RB predicts spins and surprises! and dangerous (merged)

[Adam43]

SLAM!

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Of course drivers always want a fast car. But that's not really the major reason why the criticize the new rules. They have to deal with rule with punish them for mistakes which has been made by the engine or tyre manufacter.

It's about variables. Far from drivers paying for mistakes made by engine manufacturers, the engine builders have effectively taken engine failure out of the game which has saved a lot of drivers from retiring from races.

Whether we agree with them or not, electronic gearboxes make it impossible for drivers to 'buzz' an engine and actual tyre failures (not caused by on track debris) are very rare.

I'm sure there were a lot fewer engine penalties awarded last year than was though pre-season, even some of those were self-elected penalties from teams whose drivers had set an unusually poor time and elected to start from the back with a fresh engine.

Similarly, traction control has surely kept more drivers on the track in wet and slippery conditions and reduced their opportunity to make mistakes.

Far from being punished by the mistakes of others, drivers are actually having 'mistakes' and 'bad luck' almost factored out of the races by the engineers.

[Adam43]

Merged. Pinguest this has been covered before although last time it was bashed!

[N I Tram]

I lost what I'd just entered on this subject during the merge, so I'll be brief. Pure spins or crashes are rarely the cause of injuries or fatalities in F1 - they almost always have come from mechancial failures in recent years. Formula Ford and similar championships have comparable safety records to F1, even though the cars are supposedly harder to drive at their limits, and the drivers are much less experienced and theoretically not as good as a whole. The teams have 4 months to gt their cars handling better - the ideal is that the cars will be a little harder to drive, and more dependant on how good the driver is, but no more dangerous. It's a shame this sensationalist rubbish always finds its way onto the site.

[Adam43]

N I Tram, sorry about that. Normally you shouldn't lose anything, I'll look into it...

[Kirk]

I think much of what RB has said (rather prematurly) stems from the fact that for the past few years he has been quite comfortable in his Ferrari. Things have remained pretty much status quo; on most days the Ferrari team has given he and Michael the best cars. Therefore, all things being equal, he has mostly only MS to contend with and figures second isn't too bad. Possibly he sees that changing, the impression he gives me is he fears that the party may be over.

[Gabrio]

Yup. And MS does not seem that worried.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Gabrio

Yup. And MS does not seem that worried.

Why would he be worried,he has 7 WDC's.

Any regulation that adds a random element as got to be a good thing,if RB doesn't like it then i shall look forward to someone else coming second in the WDC or perhaps even first.

[BootsOntheSide]

I think having the cars harder to drive should be an improvement initially - if drivers are making msitakes, positions are changing. And the safety aspect is being over-stated a lot - there's no real dange rin current F1 cars as a rule, and I don't see it as a problem if there is.

[Sodemo]

I still don't understand why don't they go further, and totally slash the aero on the cars?
Why doesn't they FIA just say to the teams;

"Right, you can have a rear wing, but it can only be 1 single element, of X by X surface area. The element must be one single piece of unlexing bodywork, being no more than 5mm thick".

Would anyone have a problem with that?

[Raglanparade]

The teams would then ask for bigger diffusers !!

[Gabrio]

I guess the only way to go back to proper racing would be :
-length of wooden plank extended to rear end of the car
- 3 sets of tires for the whole week-end
- use of ballast forbidden
- shorter (and more nervous) cars

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Gabrio

I guess the only way to go back to proper racing would be :
-length of wooden plank extended to rear end of the car
- shorter (and more nervous) cars

Surely getting rid of the wooden plank would be the best way to improve the racing?

This way they would HAVE to run less actual wing as the ground effect would make the cars stick to the road.

Having a nervous car is the last thing drivers want if they want to overtake.

[Gabrio]

Originally Posted by The Monster

Surely getting rid of the wooden plank would be the best way to improve the racing?

This way they would HAVE to run less actual wing as the ground effect would make the cars stick to the road.

Having a nervous car is the last thing drivers want if they want to overtake.

No, I think the wooden plank should be extended, not removed. That way, there would be less aero efficiency under the car.
And yes, I think the cars should be shortened and more difficult to drive.

[Gabrio]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Are you a journalist?
rules.

No! I can't write properly !!!

[Snrub]

So what about the new regulations has made the cars twitchy and finicy? Why would the new regulations create an increase in dirty air?

Making the cars difficult to drive is one thing, but twitchy and finicy is not good. For instance champ cars are considered difficult to drive, but they're far less on a knifes edge and can be manhandled to a certain extent. I'm not saying F1 should be as champ car is, but making the cars more tempermental is not what the sport needs.

[Kicking-back]

Franck Montagny has said today the new rules make the cars much more "fun" to drive.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Franck Montagny has said today the new rules make the cars much more "fun" to drive.

He also said that it would be nessersary to look after the tyres during the race and that car set-up would be more critical as any imbalance in the car would only get worse as the tyres wore down.

[Kicking-back]

Which could lead to more overtaking, as guys who thrash the tyres early on get passed by those who've managed it better.

[Alfa75]

Montagny also made some similar comments on the 05 specs:
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.h...14115908.shtml

It will hopefully be a good show, but comments like this:
"I think that car set-up will be even more important than it was in the past. Until now, a new set of tyres could mask a small problem with the chassis but that will no longer be the case for 2005. What's more, even the smallest handling imbalance will have a big impact after 300 km"
... makes me wonder if not the gap between the top teams and the rest will only increase, and if it does I'm not sure we will see more overtaking. Well apart from more lapping :P

[N I Tram]

Originally Posted by Snrub

So what about the new regulations has made the cars twitchy and finicy? Why would the new regulations create an increase in dirty air?

Making the cars difficult to drive is one thing, but twitchy and finicy is not good. For instance champ cars are considered difficult to drive, but they're far less on a knifes edge and can be manhandled to a certain extent. I'm not saying F1 should be as champ car is, but making the cars more tempermental is not what the sport needs.

What's wrong with this? Surely the cars should be difficult to drive? If they are sliding around more, there'll be more mistakes, the cars will be more itnereting to watch, there'll be more changes of position, and results will have to be earnt much more. I'd see that as progress.

[Glen]

What is wrong with it is that F1 is such a big-money activity that the normal choice for any given situation is caution. So - if an opportunity to overtake involves even more risk than is currently the case (the car is so nervy and unpredictable that it is already on the limit and there is nowhere else to go above that) then the driver will elect not to bother and wait to see what happens. Pit-stops will still be part of the race strategy, even though they won't be changing tyres, so the temptation to wait for the strategy to deliver race position will be even greater.

The ideal would be for cars that are slower in the corners and have longer braking distances, but somehow are predictable and spectacular in their on-limit/over-the-limit behaviour. A car that snaps away so fast that nobody can save it is of no use for wheel to wheel racing - they need to make the limit exploitable without total loss of the race being the only likely consequence. If it could be the case that a difficult car means that a bit of sliding around will lose your position (or gain you a place if you get irt right) then that would be ideal - if the most likely outcome of getting the car sliding is an abrupt and unsavable trip into the tyres then no driver will elect to risk it.

[Super Tourer]

I still say it's very early days to make an informed view. What we have heard so far is some intial impressions from drivers who have had very limited running in largely hybred cars.

Two months more wind tunnel time will see designers claw back at least some of the downforce, I would warrant that the full spec 2005 cars will be different again to what the drivers have experienced so far. We heard it all before when drivers first drove on grooved tyres.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Super Tourer

We heard it all before when drivers first drove on grooved tyres.

And it took quite along time for F1 to adjust to those.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Glen

What is wrong with it is that F1 is such a big-money activity that the normal choice for any given situation is caution. So - if an opportunity to overtake involves even more risk than is currently the case (the car is so nervy and unpredictable that it is already on the limit and there is nowhere else to go above that) then the driver will elect not to bother and wait to see what happens. Pit-stops will still be part of the race strategy, even though they won't be changing tyres, so the temptation to wait for the strategy to deliver race position will be even greater.

The ideal would be for cars that are slower in the corners and have longer braking distances, but somehow are predictable and spectacular in their on-limit/over-the-limit behaviour. A car that snaps away so fast that nobody can save it is of no use for wheel to wheel racing - they need to make the limit exploitable without total loss of the race being the only likely consequence. If it could be the case that a difficult car means that a bit of sliding around will lose your position (or gain you a place if you get irt right) then that would be ideal - if the most likely outcome of getting the car sliding is an abrupt and unsavable trip into the tyres then no driver will elect to risk it.

That is the most truth ive ever seen in a post