Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by iGav, Oct 10, 2005.
Rinky dink link
Proposed qualifying format is just plain silly though.
That'd be very very cool. Here's hoping it happens.
I'm a relative newbie to Formula One and even I realized how bad an idea it was.
This is good news for fans - I'd like to see more Suzuka-like racing next season.
I'm glad they're rethinking the tyre thing currently it's just madness. I'm not sure about the new qualifying either. Just go back to the 12 laps over an hour session. Much more interesting.
New quali = suck.
12 laps, one hour (race engine though!), have at it
I'm pleased with the tire rule change - it does seem a little bit farcical, especially with the hole they got themselves in at Indianapolis.
The other rule I wish they'd change is this penalty for changing the engine before qualifying causing a 10 place penalty. I don't see how it saved costs really, with the numerous different specs the manufacturers keep producing during the season. I expect the only benefit the mid teams got was a bit more face time while their cars were near the front for the first part of the race.
If the FIA want the teams to have more reliable cars, lets seem them get the fuel rigs sorted first...
I love how Bernie managed that. Somehow supplying them, while making the teams foot the bill. Of course, it's utterly stupid that the teams have to maintain them too, don't they have enough to worry about?
imo, why change tires, if they are not worn out?
what i find stupid are these tire guys with their goggles and head gear and all and moving their heads like the blue man group (searching for tire problems).
there must be a way to make the races exciting and not wasting (natural) resources.
like the guy with the most points gets the least qualifying laps.
there was a lot of great racing before the tyre wars, so there's no reason why one tyre set couldn't work. bring back the slicks, please.
the reason why suzuka was great racing was because (according to kimi) somehow cars were easier to follow than what it usually is. if we want to see good racing, the cars should be constructed in such a way that it is easy to overtake and keeping positions becomes tougher. and how do you do that? less aero grip and more mechanical grip.
i would want to see once again a season that has no scheduled pit stops. no refuelling, no tyre changes, nothing more than disaster recovery. perhaps even ban radio messages to the driver, forcing them to rely on the old-fashioned pit boards. then everyone would have to overtake. i want f1 to be all about the driver and not about the chief mechanic or aero guru.
Heck, let's make all the F1 racecars hybrids, and every driver must plant a tree before the race.
but when has F1 ever been like that?
Which brings me to the whole "make them look like proper F1 cars again" argument. Who defines what a "proper" (you can tell this complaint comes from England, because no one outside there uses "proper" ) F1 car looks like? I bet most people who argue that think it's the McLarens and Williams from the late 80's/early 90's. But of course, they haven't always looked like that, so I'll go a little further. All F1 cars must have the radiators in front of the driver. No? Okay, how about no wings or other aero devices? Oh, right, a Brit came up with using those... Alright then, how about keeping the engine in front of the driver? Oh yeah, once again, a British-lead change from that...
Tell you what, to keep 90% of English F1 fans happy, let's just ban Ferrari.
Unless Nigel comes back to drive for them again.
Hybrids, due to their lower fuel draw and high acceleration at low speeds, are being considered by a number of teams. Moreso in NASCAR, but I wouldn't be surprised if F1 did it too-- if you need half as many pit stops...
Except the batteries would add lots of weight.
at least in the 80's... remember prost with his inferior renault in 1981, even achieving podiums? or rosberg in the non-turbo williams in 1982, taking the title? the racing was so much better when the braking distances were longer (due to heavy fuel loads, harder tyre compounds and less efficient aerodynamics), and yes, it was more about the driver's skill level than today.
of course there have always been better teams and lesser teams, but you have to admit that racing was "better" before.
I've heard rumors to that effect, but I'll see it when I believe it. Electric motors still have a power to weight ratio that is an order of magnitude worse than an internal combustion engine. An electric motor that produces even half the output of an F1 engine might weigh nearly as much as the whole car does now. And that's without the batteries. Even with some real breakthroughs motors would still be too heavy.
I suppose you could make a hybrid system but a "petrol" F1 car will always be faster and lighter for the forseable future.
side news in austrian newspaper (actually in the friday morning news but it is already readable online:
new official name of Minardi: "Squadra Toro Rosso"
and for the drivers:
Tonio Liuzzi and Scott Speed for Squadra Toro Rosso
David Coulthard and Christian Klien for Red Bull Racing
didn't want to start a new thread
Well, it sounds Italian anyway.
I hope the part about Scott Speed is true.
EDIT: The Italians won't like the name because it doesn't sound Italian...even though it is Italian, errm, you know what I mean.
All true. But 1,000,000 AA batteries could be quite useful, don't you think?
I think that the technology for hybrids will be, in the near future, good enough for racing teams. Not now, but give it a few years. Should make it interesting.
I do think racing was sometimes better back then and sometimes not... I do think it was more frequent though.
We've had some modern gems... 2000 was an excellent year, with the 2 greatest drivers of their era up against each other in as equal as you'll get machinary, 2000 is so similar to Senna and Prost in 1990, which is widely considered to be one of the greatest years of the modern era.
All I was questioning you on, was your comment regarding wanting F1 to be all about the driver and not about the chief mechanic or aero guru, it's never been like that, especially the '80's, which saw turbo's, active suspension, ground effects, semi-automatic gearboxes, carbon fibre monocoque, and usually each one was pioneered by one team who reaped the advantage.
The '70's was the same with wings, 6 wheelers, fan cars, as was the '60's with mid engines, monocoque's etc's basically F1 has always been affected by the chief mechanic, aero guru etc, and that is why we have a constructors championship, which is different to say the team championship in lesser formula.
But I cannot fault or disagree with you regarding wanting a better show and better more frequent racing, and not because of the result of having the best drivers fighting from the back of the grid because of the mickey mouse qualifying system we now see.
I want to see Schu and Kimi and Alonso all fighting each other, and all with the opportunity to overtake each other when their cars are a tenth or two apart, not like current F1 where by having even a second clear advantage over another car can still make it difficult to pass.
I think the FIA might be heading in the right direction with their latest idea, along with big fat slicks too.
"x newton" limit?
Interesting concept but how do you test it? Bring a wind tunnel to every track? So much for reducing the proliferation of winglets. Besides, currently the location of the downforce is more important than the overall amount. I can only see this leading to more aero expense.
Just bring back slicks already and freeze the rules for 5 years so the little teams will have a chance.
Interesting point... maybe it means 'control' aero parts?
The whole of the car is an aero part, so unless they are going IRL I don't see how this will work.
I await Max's announcement. They can't screw up worse than this season can they?