[Official] Round One :Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix, Sakhir

[jab]

But it's not just the track. Every other year we get plenty of overtaking. OK, so they've added a bit in the middle, but that shouldn't make any difference

The reason we didn't get any overtaking at the front on Sunday was because of the aero/turbulence/downforce side of things, and the tyres overheating and the need to conserve them

Honestly, if Sakhir is not a good track for overtaking, no track is good for overtaking

[tblincoe]

Originally Posted by jab

But it's not just the track. Every other year we get plenty of overtaking. OK, so they've added a bit in the middle, but that shouldn't make any difference

The reason we didn't get any overtaking at the front on Sunday was because of the aero/turbulence/downforce side of things, and the tyres overheating and the need to conserve them

Honestly, if Sakhir is not a good track for overtaking, no track is good for overtaking

But Webber's comments clearly denote the effect of the first half of the track on his abilities to close on Schumacher during the second.

In an effort to ensure we don't go round in circles on this, suffice it to say that I certainly understand your viewpoint and I don't completely disagree with you. I'm just reserving judgment for a couple of races.

[jab]

Originally Posted by tblincoe

But Webber's comments clearly denote the effect of the first half of the track on his abilities to close on Schumacher during the second.

Mark had already stated his dislike for the new section anyway so obviously he's going to use that as an excuse

Originally Posted by tblincoe

In an effort to ensure we don't go round in circles on this, suffice it to say that I certainly understand your viewpoint and I don't completely disagree with you. I'm just reserving judgment for a couple of races.

Yeah, it's no problem. I am reserving judgement too, but I don't think that should detract from what has been a persistent issue beyond the race last weekend. As I was saying to a mate on another forum, I have all the races on DVD last year, and it's quite telling that I've only bothered to watch 2 of them (Australia and Brazil). The rest aren't worth watching, other than Malaysia which was obviously affected by the storm. The quali sessions were usually more dramatic

[craigd]

Originally Posted by jab

I don't see the whole logic regarding Sutil's potential for the race - Liuzzi was 9th after lap 1 (i.e. ahead of where Sutil started), was on hards as well, he was in the same car, and he finished in the same position he ended lap 1. So I don't see any reason why Sutil wouldn't have done any different - I'm a big fan of his but he's not that much better than Liuzzi. I think they're just clinging to some hope for the future

With Sutil I meant in terms of if no mandatory pitstop rules were in place and Sutil had been able to do the whole race not stopping on hards (whereas the front running sfot guys would have had to). So the comment was in terms of saying that we need to get guys doing varied strategies again. Even last year when everyone may have done 2 stops, they'd have at least done their pitstop at differing times to each other. But yes, as the rules were in Bahrain, I agree, Sutil would likely have finished 9th had he not crashed.

[fourWheelDrift]

I am concerned that there seems to be an obsession here with overtaking and harking back to an era when every F1 race was an overtaking fest. This era never existed bar a few slip streaming affairs at Monza. Cherry picking a certain race at Dijon to justify the argument that there was a golden age just doesn't wash. Historically F1 has been about a season long battle with different drivers and teams doing well at different circuits, overtaking has always been special in F1 becuase it doesn't happen 20 times in every race, that's not new.

Yes, if I wanted an instant fix of wheel to wheel racing I'd probably watch FF or a Kart race and I'm gald they are there to provide that but that isn't what F1 is about, F1 is about the season long battle swinging one way at one circuit and favouring another team or driver at another, of course it's good to see overtaking but not at the expense of everything else.

I'm not saying everything's perfect but in my opinion this thread us in danger of losing all perspective.

The biggest problem with F1 at the moment is lack of variety and lack of compromise. With one or two honourable exceptions all the tracks are basically the same, all the engines are virtually identical, the main difference between the cars is the driver, all the drivers are damned good too and as Sunday graphically demonstrated all the tyres are the same too.

What is needed is variety which forces the teams to compromise, fast tracks, slow tracks, point and squirt tracks like Pheonix, tracks with bumps (what happened to them) V8s, V12s, reliable engines that are not so quick, fast engines that blow up, soft tyres that grip like glue but go off in ten laps, hard tyres that last the race distance, we have gradually got rid of all these variables and are surprised that all the cars run at the same pace as each other all race so there is never a speed difference that allows the driver to overtake. Add to this a scoring system that rewards consistency over bravery and stewarding that penalises any genuinely racy move and what the hell do you expect, a good move would be to go back to two or three dropped scores each season so the odd failure or pass that ends in the barriers is less likely to wreck a drivers championship charge.

Dropping refuelling is a step in the right direction because it has the potential to mix things up, no longer can the engineers churn out the fastest race strategy from their laptops and then sit with their stopwatches and their calculators working out exactly when every other car will pit but it's only going to work when there is a variety of strategies and that will only happen when the compounds of tyres are significantly different and there are no restrictions on the number of stops.

Now what I want is F1 to be less precious about the facilities for VIPs, visit a genuine variety of circuits with different challenges and for designers to sit down with a clean sheet of paper in September and realise they are going to have to gamble on reliability to be competitive, and decide on a car design concept that will work better at some places than others and make real decisions between genuine alternatives which might actually be different ones to the ones made by the competition.

It would also help a lot if the drivers could afford to go for the odd pass knowing that they wouldn't be unreasonably persecuted by the stewards and there was a chance if it all went wrong to drop the result at the end of the season anyway.

I think this post has turned into a rant, but hey even if you all completely ignore it I feel better already.

[jab]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I am concerned that there seems to be an obsession here with overtaking and harking back to an era when every F1 race was an overtaking fest. This era never existed bar a few slip streaming affairs at Monza. Cherry picking a certain race at Dijon to justify the argument that there was a golden age just doesn't wash. Historically F1 has been about a season long battle with different drivers and teams doing well at different circuits, overtaking has always been special in F1 becuase it doesn't happen 20 times in every race, that's not new.

I completely agree with you. But equally I don't want to be in a position where overtaking is impossible, which it pretty much is right now

To be fair, I don't think anyone wants loads of overtaking. We still want it to be a challenge. Don't get carried away in a rant against arguments that don't actually exist, or at least that don't exist here at 10 Tenths

I think people just want to have similar overtaking levels to GP2. I don't see how that is unfair or unrealistic. There's not loads of overtaking in GP2 but it is enough to keep us entertained

[wnut]

The real issue F1 has is the aero causes wake turbulence and a car following in dirty air just cannot get close to a similar car exploiting clean air.

Formula 1 must never ever be a one make series! It is the techno innovation and variety that makes it what it is.

In GP2 you have drivers that are not as skilled as F1 drivers and they make mistakes, on the track, in set up, tactically, over using tyres etc. hence we get overtaking.

F1 with closely matched drivers and very high speeds will never have easy overtaking.

Bin the aero, and let the boys find other techno innovations. Four wheel drive, four wheel steering, turbos, constant velocity gear boxes, different engine configurations etc.

Open testing again who wants to see a series fixed in concrete aafter 6 days of annual testing. The innnovations that are brought to the track are a large part of the interest.

But they must be able to overtake! NASCAR falls down due to the fact that they can run grooves on ovals and draft past the car in front. I do not believe overtaking such as seen in FF would be bad. Also much faster cars would make overtaking much more difficult.

On a race track if the cars can get close to each other, the racing causes the nature of the track to change lap to lap as you need to block passes and actually race against the opposition!

Light responsive cars with little or no aero and a variety of engines chassis is the way to go. A Lotus 49 on full slicks with no wings was a very impressive car. If you have all the best drivers, light responsive cars and techno innovation and big horsepower you will have good racing!

Let the racing drivers RACE!

As Jab said this show could be way better. I would rather watch something good than watch and lament how good the show could be.

Kind Regards

wnut

[wnut]

The real point of my post above is F1 has done aero to death.
Wake turbulence kills racing!
Lets drop aero like active suspension, exotic materials, aero the first time in 1968, movable and deformable wings, hub mounted wings, air brakes, fan cars, double chassis cars, six wheeled cars, turbos, electronic driver aids, forward seating, refeuling, exotic engine configurations etc.

We have a precedent for banning technology and it is time to move on! racing is about innovation and it is time to let go of aero! It is also undoubtedly the single most expensive aspect of F1 racing!


regards

wnut

[old man]

Fascinating debate and some interesting figures. I do think that the TV viewer probably saw a more boring race than a well informed spectator at the track. The viewer has to rely on the director and commentators to keep him informed and up to now I have ignored an option that I always use when watching sportscar racing, the live timing that is available on the computer. I use this in sportscar racing to keep track of the race which is usually much longer and complex than the sprint that is a GP.

It is a fact of life that the more restictions one imposes, the more uniform will be the result and so, if I had to make changes I would take away three rules: The parc ferme rule during and after qualifying, the use of the tyre from qualifying to start the race and the requirement to use both compounds of tyre in the race.

I do think we should wait for a couple more races however

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by jab

No one said it was. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen

What's the point in focusing on things to improve the racing that will never happen?

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by jab

If a group of designers gather round to set some radical new aero rules, as well as good racing, one of the key considerations will be aesthetics, because the racing can be as good as you want but people aren't going to tune in to watch cars they consider hideous

NASCAR and the F1 cars from 2007-08 kinda disprove this. I agree there is an aesthetic taste to a point but it's a minor factor compared to other things such as quality of competition, good racing, location, drivers, etc.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

What's the point in focusing on things to improve the racing that will never happen?

Never say never

Besides, that doesn't stop us from saying that it should happen, as I said

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

NASCAR and the F1 cars from 2007-08 kinda disprove this. I agree there is an aesthetic taste to a point but it's a minor factor compared to other things such as quality of competition, good racing, location, drivers, etc.

Aesthetics is all part of the show. As I said, no one is going to tune in to watch hideous cars. Neither of those that you listed are particularly hideous - they just are a bit ugly (in the eyes of some), but then us diehards can put that to one side and carry on watching anyway. It's the casual fans that matter in this case

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by jab

Never say never

In this economy, never.

From an earlier post you made that I was going to add to my previous post but you answered too quickly:

Plus F1 cars without wings aren't safe. They'd be too unstable.

I don't buy this for a second. Without wings, F1 cars would not have anything catching air in a corner and so they'd go slower. Going slower through a corner means they can't carry as much speed down the next straightaway into the next corner. It's self-correcting.

If a racecar can't be made safe without a wing, whoever designed that car is a poor designer. Honestly, you're saying these guys can build these magnificent machines with achievements such as having a gearbox that can fit in the palm of your hand, but remove the front wing and they'd be incapable of building a safe racecar? If that's the case, these designers are drastically overpaid and overrated.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

In this economy, never.

If tyres could be made cheaper to build, then I reckon you could. Loads of tyre manufacturers supplying a handful of teams each with inexpensively-produced tyres would be fine, as in sportscar racing

What are the differences between sportscar tyres and F1 tyres? Could the former be used as the latter without too many tweaks? If so, that's the route we need to go down

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by jab

If tyres could be made cheaper to build, then I reckon you could. Loads of tyre manufacturers supplying a handful of teams each with inexpensively-produced tyres would be fine, as in sportscar racing

From a Paying for Racing article for ALMS, discussing tires:

http://lastturnclub.com/index.php?op...=600&Itemid=88

Those answers don’t include one quite big “contingency,” however – tires. For two good reasons. One, you have to be on Michelins to win, and two, you have to win to collect Michelin’s contingency award. That narrows the field, doesn’t it? Remember the mythical GT team of our Cost of Racing Series? Let’s assume it was wildly successful on its moderate budget and won four races. The value of “free tires” for those events would be about $90,000. Naturally, wanting to be competitive, our team was Michelin-shod.

Is it possible that competing tire companies will do a “free tires, development, and support” deal to get a foothold in the series? It is, though the knowledge that Michelin refuses to supply all the entries certainly restrains those deals. After all, if Dunlop, Kumho, Yokohama, et.al., know you have to have tires and know you can’t get Michelins, they have little incentive to supply them for nothing, do they? Besides, the Series is going to charge them $250,000 for the privilege of participating. They might do such a deal, if they are the car’s primary sponsor, of course (Falken, or Yokohama with Advan, for instance), but that’s not very often been the case. Let’s suppose that a team has such a zero-tire-cost contract. That’s a savings of $235,000 from the budget we presented in our Cost of Racing series. Our chances of a win just became zero, we think. Can we eke out a podium finish or two? Perhaps, but it will be tough.

Here’s what’s going to make that not such a good deal, though. Instead of purses and other cash awards of $140,000, we’re going to end up with about $31,000 (when’s the last time any tire other than Michelin won?), so we’re really only $126,000 “better off” and we have zero rather than four class wins. That doesn’t look like a very good deal to us. We’ll pass.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I am concerned that there seems to be an obsession here with overtaking and harking back to an era when every F1 race was an overtaking fest. This era never existed bar a few slip streaming affairs at Monza. Cherry picking a certain race at Dijon to justify the argument that there was a golden age just doesn't wash. Historically F1 has been about a season long battle with different drivers and teams doing well at different circuits, overtaking has always been special in F1 becuase it doesn't happen 20 times in every race, that's not new.

An excellent point and I think what you say about the diversity of track design, engines and tyres is at the heart of the problem. Without it conciuosly wanting to be one F1 is turning into a spec series. Contrary to what Bernie said, about the inmates making the rules, he's wrong. In the 1966-86 3.0L era of F1, there were basic rules and perameters within which the chassis and engine designers could work with and the rest was up to their interpretation and imagination.

Now the rules are so rigid, with a spec package decided by the FIA that allows for very little interpretation and imagination, so much so that when someone comes up with something like the double diffuser everyone else gets upset. Ecclestone is wrong the inmates do need to be involved, they are the ones that build the cars and race them, not the FIA.

[Dutton]

I don't watch F1 for overtaking. Never have, and never will. It is just a pointless waste of energy trying to make that your primary interest or expectation. Having said that, I would say it is a tad on the extreme side against it. It is one of these deals where I would like for a better shot at overtaking, but it certainly isn't something that keeps me up at night with respects to F1.

I think, rather than overtaking per say, that people just want the cars to be able race better with each other. I wouldn't want it at the expense of all else, but I certainly wouldn't mind a bit of an improvement. I figure the best approach is giving them standard "racing friendly" aero, which would free up an absolute pile of man hours, money, and resources.

Given the teams will always spend what they have, then open up the regulations in the under the skin stuff.

Taking the hit of enforced spec aero could enable more freedoms (and I do not see it as a hit: I would love for them to be left way freeer than they currently are in an ideal world, but there are just so many real world things that go against it), thus potential performance differences, via other means. We'll know stuff is different, even if less interested do not (but the less interested would likely not know or care about anything, visible or otherwise, anyway: so it really is not a problem from that point of view).

[wnut]

Well said Dutton - Standard aero and more freedom for the rest of the car as you propose would encourage way more diversity.

On the current situation:

"It's annoying because it's a sport I love and it's tough to see a procession," Jenson Button Current WDC.

Regards

wnut

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Well said Dutton - Standard aero and more freedom for the rest of the car as you propose would encourage way more diversity.

On the current situation:

"It's annoying because it's a sport I love and it's tough to see a procession," Jenson Button Current WDC.

Regards

wnut

The problem is keeping costs down, that's what all that business was about last year. I don't think the current budget restraint on teams will allow them to do very much. As for standard aero, I don't see Ferrari accepting it.

[Bononi]

They can do nothing at all.