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,483
|
Quote:
This year's British GP fastest lap came on L48 on fresh rubber, with Verstappen going 2nd fastest despite it being a power circuit. Alonso was 4th fastest in Spain, as a result of fresh rubber despite having a Honda PU. And Perez took the fastest lap at Monaco due to a late stop for tyres. All of these examples are as a result of being forced to stop for tyres, and not a deliberate attempt for fastest lap. If there was a point on offer, then the only time front runners would take it is if they are already far enough ahead to be able to make an extra stop. |
|||
|
7 Sep 2017, 15:02 (Ref:3765185) | #56 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,949
|
Quote:
but if its the mid to back fielders making these late runs/late pitstops at the end of races dont we run the risk of seeing a bunch lapped cars (either close to being lapped, lapped already, or lapped by virtue of an extra stop) vying for fastest lap? Alonso finished a couple of laps down in Spain and Perez was last of the finishers in Monaco...not sure how much value their fast laps really added to those proceedings. and if its not that, then its one of the top teams winning the race and setting fastest lap as was the case in Britain. and as the season progresses and fresh PUs come into short supply, whats the incentive to turn up the wick at the end of a race and risk and PU failure? does one point equal enough money to pay for an additional PU? current restrictions on available PUs and pre event tire allocations render fastest laps sort of irrelevant these days...imo, this needs to change in order to compel teams into being more competitive at all times (every GP for every lap). |
|||
__________________
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 |
7 Sep 2017, 15:58 (Ref:3765196) | #57 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,703
|
Quote:
It's fair to assume that the fastest lap would be set as close to the end of the race as possible when the car is lightest having burned off most fuel. Those towards the pointy end of the race would probably on more worn tyres which would make them getting the fastest lap more difficult/risky (so is it worth the risk?) Plus, the usual podium finishers are generally the ones fighting for the championship positions, so is it worth them risking car or mechanical damage pushing for the extra points? For those who were going to finish out of the points anyway, it gives them (all of them) a chance to salvage a bit of kudos from the weekend, but they also have the risks mentioned above, plus the possibility of traffic hampering their lap, another sprinkle of spice in my opinion. The only way I can see these extra points being won *easily* is if one of the top team's cars has a problem during the race (maybe needing lengthy pit stops to replace front wings a couple of times?) and so ends up running outside of the points. They could hopefully pit for fresh tyres (if they have any left) and get the fastest lap points, but again, this would stop them from just parking a (now) perfectly good car instead of winding around putting mileage on the components to finish the race, which would be good for the spectators and the sponsors. |
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
7 Sep 2017, 18:47 (Ref:3765238) | #58 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
|||
|
7 Sep 2017, 22:05 (Ref:3765270) | #59 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,949
|
Quote:
although any change can be viewed as contrived so i should just get over that part of it already! but, for me at least, its hard to get excited about FL, let alone hand out points for a lap time that is (typically) slower by a couple of seconds then what someone had already set the day before during Q2. not really sure where i am going with bringing up qualifying but i think it has something to do with bringing back refueling... |
|||
__________________
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 |
8 Sep 2017, 06:57 (Ref:3765334) | #60 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,891
|
|||
__________________
When asking; "Is he joking?" Best assume yes! |
8 Sep 2017, 07:18 (Ref:3765337) | #61 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Heres an idea,........no grid penalties,turn out the lights and race to the chequered flag with no penalties..
|
||
|
8 Sep 2017, 09:28 (Ref:3765359) | #62 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Yes, let's have less complicated rules and actually have some proper racing
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
8 Sep 2017, 19:20 (Ref:3765487) | #63 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,931
|
Works for me!
|
||
__________________
280 days...... |
8 Sep 2017, 21:41 (Ref:3765511) | #64 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,101
|
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
9 Sep 2017, 09:10 (Ref:3765618) | #65 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Yeah, they always go for complicated solutions instead of going for the obviously simple ones
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
9 Sep 2017, 10:25 (Ref:3765627) | #66 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
||
|
9 Sep 2017, 10:50 (Ref:3765629) | #67 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,101
|
Quote:
1. Destroys the commercial viability of a series. 2. Is not viewed as the pinnacle of the sport. 2. There is "real racing", but the racing is far from close and by extension is not entertaining for the broader audience. To be more specific... A very simple set of rules might have very little in the way of technical regulations (aka "Run what ya brung!"). This would result in largest budget wins and little or no close racing. Eventually those who can't afford to win leaves and the series dies or is highly unstable and volatile (not commercial viable) and gravitates toward a small niche series. On the other end of the spectrum, is a set of simple technical regulations but implemented via fully spec equipment with zero development allowed. Throw in a budget cap as well just to make sure money is not spent somewhere. Anyone could participate and win. Racing should be very close. But why would anyone consider that as the pinnacle of Motorsports? The series would not attract important teams (i.e. Ferrari,etc.) and by extension top drivers. It might exist as a niche sport (i.e. International race of champions) IMHO, F1 (Pinnacle sport with top teams and drivers) needs to sit somewhere in the middle of those scenarios... which would require careful and difficult crafting of regulations (by my definition not simple or easy). 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 Sep 2017, 12:05 (Ref:3766252) | #68 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 575
|
20 years ago teams did it with no issue, so why are teams struggling now, I think the deficit is to be blamed on the grid penalties as its an eggshell game, it can be a worry to develop and then screw their teams over through a failure
|
|
|
12 Sep 2017, 14:00 (Ref:3766280) | #69 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
Gary Anderson makes a good point, if you pardon the pun, on constructor points deductions. It would mean a team fighting for the title would just keep changing parts when they need to if they concentrated more on the drivers' title
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
12 Sep 2017, 15:41 (Ref:3766307) | #70 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,949
|
|||
__________________
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 |
12 Sep 2017, 19:35 (Ref:3766371) | #71 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,101
|
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." |
13 Sep 2017, 06:53 (Ref:3766445) | #72 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,891
|
Quote:
"May the richest team win.", and frankly it has always been that way, and always will be until we revert to a 'Formula Ford' style championship where everyone drives an identical car. Oh1 Each car will feature a covered cockpit, Drag Reduction System, and electric power. Roll on! |
|||
__________________
When asking; "Is he joking?" Best assume yes! |
13 Sep 2017, 07:45 (Ref:3766449) | #73 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,861
|
>>>>>>A very simple set of rules might have very little in the way of technical regulations (aka "Run what ya brung!"). This would result in largest budget wins and little or no close racing.
I beg to differ. The current rules leave little room for innovation without spending money but think over the years how brilliant design within a loose framework has allowed smaller teams to shine. The tiny Cooper Car Company standing motor racing on its head by putting the engine behind the driver. Colin Chapman in his early days had pretty meagre funding compared to the might of the Ferrari etc. Adrian Newey getting the March/Leyton House to the sharp end of the grid with his fantastic aerodynamics. The Cosworth DFV. Ross Brawn in 2009. There are many examples of garagistes sticking one over the grandes constructeurs thanks to innovation and thinking outside a pretty loose box. Make the rules so prescriptive that we basically have a spec car and we end up where we are today - it costs billions for a tiny incremental increase in performance, and the smaller teams can't engineer their way to the front. As for close racing - has F1 ever been about that? From the pre-war Auto Unions and Mercedes through JYS's greatest race - he won by FOUR MINUTES - to the Mercedes steamroller of today, F1 has been a celebration of engineering excellence. If you want close racing go watch Formula Ford Kent at your local track. Great overtakes like the Schumacher/Hakkinen Spa epic are remembered because of their rarity not their frequency. Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk |
||
__________________
Midgetman - known as Max Tyler to the world. MaxAttaq! |
13 Sep 2017, 12:42 (Ref:3766529) | #74 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,101
|
Quote:
But most of those examples are from an era when everyone was still figuring out how to make fast cars. Today it is more understood. IMHO, it is much harder today to innovate in ways that result in radical performance increases. I would argue the Brawn example doesn't even fit your argument. They were well funded. Honda just bailed out at the wrong time. Lastly it's likely any dramatic innovation would be short lived and the "Garagista" quickly overtaken again. For lighting to strike multiple times for a single small team (to allow them to constantly perform better than their budget would allow), it would require some type of rare genius designer or design team. And how would a small team expect to retain that talent long term? They couldn't. Those with money would scoop them up. So occasionally blips can happen, but likely have no staying power. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
13 Sep 2017, 14:46 (Ref:3766554) | #75 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,891
|
In autumn 1932 motorsport's governing body in Paris unveiled a new formula for Grand Prix racing, which took effect two years later: all racing cars were to weigh no more than 750 kilograms excluding fuel, oil, coolant and tyres.
This limit was based on the assumption that only lightweight engines could be installed in lightweight vehicles and that this would therefore limit the racing cars' output and speed. However, the motorsport association underestimated advances in technology. This is the type of Formula envisaged by Adrian Newey, as being the ideal, |
||
__________________
When asking; "Is he joking?" Best assume yes! |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Hamilton 5 Place Penalty? | Peter Mallett | Formula One | 55 | 17 Apr 2012 00:49 |
10 place penalty for Hamilton and Rosberg | alonso11 | Formula One | 299 | 24 Jun 2008 02:06 |
Five place penalty for Kovalainen | Down F0rce | Formula One | 107 | 23 Jun 2008 16:42 |
Vettel gets 5 place penalty | Marbot | Formula One | 13 | 19 May 2008 20:11 |
Massa first to be hit with '10 place penalty' following De la Rosa Incident | Damon | Formula One | 3 | 17 Sep 2002 11:41 |