Formula 1 2015: General Discussion Thread

Mike Litoris

That is sweet looking, OSI!

ScumLord

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I'm starting to really worry about McLaren, they have two world champion drivers, are way off the pace, outrageously one car failed to take part in either qualifying or the race last time out

It's not really outrageous, they said from the beginning that this would be a development year. They're a year behind everyone else and don't get time to test outside of races. Everyone expected this to happen, there was no hope of them being competitive in the early part of the year.

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I wouldn't think there are too many secrets in the paddock so there is little benefit to pretending upgrades don't exist.

Everythings a secret in the paddock and I'd expect teams wouldn't even talk about things they have in the public domain that aren't secret.

Myrddin

Has a driver ever gone back a series, specifically from F1 back into GP2?

Donnelly117

Myrddin wrote: »

Has a driver ever gone back a series, specifically from F1 back into GP2?

Romain Grojean did... He raced a bit in 09, during crashgate. Then went back to GP2

PopePalpatine

Giorgio Pantano went back to GP2 in 2005 after competing in F1 in 2004 for Jordan, and Romain Grosjean went back to GP2 from 2010-11.

tripperman

Don't forget Timo Glock raced with Jordan in f1 and then won the 2007 gp2 European season (was an Asian series that time to)

AMKC

Mclarens new paint job is 2kilos lighter than the old one. It does not mean the car is 2 kilos lighter do its a little over 1 kilo lighter so the team can but more ballasts on the car and change the aerodynamics a bit more.

smellslikeshoes

AMKC wrote: »

Mclarens new paint job is 2kilos lighter than the old one. It does not mean the car is 2 kilos lighter do its a little over 1 kilo lighter so the team can but more ballasts on the car and change the aerodynamics a bit more.

Heard Ted say this earlier on the notebook, would love to know who originally said it because I'm seriously skeptical of it. I don't believe for a second that an F1 team would pick paintwork that would have that much extra weight in the first place when millions would be spent on saving 2KG, much less one run By Ron Dennis.

smellslikeshoes

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Heard Ted say this earlier on the notebook, would love to know who originally said it because I'm seriously skeptical of it. I don't believe for a second that an F1 team would pick paintwork that would have that much extra weight in the first place when millions would be spent on saving 2KG, much less one run By Ron Dennis.

The weights seem a bit much but I'd guess they're using less paint than before, carbon fibre is black afterall. :P

_rebelkid

Deleted User wrote: »

The weights seem a bit much but I'd guess they're using less paint than before, carbon fibre is black afterall. :P

It was the metal flake they had in it. Not a lot heavier than the paint, but over the whole car, it was significant.

HighLine

A good article here by Coulthard on some of the problems in F1 at the moment.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/32699924

muckwarrior

HighLine wrote: »

A good article here by Coulthard on some of the problems in F1 at the moment.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/32699924

He makes some good points but he ignores the fact that a decade ago, while the drivers were having great fun racing flat out, from a spectators perspective it was still pretty crap. Cars not being able to follow closely or overtake in dirty air is still a problem, but it was even worse a few years ago.

PopePalpatine

I'm just wondering why they can't just force the front wings to be simpler and/or for the front tyres to be made wider.

Sterling Archer

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118916

Visor tear-off caused Alonsos brake issues

jasonb

That's interesting, I was wondering how they were so certain to be able to tell Jenson over the radio that Alonso's issue with the brakes wasn't going to affect his car...

J.

ScumLord

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm just wondering why they can't just force the front wings to be simpler and/or for the front tyres to be made wider.

I don't know that simplifying the front wing would help (I've asked the same question so I really don't know) would you still suffer from the same problem of the wing not getting the right air over it? It might be the case they need to somehow regulate the air coming off the car in front more. Wider tyres won't necessarily help either. It's the lack of downforce at high speed that causes the problem, it's it's not really a mechanical issue of needing more tyre contact with the ground. Wider tyres will also reduce performance in every other way, more drag, more friction, more energy required to spin the tyre and more energy required to slow it down again. Generally you only make the tyres wider if you really, really have to.

The only real way to totally eliminate the downforce problem would be to go to cars without wings. That way drivers are completely dependant on the mechanical grip of the car and would probably get a much more dramatic slipstream effect making over taking much easier.

Sterling Archer

I find the whole dirty air tire issues really annoying.. I mean indy car can have a full pack running within a few seconds of each other, (I know oval are very different) but it still shows the aero config is possible

mickdw

I'd like to see active suspension and movable aero. They have gone pretty cutting edge on engines so is time that the chassis can come to the party with trick systems etc.
Paddy Lowe pretty much said it would be easier and cheaper to run active suspension than what they run now - mechanical systems that aim to achieve alot in terms of ride height control etc.
It seems the fric suspension ban didn't do a whole lot to stifle ingenuity in that area.

PopePalpatine

Shane_ef wrote: »

I find the whole dirty air tire issues really annoying.. I mean indy car can have a full pack running within a few seconds of each other, (I know oval are very different) but it still shows the aero config is possible

IIRC IndyCars are much more reliant on ground effects than F1 cars.

Sterling Archer

Gallery of images from testing (obviously not mine)
http://imgur.com/a/BBLEu#ZGNNQCa

challengemaster

Pretty cool pics...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112669

Incase anyone is wondering what sort of sensors are used, that article from last year explains it pretty well apart from it doesn't cover the flo-vis.

HighLine

Refueling will return to F1 in 2017!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/32751118

_rebelkid

HighLine wrote: »

Refueling will return to F1 in 2017!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/32751118

Because nothing's more exciting than more strategy and the possibility of serious burn injuries...

_rebelkid

More on refuelling and plans for 2016/17

HighLine

_rebelkid wrote: »

Because nothing's more exciting that more strategy and the possibility of serious burn injuries...

Oh yeah of course... and nothing is more exciting than watching drivers conserve fuel and tyres for the majority of a race instead of pushing the limits.

"5-6 seconds a lap quicker" sounds a lot more exciting to me but each to their own.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

_rebelkid

HighLine wrote: »

Oh yeah of course... and nothing is more exciting than watching drivers conserve fuel and tyres for the majority of a race instead of pushing the limits.

"5-6 seconds a lap quicker" sounds a lot more exciting to me but each to their own.

The FIA said the same thing when they announced the current formula... and the 2009 formula. Refuelling won't stop fuel conservation. They will still have to keep to a max race fuel limit. The wider tyres the FIA want will mean more conservation as the teams try and keep the performance of the tyre for longer, like they always have. Not much is going to change with these rules, apart from Manor definitely going bust, and probably Lotus and Force India too. Welcome to an 8 team F1 everyone...

HighLine

_rebelkid wrote: »

The FIA said the same thing when they announced the current formula... and the 2009 formula. Refuelling won't stop fuel conservation. They will still have to keep to a max race fuel limit. The wider tyres the FIA want will mean more conservation as the teams try and keep the performance of the tyre for longer, like they always have. Not much is going to change with these rules, apart from Manor definitely going bust, and probably Lotus and Force India too. Welcome to an 8 team F1 everyone...

Yes, it's not going to stop fuel conservation but it will be better than the mess they have created now. I don't know how any F1 fan can't see how driving around for the majority of a race in conservation mode isn't actually "racing".

Drivers and pundits are more frequently observing now how pushing during an F1 race is a thing of the past. Whatever my personal distaste about these "power units", If we could just get them racing by pushing to the limits again then that would be good.

Sterling Archer

HighLine wrote: »

Yes, it's not going to stop fuel conservation but it will be better than the mess they have created now. I don't know how any F1 fan can't see how driving around for the majority of a race in conservation mode isn't actually "racing".

Drivers and pundits are more frequently observing now how pushing during an F1 race is a thing of the past. Whatever my personal distaste about these "power units", If we could just get them racing by pushing to the limits again then that would be good.

It is rather pitiful at this stage, I mean Coulthards statement about his colleges in WEC pushing ever lap and double stinting (or tripple stinting) tires is so true... F1 is no longer the Peak of motorsport and hasn't been for a while now.

At this point there really is no easy way to fix F1.

Myrddin

_rebelkid wrote: »

Because nothing's more exciting than more strategy and the possibility of serious burn injuries...

The cars will be able to push though for longer, without having to drag around fuel to last for the whole race. It's not the be all & end all solution, but honestly, I'm delighted to hear it & cautiously optimistic about it.

_rebelkid wrote: »

More on refuelling and plans for 2016/17

Some good things mentioned there. I'd be a bit worried about the 'lighter cars' bit though, I'd hate it to impact negatively upon taller/heavier drivers like we've seen recently.

_rebelkid

Myrddin wrote: »

The cars will be able to push though for longer, without having to drag around fuel to last for the whole race. It's not the be all & end all solution, but honestly, I'm delighted to hear it & cautiously optimistic about it.

Except they won't. They'll have their fuel strategy managed by 2 engineers and a laptop, deciding the optimum time to refuel, how much fuel to use in a stint, all while staying within the FIA fuel limit, and they're own strategic fuel usage. They'll push for the same time they do now.

Myrddin

_rebelkid wrote: »

They'll push for the same time they do now.

How is that though, when the cars will be significantly lighter & better on tires as a result?

_rebelkid

This is what happened when refuelling was banned.
(Linking because it's a massive image.)

mickdw

While Im in favour of the changes, I think its just tinkering tbh. I dont see the point in controlling all aspects as tightly as they do now. The powers that be are saying they now suddenly want a 6 second per lap reduction in lap time so instead of handing the teams a new format that immediately hands them performance, why not free up abit on a rules and let them find the time through engineering & ingenuity. Its pretty silly to give them a new format for additional speed then bring in rule after rule in the coming years to try to hold them at that speed.
The are just stumbling from one artificial situation to the next where the mix is such that it is clearly beneficial to preserve fuel & tyres over pushing hard for the majority of the race.

HighLine

_rebelkid wrote: »

This is what happened when refuelling was banned.
(Linking because it's a massive image.)

I think DRS and KERS had a lot more to do with that graph than no refueling.

Jjiipp79

I use to be a massive F1 fan, use to be. For me F1 has been at best, a borning spectacle.

I have not watch F1 since the 2013 season and I can't imagine ever watching it again. Pity as it use to be so so good.

Since I've watch MotoGP and WTC.. Both offer amazing viewing and if you want wheel to wheel and tit for tat this is where it's at......


For F1 to compete with such great racing they must make it all about the driver again, make it more man than machine! And maybe a blanket budget set for the season. Really tho I don't know how to make it good again.. But if it ever got back to the classic racing, I'd watch it in a heart beat.

muckwarrior

HighLine wrote: »

I think DRS and KERS had a lot more to do with that graph than no refueling.

...and tyres. When Pirelli introduced their fast wearing 'falling off a cliff' tyres there was overtaking galore. The reduction in overtaking the past couple of years has correlated with them becoming more conservative.

H3llR4iser

_rebelkid wrote: »

This is what happened when refuelling was banned.
(Linking because it's a massive image.)

This, what people fail to see.

Refueling was a gimmick introduced in the attempt to help Ferrari get back at the front - at the time they were the only ones still running a V12, and the fuel requirements for the unit made their cars run much heavier than the opposition.

It was so unsuccessful that, two years later, Maranello switched to a V10 - with a marked improvement in competitiveness.

What refueling succeeded to produce, however, were the most boring, uninteresting and unexciting races F1 has ever had. Years after years of qualifying runs during the race and radio messages like "don't take risks, he has X laps of fuel, he will stop before you".

When the stop came, the pit crew skill was of no consequence - changing the tires in 2.5 or 6 seconds didn't affect the stop, as they had to wait for the fuel to go in the tank anyway. Not to mention the races lost or won because the fuel rig jammed or the valve locked closed for no particular reason, or the indicator said one thing, but only half or so of the fuel went in the tank.

Drivers needed zero racecraft skills - all they had to do was push as fast as possible from start to finish. No management skills involved, no race vision, just pushing - and waiting for the others to pit. It's not by chance that these years produced some of the poorest fields F1 has ever seen in terms of drivers skills.

_rebelkid

HighLine wrote: »

I think DRS and KERS had a lot more to do with that graph than no refueling.

muckwarrior wrote: »

...and tyres. When Pirelli introduced their fast wearing 'falling off a cliff' tyres there was overtaking galore. The reduction in overtaking the past couple of years has correlated with them becoming more conservative.

All part of the Formula. No refuelling meant the cars were on track, and were stopped for very small amounts of time. Couple that with DRS and tyres that went off ever 5 minutes, and we have overtaking.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

This, what people fail to see.

Refueling was a gimmick introduced in the attempt to help Ferrari get back at the front - at the time they were the only ones still running a V12, and the fuel requirements for the unit made their cars run much heavier than the opposition.

It was so unsuccessful that, two years later, Maranello switched to a V10 - with a marked improvement in competitiveness.

What refueling succeeded to produce, however, were the most boring, uninteresting and unexciting races F1 has ever had. Years after years of qualifying runs during the race and radio messages like "don't take risks, he has X laps of fuel, he will stop before you".

When the stop came, the pit crew skill was of no consequence - changing the tires in 2.5 or 6 seconds didn't affect the stop, as they had to wait for the fuel to go in the tank anyway. Not to mention the races lost or won because the fuel rig jammed or the valve locked closed for no particular reason, or the indicator said one thing, but only half or so of the fuel went in the tank.

Drivers needed zero racecraft skills - all they had to do was push as fast as possible from start to finish. No management skills involved, no race vision, just pushing - and waiting for the others to pit. It's not by chance that these years produced some of the poorest fields F1 has ever seen in terms of drivers skills.

This.

What takes more skill? Tearing round a track until a man says "come in for fuel and tyres", or a driver and a team working together to make their resources last as long as they can for as long as they giver performance, all managed by the drivers hands and feet?

I know which one I enjoy more...

HighLine

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Drivers needed zero racecraft skills - all they had to do was push as fast as possible from start to finish. No management skills involved, no race vision, just pushing

Oh I have heard it all now! It just baffles me that there are actually people like you who exist who would prefer to watch drivers manage tyres and fuel rather than race flat out!?

Tea 1000

The worst about the latter end of the refuelling lark was the bullshít of having to start the race with the same fuel as you qualified with. Meaning no one had any idea of which car or driver was the quickest at qualifying, as whoever was on pole may well have had a light fuel load and would be pitting within 5 laps, where as someone with fuel for 30 laps might have had a stormer of a qualifying but we don't know because he's in 10th place.
I don't like refuelling, but if it comes back, they better not have it affecting qualifying. Qualifying should always be that car in the quickest mode it can be in with the driver in all out attack mode.

challengemaster

Myrddin wrote: »

How is that though, when the cars will be significantly lighter & better on tires as a result?

Faster + more downforce = more speed through corners & harder braking = worse on tyres and brakes. And they're already struggling to keep brake temps under control as is.

_rebelkid

HighLine wrote: »

Oh I have heard it all now! It just baffles me that there are actually people like you who exist who would prefer to watch drivers manage tyres and fuel rather than race flat out!?

You prefer 2007 over 2013/14/15? Have we been watching the same races?

Cookie_Monster

lighter cars doesn't make sense does it, didn't they just increase the weight for driver health reasons, unless they're taking something big off the cars, adding heavier tyres and lowering limit is just going to bring this issue back, no?

AMKC

I agree with bringing back refueling. I think teams should be given a choice do as to fueling there car for the full race and not refueling or deciding that they will not fill the car for the full race and will refuel during the race. So you could have some teams that have decided not to refuel and others that might and they could decide which they would like to do at each race. They teams would all have the same fuel allowance do just as they do now. Could make for some interesting racing.
I enjoyed when refueling was in F1 it made it exciting and meant we knew who was where and racing who. Now the pits are so quick and the car positions change so much thats it can be hard to keep track of them except the ones at the front.

Zcott

I'm not sure of the point of bringing back refuelling. They've still got a maximum amount of fuel they can use, so why bother with it? If the problem they want to solve is drivers not driving around saving fuel then drop the 100kg limit and only use the fuel flow meter to limit how much fuel the engine uses.

Hoping for wider, smaller profile tyres and wider track cars, but that last bit doesn't seem to be coming.

H3llR4iser

HighLine wrote: »

Oh I have heard it all now! It just baffles me that there are actually people like you who exist who would prefer to watch drivers manage tyres and fuel rather than race flat out!?

Going "fast" is something every driver (assuming that, in order to make it to F1, they need to be somewhat "world class") is capable of. Look at the current situation - we have some of the younger guys who shine in qualifying but get completely lost during the race.

During the refueling years, this didn't happen. The qualifying results were, more or less, the race results.

Formula 1 has always been about managing the vehicle. Great drivers of the past, like Prost, Lauda and even Fangio, made their careers, fame and victories based on their superior management skills. When the others were nursing home a car with no more tires or barely any fuel, they still had plenty and romped to victory. Even Senna's greatness was based on the fact that, while being almost invariably faster than all the others, he didn't wreck the car in the process like other quick guys used to do.

Go watch any race from the glory days of the '80s, and you'll see a lot of what you see today - management, management and more management; Only it wasn't clear to the audience because there were no broadcast radio messages and the likes. A driver suddenly slowed down by 2 seconds a lap? He must have a problem!

I recommend the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix for an eye opener.

The real anomaly were the refueling years, 1994-2008. Go watch some of these races - lap after lap of nothing happening; The lighter cars were so much on rails that even mistakes or spins were a rare thing.
Monza 1997 is a good example - the first six cars within a few seconds for the entire race. The only overtake? Coulthard jumped Alesi...in the pits.

53 laps of total, complete nothingness even 'though they were tail to nose all the time. On one of the most overtake-friendly tracks on the calendar.

Watching cars lapping 1'20" on rails like a Scalectrix set is more enteraining that watching them doing 1'25" on the ragged edge? I highly doubt so.

_rebelkid wrote: »

You prefer 2007 over 2013/14/15? Have we been watching the same races?

Or even better, 2004 vs. 1986

ScumLord

I'm not sure refueling is going to fix things. I think they could give some sort of reward to economic cars. I'm not exactly sure how it works now, do they have to put in 100kg of fuel? or up to 100kg of fuel? If they forced everyone to start the season carrying a full 100kg and allow teams to win the chance to reduce the amount of fuel they have to carry in the next race by being economical. It might allow lower down teams to be economical at the start and build up a weight advantage as the season goes on allowing them to score some points towards the end of the season.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not sure refueling is going to fix things. I think they could give some sort of reward to economic cars. I'm not exactly sure how it works now, do they have to put in 100kg of fuel? or up to 100kg of fuel? If they forced everyone to start the season carrying a full 100kg and allow teams to win the chance to reduce the amount of fuel they have to carry in the next race by being economical. It might allow lower down teams to be economical at the start and build up a weight advantage as the season goes on allowing them to score some points towards the end of the season.

100kg is the max, they generally underfill as much as they can

HighLine

A nice write-up here for on how the reintroduction of refueling will be positive for faster racing http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/32761397