|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
29 Jul 2014, 10:02 (Ref:3439619) | #701 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
Quote:
I do not agree with the historical records as a justificiation for success ballast either, as no causal relationship between open rules and domination is proven. |
|||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
29 Jul 2014, 12:04 (Ref:3439650) | #702 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,744
|
Quote:
From the link, also fail to see how rehiring another corrupt dinosaur helps. |
|||
__________________
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 |
29 Jul 2014, 12:47 (Ref:3439671) | #703 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
I'd stop watching if they introduced success ballast. That eliminates the racing in order to stack the odds that there's a dramatic championship.
That doesn't interest me. For me, championship is just a complimentary to good racing and punishing people for winning isn't good racing. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
29 Jul 2014, 13:19 (Ref:3439688) | #704 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,744
|
What effect would a success ballast have on the way that car uses it's tires? Wouldn't this be like a double penalty for the winning team?
As crazy as it sounds but doing away with quali and just have reverse grids based on the finishing order of the previous race makes more sense by comparison....which has probably been Flav's plan all along.muhaha! |
||
__________________
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 |
29 Jul 2014, 17:29 (Ref:3439782) | #705 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Some here think open rules would lead to one team completely dominating, winning by a lap, or more than a lap, fans and opposing teams would both leave, and F1 would cease to exist. If open technical rules would indeed have that result, I would say success ballast would be the best mechanism to combat it. Not as decreed by whim of Bernie or whoever, but written into the rules from the beginning, so everybody knows what the deal is going into it. I share your skepticism that any team would so completely dominate. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
29 Jul 2014, 17:48 (Ref:3439794) | #706 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
Standing restarts gone next year. Yipeeeeee.
Now how about getting rid of double points? http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28622.html |
|
|
30 Jul 2014, 03:49 (Ref:3439968) | #707 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
They are such a bunch of nancy's ...
|
||
|
30 Jul 2014, 09:06 (Ref:3440074) | #708 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
Mexico might be a double points final next year according to the president of the Mexican FIA vice president.
Why do we have to have this double points madness it is a stupid mad idea. http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28623.html |
|
|
30 Jul 2014, 21:23 (Ref:3440223) | #709 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
I would not normally agree with what is said on pitpass but on this occasion that are commenting on Bernie's ideas on rule changes and I agree with them 100%.
http://www.pitpass.com/52210/What-was-that-Bernie |
|
|
30 Jul 2014, 23:40 (Ref:3440253) | #710 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
No good would come of completely open regulations. At the end of the day F1 is a sport and a sporting contest is what people wish to see, the technicalities are only an interesting distraction; Casey Stoner on the Ducati, now that was genius on something different. Most of the F1 technical regs and certainly the tweeks are secret and unavailable to anyone except the team running them, so how can they be relevant to the sport? |
||
|
31 Jul 2014, 00:11 (Ref:3440259) | #711 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
But now, here: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...14-01-23_0.pdf we have a whole raft of rules that didn't exist in the 1960's and 1970's. But back then, as Pingguest has pointed out, we didn't have utter domination by one team. Now, they decide to leave one area open, and different teams take different approaches and one approach ends up being better, allowing domination. There is thinking that nowdays, with computer analysis, if you open the rules wide up, everybody still produces the same car, yet we keep getting these examples where one little area is left open or ambiguous, and one team differentiates themselves from the others even though, supposedly, they were all working on the same design problem. If you open most areas to innovation, that grows exponentially, nobody can simulate themselves to victory, and more importantly, every team has their own strengths and weaknesses, they exploit their strengths, and you end up with a lot of cars that have different performance envelopes and real racing returns. Oh, and because the predictable ROI for additional investment goes away, the Ferrari BOD doesn't approve such large budgets and spending actually goes down. A LOT of good would come of more (I would never say completely) open regulations. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
31 Jul 2014, 11:35 (Ref:3440377) | #712 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,192
|
Maitanut, previously you said a fuel consumption limit in stead of fuel-flow limit would allow more technical freedom. Could you elaborate that?
|
||
__________________
'Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.' - Enzo Ferrari |
31 Jul 2014, 18:41 (Ref:3440515) | #713 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
I am completely indifferent on that subject. We have fuel flow meters now, and there is no reason it couldn't stay that way. It would prevent the complaints about "economy runs." To me, they both accomplish the same thing. If the cars get too fast for safety, you can cut back their fuel. With a flow limit, as you pointed out, there would be more control over top speed, although depending on how a team wanted to use energy stored from regenerative braking or other energy recovery strategies, it may not be effective that way.
|
||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
1 Aug 2014, 00:35 (Ref:3440616) | #714 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
|
||
|
1 Aug 2014, 02:18 (Ref:3440636) | #715 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
And based on ACO's challenges predicting diesel performance a year out, it's possible they would need to change it during a season. Because the engineers were more clever than expected so the cars were too fast, or maybe because the cars didn't turn out as fast as anticipated and the fans are complaining about lap times. Changes between years would be healthy. It sort of shakes up the box and increases the chance a different team would be the best the following year. Changes during the season could be disruptive. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
1 Aug 2014, 07:32 (Ref:3440680) | #716 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,219
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
2 Aug 2014, 00:10 (Ref:3440876) | #717 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
|||
|
2 Aug 2014, 00:37 (Ref:3440877) | #718 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
No matter how you look at it BJ, DRS has improved F1.
The races were just finish in qualifying order parades. Two words Alonso, Petrov. Get rid of the aero and you can get rid of the DRS, until then it would be a bad mistake to dump DRS. It has made the racing much much better, the races were just parades prior to the introduction of DRS. |
|
|
2 Aug 2014, 01:05 (Ref:3440882) | #719 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,219
|
Quote:
Anywy, I thought moveable aerodynamic devices were banned in F1, so why is DRS allowed? |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
2 Aug 2014, 01:18 (Ref:3440885) | #720 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
I know I'm a broken record, but the truth is if they opened up the technical rules, the teams would go different ways on some stuff, and the cars would have different performance envelopes. So, even if they had virtually the same lap time at most places, they would make that lap time different ways and real racing would result. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
2 Aug 2014, 01:32 (Ref:3440886) | #721 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,219
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
2 Aug 2014, 19:23 (Ref:3441047) | #722 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,089
|
The DW12 has 'push to pass'.
Just saying. |
|
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
2 Aug 2014, 19:46 (Ref:3441052) | #723 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,219
|
Push to pass increses the turbocharger boost from 21.7 Psi to 23.2 Psi and gives an additional 200 RPM but it can only be used a total of 10 times at the driver's discretion and then only on road and srteet courses. A driver can adjust the boost on an F1 PU.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
2 Aug 2014, 20:09 (Ref:3441055) | #724 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,089
|
My comment was based on "artificial" aids to racing.
Without writing the whole essay again, all racing is artificial. The sooner people stop banging on about "pure" racing, the better off we'll all be. DRS is a form of PTP, just not as brutal. If F1 had the same tech as Indy Car, there would be the same outcry - likely from the same people. It's 2014. It isn't *insert favourite era of F1 here* any more. Can we look forward rather than back, do you think? |
|
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
2 Aug 2014, 20:22 (Ref:3441059) | #725 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,396
|
As long as double points go, I can put up(but despise) with things like DRS
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
|
|
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 |