Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Formula 1

Old 13th Sep 2016, 07:42
  #5181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
Tyre changes: You're missing the point guys. MotoGP changes tyres due to dry/wet = change bikes. It is a team choice and a chess move when or if to do so. Sometimes the race is declared a wet race at the start, no choice. Then during the race the line dries out and the team have a choice and it's a bike change. Equally the opposite can happen from dry to wet and team/rider takes a risk to swap or not.
In F1 they HAVE to change compound of tyres even if the change causes a tyre not best suited to the conditions of the track and can cause slower speeds at a strategic time of the race. WHY? What is the justification of such rule? That is my query.

And how can anyone who watches 3 bikes at >100mph, on the side of the tyre, swap places twice in 3 consecutive corners, for them to emulate the 'watch the 3 beakers and find the ball' trick as the 1st in becomes the last out twice, say it's boring. Watch 'the corkscrew' in the last few laps and marvel at the skill & courage of these speed freaks. Go to Brands Hatch or Outlon Park and watch the sweeping flowing high speed corners with high crests & deep valleys and wonder at the skill in maintaining speed & balance under such exacting braking, accelerating and G forces, while on the edge of the tyre and diving down the inside.
I know this is an F1 thread, but I need to defend one against the other.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2016, 09:47
  #5182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 169
PDR1 has obviously never watched a Moto3 race and I am sorry to say that by his statement
about bike racing any credability he had with me has been blown away.
Nervous SLF is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2016, 10:51
  #5183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 158
Agree with both of you, Rat and Nervous

The skill of the riders, the closeness of the racing and the risks if it all goes wrong equals a great racing spectacle. And the competitiveness of the riders who will ride again after a fall and injury

As someone involved in motorcycle racing said: "Lewis Hamilton? Who is she?"
david1300 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 05:55
  #5184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 158
I just watched the last F1 GP which I recorded (Monza). Well, I was eating lunch when it started, it was about lap 5 when I finished lunch, and then woke in time to see the podium. The biggest talking point by the commentators and scene setters was Daniel Ricciardo's hand signal after passing Bottas. Couldn't have been much else that happened between lap 5 and lap 53
david1300 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 06:35
  #5185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 77
F1 has a confused mission statement. It IS the pinnacle of motor racing technology. It isn't the pinnacle of motor sport/racing.

a few years back the british touring car rules were revised. costs were getting silly and racing wasn't as good as it had been. simple things like steel brake disks of a certain size meant braking went from 20 feet from the apex to 50, meaning someone could give it a crack at 49 feet. the big wings and stuff have minimal aero effect, but look good. so cars can follow within inches, sometimes less

F1 needs to make the cars worse, to make the racing better
Interested Passenger is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 07:59
  #5186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,264
Originally Posted by Nervous SLF View Post
PDR1 has obviously never watched a Moto3 race
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I have watched a few - I find them boring so it's not that many. I am allowed to have a different opinion to you.

...and I am sorry to say that by his statement about bike racing any credibility he had with me has been blown away.
Someone expresses a different view to you and you have to post a pathetic flouncing durge like that? What a sad person you appear to be.

May I suggest you reflect on your behaviour and learn from it?

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 10:59
  #5187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Yeah, well, at least he does no how to spell "dirge."
chuks is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 11:08
  #5188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 169
at PDR1
Nervous SLF is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 11:29
  #5189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 49
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by chuks View Post
Yeah, well, at least he does no how to spell "dirge."
Does he know how to spell know?
maliyahsdad2 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 11:32
  #5190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by maliyahsdad2 View Post
Does he know how to spell know?
Love it when the spelling police get put to the sword
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 11:50
  #5191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
I'm the Grammar Nazi, not the Spelling Police, so give me a break!

It turns out that one should not put absolute reliance on SpellCheck ....
chuks is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 11:52
  #5192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,264
Typos - the small greek island where apprentice wizards are sent as a punishment for bad spelling...



PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 12:05
  #5193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Hempy is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2016, 12:08
  #5194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
I just bought the new, critical edition of Mein Kampf, and it's clear reading it that Rudolf did a pretty poor job of editing it in the first place!

Actually, I was having a very small joke there.

Once I submitted something that included Molesworth's "as any fule kno," when the young editor soon afterwards buttonholed me, to tell me that she had fixed a mistake I had made.

When the piece was published, there it was, "as any fool knows," when I had to explain to her who Molesworth was, so that it was not actually a mistake as originally written but satire.

If I had really screwed the pooch here then I simply would have claimed that I had been typing that reply on my phone. In a hurry, in the dark, after a few drinks, as one does.
chuks is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2016, 07:42
  #5195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 49
Posts: 164
Nice story here about coming back from a very big low. Photo halfway down is a bit graphic.

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph
maliyahsdad2 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2016, 10:59
  #5196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
Back to F1. Will someone please explain the rational behind the mandatory rule that F1 cars have to use 2 different compounds of tyre, only one of which will not be optimum for the track or temperature.
There is no more re-fuelling so the pit-stop is to change tyres. I know there is a chess game going on about 1 stop or 2 stops, but why a compound change? Equally, why not make tyres that can last the race? The tyre compounds are manufactured to complete x laps in y conditions. The strategists start crunching the numbers and come up with a lap schedule of which tyres & when including the decreasing weight of the car. Sometimes they get it correct sometimes not. They might ask the driver to start on softs and drive the socks off them to establish a lead and then go on hard and try to make it to the end. Vice versa, start on hard, perhaps fall back during a long stint and then thrash it for the last 15 laps on softs with a light car.
Why not make the race shorter - 60 mins is a long time between the exciting 1st 15 laps and the last 10. Make the race shorter with no stops. KISS.
Watching the old boys with tyres no wider than my mountain bike in 4 wheel drifts round the same circuits as today was common. I'm sure the tyre guys can design a compound to last 60 mins. It could be of different hardness/softness and the teams can choose which they think will last best on the day.
I remember the introduction of treaded tyres from real slicks. The reason? to slow the cars down with reduced grip and make the driver more part of the package. Schumacher said he could not understand why F1 wanted to slow cars down. He thought the idea was to be the pinnacle of speed. The lap times on different compounds sometimes do just that; slow the car down.
Many tracks we see today are so difficult to over take in the corners that they had to introduce DRS. Now much overtaking is done in a straight line. There are a few corners & chicanes where great skill will allow a pass, but if the tyres were 'going off' a little at the end, for everyone, there might be more overtaking under braking in the last 10 laps. It would also allow the strategy of a driving saving tyres for 75% of the race for a last quarter burst to try and catch up.
So, why is the compound change race disrupting rule there?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2016, 12:20
  #5197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,264
Once upon a time tyres were entirely [sic] up to the teams. The formula specified dimensions (and a couple of other minor things), but each team was free to contract with a tyre supplier to get whatever they wanted to suit their particular car.This was very expensive and the costs were discriminating against minor (financially smaller) teams, so over the years a number of things were done to control costs and prevent monopolies. One was to specify the maximum number of tyres that could be used in a race weekend, to stop wealthy teams bunging fresh tyres on for every practice and qualifying lap, and having special qualifying tyres that gave their cars completely different characteristics on qualifying day compared to the race. They dropped to two and then one tyre supplier to control costs by averting a threatened "arms race" in tyre technical development.

At one point there were several tracks where a good driver could complete the race competitively on a single set of tyres. The fans deemed this "boring" and there was a highly vocal demand for compulsory pit stops so that tactics could add interest and stir up the mix a bit. The original response to this was to bring back in-race refuelling. Then at various times the rules were changed to have the same types of tyres used for both races and qualifying, and then when refuelling was deleted (on safety grounds) the easiest way to assure at least one pit stop was to require at least two tuyre compounds to be used in the race. In may cases this actually matches what they'd do anyway, because the softer tyres may only be viable after the car has burned off (say) 60-70kg of fuel. They also added in bits about the top 10 cars having to start the race on the tyres they qualified on and other tweaks, but they're not important. The point is that it was the fans who demanded the pit stops, and this was the chosen way of meeting that demand. Using the "stock" tyres from a single manufacturer rather than a competitive free-for-all is deemed to reduce each team's required annual race budget by something in the region of 2.5m.

Shorter GPs? Well a GP has ALWAYS been defined as ending after 80 laps, 200 miles or two hours (whichever happens first). There are other classes for those who suffer short attention spans - if you suffer ADHD then go watch a drag race! I don't see anyone bleating about how the LeMans should become a 24minute race...

Speed limiting - each track has a maximum safe speed. The number is used in the track design for determining types of barriers, run-off areas, crowd protections etc. Whenever a formula is frozen the cars get progressively faster until the safe speed is exceeded (as illustrated by Roland Ratzenberger's tragic accident) and so something has to be changed. It's much easier to modify the cars than to modify the circuits, and that was what the grooved tyres were about (an idea since abandoned in favour of smaller wings to achieve the same thing). There is a lot of "quiet concern" about next year's formula which, by dint of bigger tyres and the removal of the fuel-flow limit, is suggested will deliver 3-6 second reductions in lap times. These speed would break the absolute lap records on many/most circuits which may or may not have tragic consequences for those who overdo it.

DRS wasn't introduced to help in corners - it's only enabled on specific pieces of straight or near-straight track anyway. DRS is a fudge because what they *really* need to do is minimise (or delete) the foreplane so that cars can follow more closely through fast corners. There is no appetite for doing this partly because it would very much bias the race towards the best installed horsepower but mainly because it would lead to cars with much less predictable turn-in and braking characteristics, and that's deemed to be a safety issue.

Bottom line? If you don't like F1 then you a free to watch anything else, be it the simplistic GP2/3 training classes, the formalised contact sport or Saloon-car racing, the mind-numbing tedium of bike racing or the gentler relaxation of Horse PT (dressage).

Lots of people say they d0o9n't like F1, but mostly wanting different things. SOme want standardised cars to allow drivers skills to be the only factor (we have plenty of classes like that), some want no rules at all so that teams can use whatever rocket science they want and spend BillGates entire fortune every week (we have off-shore power boat racing classes for that). Some want more pit stops, some want fewer. Some want longer races while others want sprints. Some want complexity deleted whilst others want F1 to employ the absolute latest in available cutting-edge technology.

There is no single consolidated demand for a specific thing, so until there is F1 will remain what it is now.

And actually I happen to rather enjoy it, in case you hadn't guessed.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2016, 12:20
  #5198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,017
Having watched Senna on tv last night I think they need to take a step back... go back to an era where mechanical grip rather than aerodynamic downforce plays a bigger part. Less aerodynamics mean cars can follow each other much closer without the turbulent air ruining the balance of their car.

Drivers being forced to race on only one compound, but many being available to choose from. Where some will be racing on softs for a 2 stop race vs 1 stop on medium or hard.

Faster, more challenging corners where drivers can take a chance to make a place, and less of these tarmac car park run off areas. If a driver exceeds the track limit, make it an automatic drive through to simulate the penalty of going off into the gravel. If another driver purposefully causes that, then give them a 10 second stop-go penalty so they lose out even more.


And do away with this always blaming/punishing someone for racing incidents. A little argy-bargy and someone usually walks away with a penalty of some form. That's taking away the excitement as drivers are less willing to challenge. Yet they're allowing the much more dangerous actions (such as Verstappen swerving whilst defending) to go unpunished. Bumping another driver into a spin at a chicane is not anywhere near as bad as almost causing a 200+ mph accident with the potential to flip a car into the spectators.
LlamaFarmer is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2016, 20:12
  #5199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
The fans deemed this "boring" and there was a highly vocal demand for compulsory pit stops so that tactics could add interest and stir up the mix a bit.

So Bernie is not the circus master after all; the fans run the show? Pull the other one. To my best recollection a pit stop was a trick used by Colin Chapman decades ago in the chess game of finding an advantage. It was inventive thinking long before anyone else thought about it. The fans and commentators were amazed/aghast at what was happening. There were no rules to stop it, and it worked. Same with skirts and down-force devices. Do you really suggest that fans prefer this mayhem that disrupts a perfectly understandable race where the first car on the track is leading, to one where in the middle of the race you have no idea who is going to win the damn thing. It's only after all the pit stops that you can see what is going on. It's high speed chaos and a mess. Where is the F1 fan club? How may members does it have? Who is their spokesperson and where are their head-quarters? And the most boring GP of them all has to be Monaco; that says it all. A procession from start to finish, the more so before pit stops. There is even the expression to undercut and to overtake in the pits. How daft is that for high speed racing? To overtake when you are standing still. Hm?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2016, 21:21
  #5200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,825
Some of this was copied directly from Indy Car racing. After two drivers were killed in a fiery crash at the Indy 500 (1963 IIRC), they mandated methanol fuel and limited the fuel capacity such that fuel stops were mandatory - since they had to stop for fuel they started changing tires as well (one of the cars involved in that fiery crash was carrying sufficient gasoline to cover the whole 500 miles without stopping, so it caused a big fire).
Indy Car popularity in the 1980s and early 1990s was approaching F1, so F1 started looking at what Indy was doing and copied it (this was before Tony George decided he had to destroy Indy Car racing in order to save it ). Indy Car was also the first to implement the 'option' tire (mandating that you needed to run both compounds at least once during the race) and "push to pass" - which was the genesis of the F1 DRS.
BTW, about 10 years ago (I don't recall the exact year) F1 banned tire changes during the race - you could only replace a tire if it was damaged. It turned into a fiasco - at one point Kimi (IIRC) was leading but with a badly flat spotted front tire - with a couple laps left the tire vibrations broke the front suspension and he crashed. So that little experiment only lasted one year.
tdracer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.