[Official] French Grand Prix 2018: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Other series can pass into those existing corners.

Paul Ricard is already pretty poor, but it's a shame that F1 comes in and absolutely destroys race tracks to improve overtaking when it's the series that has the problem, not the circuits.

Exactly, have cars that can follow closely and not need to rely on DRS

[Purist]

No, Chaynes, just no.

The braking zone into Verrerie is substantial enough without slowing it further.

The run into Hotel isn't long enough anyway, so tightening Verrerie would just make it worse.

Tightening Hotel and realigning the whole series of right-handers like that will just cause the cars to spread out more as they exit onto the Mistral. So, again, it would be counterproductive to the aim of increasing overtaking.

The relatively smooth flow of the corners, and the lack of any ultra-slow corners, is what led to the lower degree of separation between the cars that we saw in the opening number of laps under green. Tightening corners, especially with how they tend to profile "modern" corners, can only result in more rapid field separation.

If your goal was to get by without DRS at all, the only possible option is to remove the Mistral chicane and reinstate the original Verrerie, so that the cars go flat-out from Pont to Hotel.

Often, corners that basically require panic braking because they're so tight aren't actually that great for overtaking. And as far as kinetic energy in a braking zone goes, you get the same reduction going from 210 mph down to 117 mph as you do going from 180 mph down to 45 mph. Simply put, you don't need the ultra-slow corners to have adequate braking zones for realistic overtaking.

Given the insane acceleration of current F1 cars, they're following about as close out of Pont as is physically possible. That is, if your nose is one length behind the leader's tail at corner apex, these cars go from 50 to 150 mph so quickly that you're suddenly five lengths off his tail, but your time gap is still the same. The problem is, the effectiveness of the slipstream is heavily dependent upon the physical gap between the cars.

So, to have a major impact on this, you'd have to artificially hobble the acceleration of the cars (and by that, I mean, tampering directly with how the engines deliver power and torque would be required in order to make a sufficient difference in this area).

[BertMk2]

The biggest single improvement they could do at Paul Ricard is buy a bulk load of black paint and cover up those ridiculous blue and red lines. Really not good on the eyes.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

The biggest single improvement they could do at Paul Ricard is buy a bulk load of black paint and cover up those ridiculous blue and red lines. Really not good on the eyes.

Seconded! You would not credit just how bad this colour scheme is without having experienced it first hand! Strewth!

[Peter Mallett]

It's been like that since Bernie E bought the place.

[peebee2]

Do people realise the different colours in dictate different abrasion levels, which wrecs tyres for spinners.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

It's been like that since Bernie E bought the place.

.... and not changed any since Slavika Ecclestone became the owner nearly a decade ago, when Bernie gave it to her as part of their divorce settlement .

[Peter Mallett]

Good point.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Good point.

If you honestly believe that then you would also believe that I've got fairies living at the bottom of my garden.

[Peter Mallett]

Well prove it wrong then.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

If you honestly believe that then you would also believe that I've got fairies living at the bottom of my garden.

Circuit Paul Ricard owner Slavica Ecclestone is impressed and happy that the venue near Marseilles is hosting this weekend’s French Grand Prix, returning the country to the Formula 1 calendar for the first time in a decade.

Speaking to Press Association, the Mrs.E said, “I am very impressed with everything that has been done. It’s completely different and I’m very happy. It’s unique and more impressive than other circuits.”

“I was very happy when I learned that they had decided to have a Grand Prix here. I have heard a lot about it from the news and from my advisors and friends in a very positive way.”

Former Ferrari driver Jean Alesi accompanied Ecclestone on a recent venue inspection ahead of the grand prix weekend.

He said, “It’s great that the French Grand Prix is back here. There are a lot of people who have not been here since the nineties. They will be very surprised.”

https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/06...y-paul-ricard/

[Mike Harte]

It's all smoke and mirrors.


Much was made of the fact that FOM was really Mr E. The reality is that FOM, through a number of corporate hoops, formed part of the Bambino Trust which in theory was "granted" to Slavica and the two girls as part of the divorce settlement.


However, reality is that BCE (silently) maintained control over Bambino and FOM. In return for his largess to the three females, they allowed him to be their adviser on all things money related, including Paul Ricard. Which, to the best of my knowledge, is actually an asset of the Bambino Trust, based for tax purposes in the Channel Islands.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Do people realise the different colours in dictate different abrasion levels, which wrecs tyres for spinners.

And it's primarily a testing venue, so these large abrasive runoffs are preferred.

Best thing for Paul Ricard is just don't race there. Go to proper race tracks.

[chillibowl]

but its not like proper race tracks are proving layouts that compliment (or override) the aero/overtaking issues which F1 cars create.

lets say they did go back to mangy cours...hardly a guarantee that a race there would have produced more of an exciting race.

i could be way off base with this, but PR's test facility nature means they should be more easily able to experiment with different layouts with the hope that something can be learned and then applied to future tracks.

experiment with different race weekend structures, multiple races, reverse grids, allow for DRS to be open for the whole lap, and yes even throw the sprinklers on (and all done at a facility that can do so under as controllable conditions as possible). unpopular with purists to be sure but it will get people talking and may prove an interesting annual diversion during what FOM hopes will become a 25 races a year calendar.

they just need the leadership to convince the teams and fans to try out something different and if it doesnt work...drop it.

[Purist]

I'd like to know what Akrapovic's definition of a "proper race track is". And then, are there any of those in France currently?

As for those pushing back on the color scheme, no, most probably don't realize what it's for, and the audience that saw it this past weekend was probably several times as large as the number of people who have seen the track since the changes were made in 2001-02.

Since they no longer have refueling, provide a tire option that's competitive for the full race distance, so in theory, people could choose not to stop at all. If others wish to run the softer rubber that will necessitate a stop, then they'll have to run fast enough, and overtake if they're not in the lead. And if the field then chooses to just go without stopping, then they'll have to overtake to advance their position any.

Too much of the series' infrastructure is tied in to the current race format, so that will be a tough one anyway.

As for my part, I don't generally watch shorter races, as they're not long enough to get into a groove. Blancpain GT, a few WTCC/WTCR rounds (Germany, Portugal, Macau), and F3/GT Macau are about the only exceptions to that.

Mercedes won't go along with reverse grids, and the audience generally would view that as a "minor league" move, and I don't exactly disagree with the connotation. At the very least, it's a clear sign that things have gone very wrong.

If you went that route, you'd **** off the venues that can't really do the sprinkler thing like Ricard can: Melbourne, Baku, Monaco, Montreal, Hungaroring, Spa, Singapore, Sochi, Suzuka, and Interlagos (non-permanent or have large, sudden elevation changes and overhanging trees that impact drainage/drying).

I think you know as well as I do that full-time access to DRS would be rather pointless. Then, Everyone would use it on the straights, and back it off in the corners. Also, the teams already at the top would be the ones ost likely to have base aero that's good enough to get away with using DRS in more corners. As such, you'd end up spreading out the field more than is the case now. I mean, it's pretty clear to see that if Red Bull, Ferrari, and Mercedes can keep it open for, say, Signes, every lap, Haas, Renault, McLaren, and Toro Rosso can keep it open for the first few laps on fresh rubber, and Force India, Sauber, and Williams can't keep it open in that corner at all, well, we know how that's going to shake out in terms of on-track competitiveness.

Putting all that aside, if it's such a pressing concern, it doesn't work to try just one thing at a time, and take 10 years to sus it out. On the other hand, throwing random variations at te wall and hoping one will stick isn't a working proposition either. Again, this goes back to the "Does Racing Need Fixing?" thread, and what is the definition of "good racing". Clearly, it isn't merely having the tightest on-track competition, or else Formula Ford would be the most popular thing out there.

[Purist]

I thought I'd separate out this extra little bit.

I've watched the 1985 French GP within the last week, and watched the 1982 GP, up until Piquet's BMW engine popped on Lap 24, just last night. Even back then, the guys were well down the Mistral Straight before overtakes were being made. And unless you had a turbo and the other guy didn't, or the other guy was caught napping, competitive passes into Verrerie weren't that common, as the trailing car was rarely close enough on the run past the pits to have a go there. Occasionally, someone on better tires made something happen at the Chicane (Turn 3), and there were also those opportunistic passes once in a while at Beausset.

[S griffin]

I just realise how much simpler overtaking once was back in the day, when I look at old races. None of that DRS stuff or multiple pitstops, just drivers going at it

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Purist

I'd like to know what Akrapovic's definition of a "proper race track is". And then, are there any of those in France currently?

One that wasn't quite literally named "Test Track", built specifically for testing rather than racing. It wasn't designed to make racing good so I don't get why anyone would be shocked that the racing wasn't the best lol.

There is always Magny-Cours, and whilst the racing was rubbish it was no worse than Paul Ricard and it at least looks good.

I wouldn't even entertain the idea of sprinklers. It's already bad enough with fan boosts voted in using Twitter hashtags on other series. Do any other sports have this sort of nonsense? Does football have a thing where you get to vote in which teams get an advantage? Losing team has to put weights around their ankles or something? Cycling you vote to allow them to use an extra gear? Or null one of the many positive drug checks? Just seems bizarre.

[Purist]

Factoring in that you can still make use of the original Verrerie and the full Mistral, the only changes in layout from 1985 are the realignment of Turns 4-5, the slight relocation of Epingle (now Bendor) with the elimination of the Bendor chicane, and the tightening of Pont. The first change doesn't really hurt anything. The second, if anything, helps. And the third is probably somewhat detrimental to overtaking down at Verrerie, but it's not exactly awful either. In terms of paved run-off, aside from the paint job, is it really any worse than Austin?

Looking at other Tilke hack jobs (Fuji, Hockenheim, Mexico City, and even Red Bull Ring), this is downright minor in comparison.

[chillibowl]

i cant imagine im going to change anyone's mind but i'll still rant away.

but what is really the difference between and artificially created wet race and a naturally occurring wet race?

this is, after all, a technology driven sport in which every aspect is enhanced through artificial means...so basically for me this is not a bridge too far.



as for other sports...some seek to eliminate the effects of nature all together (building of domed stadiums)..im not really a fan of that. a little too much on the sanitized side for me.

-naturally occurring wet races have become sanitized events imo. fear of accidents, liability issues, and SCs making everything safer.

some seek to change the nature of the playing surfaces (playing on grass vs artificial turf)...its made football (nfl) a much faster sport but also creates more injuries so jury is still out on that one for me though there are some new turfs that are more forgiving on knees and ankles now.

- technology allowing for the best of both worlds. speed with safety. its possible now to have a wet race in a controlled environment so its safer and hopefully that means we dont need SCs as the amount of water on the track can be managed.

some seek venues that facilitate world records (air quality and altitude)...you can almost pick which track events to watch because you know records will be broken. same for swimming with the new pools that are designed to mitigate wake effects and have manipulated water viscosity levels.

-with such a lengthy calendar why not have more variation? (although Purist made a good point earlier - other venues who cant do this will resent the spectacle/advantage venues who can offer this will have).

some pick venues based strictly on climate and time of year...the F1 calendar does this because in addition to needing favorable track conditions there are a lot of fans who have to sit outside during the event

- sprinklers mean you can see a wet race while staying dry in the stands.

some sports embrace differences to showcase the various skill sets required (grass vs concrete vs clay)

- this is where i think the sprinklers really come into play for me...driving in the wet is a skill i would like to see more of.

its all artificial anyways right? choices made to increase the entertainment value no? imo there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

agree to disagree of course but for me there are very practical and entertaining ways to insert technology. an artificial wet race is one i can currently get on board with.

fan boosts and PHD's are a bridge too far...although some medical treatments (platelet therapies for example) and PHD use is becoming not only more common but also more acceptable.

so who knows...10 years from now i will probably have a different view on that as well.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i cant imagine im going to change anyone's mind but i'll still rant away.

but what is really the difference between and artificially created wet race and a naturally occurring wet race?

this is, after all, a technology driven sport in which every aspect is enhanced through artificial means...so basically for me this is not a bridge too far.

as for other sports...some seek to eliminate the effects of nature all together (building of domed stadiums)..im not really a fan of that. a little too much on the sanitized side for me.

-naturally occurring wet races have become sanitized events imo. fear of accidents, liability issues, and SCs making everything safer.

some seek to change the nature of the playing surfaces (playing on grass vs artificial turf)...its made football (nfl) a much faster sport but also creates more injuries so jury is still out on that one for me though there are some new turfs that are more forgiving on knees and ankles now.

- technology allowing for the best of both worlds. speed with safety. its possible now to have a wet race in a controlled environment so its safer and hopefully that means we dont need SCs as the amount of water on the track can be managed.

some seek venues that facilitate world records (air quality and altitude)...you can almost pick which track events to watch because you know records will be broken. same for swimming with the new pools that are designed to mitigate wake effects and have manipulated water viscosity levels.

-with such a lengthy calendar why not have more variation? (although Purist made a good point earlier - other venues who cant do this will resent the spectacle/advantage venues who can offer this will have).

some pick venues based strictly on climate and time of year...the F1 calendar does this because in addition to needing favorable track conditions there are a lot of fans who have to sit outside during the event

- sprinklers mean you can see a wet race while staying dry in the stands.

some sports embrace differences to showcase the various skill sets required (grass vs concrete vs clay)

- this is where i think the sprinklers really come into play for me...driving in the wet is a skill i would like to see more of.

its all artificial anyways right? choices made to increase the entertainment value no? imo there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

agree to disagree of course but for me there are very practical and entertaining ways to insert technology. an artificial wet race is one i can currently get on board with.

fan boosts and PHD's are a bridge too far...although some medical treatments (platelet therapies for example) and PHD use is becoming not only more common but also more acceptable.

so who knows...10 years from now i will probably have a different view on that as well.

The difference between an artificially created wet race and a naturally occurring wet race is, one is planned and the other isn't.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The difference between an artificially created wet race and a naturally occurring wet race is, one is planned and the other isn't.

but surely being able to plan for things isnt a bad thing?

for sure randomness is a desirable thing...but the inability to plan for a naturally occurring wet race is one of the reasons why they try to avoid wet races.

either by waiting it out or with the use of a SC to dry the racing line.

if being prepared means they are more willing to take the track then ill take that compromise.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but what is really the difference between and artificially created wet race and a naturally occurring wet race?

The same as a pass and a DRS pass. Once is an artificial construct in an attempt to inject some excitement, and the other is something completely unpredictable.

Part of the excitement of rain is you don't know whats happening. Is it raining? is it not raining? Is it drying? Is it dry enough for inters? Is it raining at the far side of the track? Is there standing water?

Putting sprinklers on a race track and asking if it's the same as a wet race is like me opening paint and asking if I'm Michelangelo.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Part of the excitement of rain is you don't know whats happening. Is it raining? is it not raining? Is it drying? Is it dry enough for inters? Is it raining at the far side of the track? Is there standing water?

from the point of view of a spectator and a team trying to figure it out as it happens, this is an entirely replicable experience all be it through a computer generated algorithm of some sort.

granted that you are at the Paul Ricard/sprinkler GP so you know that some sort of rain is inevitable and thus teams can of course hedge accordingly.

its not exactly the same but materially the net effect would be close enough for me and certainly the skill of driving in the wet would still be tested.

[Purist]

PHD?

They've had 15 years to test this if they so desired, but the issue always cited has to do with the basic capability of the cars to deal with the water, not the unpredictability of rain. And it's been ages since they ran in anything near as wet as, say, the 1989 Canadian and Belgian Grands Prix, when the cars had even lower ride heights than now. You mentioned liability yourself already, and that is the reason why this suggestion will never happen, apart from anything else.

So aside from those, and the added artificiality, this is all just a cover for the issue of (mostly) these newer tracks not producing the kind of racing people seem to want to see. And frankly, the answer has already been stated by Tilke and others; the tracks were designed to be a "challenge" to the drivers in and engineers of these cars. This end, in practical terms, is frequently, diametrically opposed to what you need in a track design to expressly promote overtaking. So there you have it.