Formula 1 2020 - General Discussion Thread (See MOD warning on first post)

kksaints

pjohnson wrote: »

Bingo

I can remember Enge replacing Burti after his huge crash at Spa. Yoong was a pay driver swap with Marques I think. Heading into worst pay driver territory with those two.

pjohnson

kksaints wrote: »

I can remember Enge replacing Burti after his huge crash at Spa. Yoong was a pay driver swap with Marques I think. Heading into worst pay driver territory with those two.

I think it was the following year Yoong actually got a two race ban for being abysmal. Davidson took his seat.

El_Duderino 09

kksaints wrote: »

Was one Tomas Enge?

Alex yoong for the second?

Great knowledge!

kksaints

pjohnson wrote: »

I think it was the following year Yoong actually got a two race ban for being abysmal. Davidson took his seat.

One thing I'll say about modern F1 is that there's very few completely rubbish drivers nowadays compared to the early-mid 90s and Minardis catalogue of pay drivers. Only Latifi would be comparable I find and even then he's just slow rather than slow and dangerous as some of his pay driver predecessors.

ELM327

kksaints wrote: »

One thing I'll say about modern F1 is that there's very few completely rubbish drivers nowadays compared to the early-mid 90s and Minardis catalogue of pay drivers. Only Latifi would be comparable I find and even then he's just slow rather than slow and dangerous as some of his pay driver predecessors.

Yes, I would agree.
There are still pay drivers but the delta between them and an average real on merit driver is a lot less now.


Remember pedro diniz!

Faugheen

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes, I would agree.
There are still pay drivers but the delta between them and an average real on merit driver is a lot less now.


Remember pedro diniz!

Ricardo Rosset was the king

quokula

skipper_G wrote: »

Your understanding of stability and how it impacts the gap between teams is inaccurate. Stable rules mean more marginal gains across the board, and thus closing the gap between teams. Massive rule changes fundamentally favour teams with more resources and money. Mercedes can just throw another lot of people at the new car while keeping a separate chain of developments moving on the existing package. Also the claim of a head start to the 2014 rules is not only inaccurate but untrue, same rules for all teams and manufacturers.

You probably shouldn't be accusing other people of not understanding F1 when history completely contradicts your claims. Big rule changes ended Ferrari's dominance in 2005. Big rule changes turned the form book on its head in 2009. Big rule changes completely changed the competitive landscape of F1 in 2014.

Minor rule changes led to Mercedes winning 7 titles in a row. Minor rule changes led to Red Bull winning 4 titles in a row.

Stable rules favour the competitive order being unchanged, because if you already have a fast car you just tweak it a little bit and it stays fast. Additionally, if you have more money, you have more to throw at the tiny incremental improvements that exist under these conditions.

Major rule changes mean people have to put their thinking caps on and come up with new ideas, look for loopholes, find completely new designs. More resources helps a lot with this of course, but there's always a human element that means anyone can find some great new idea, or by the same token a big team can mess up and go down the wrong path. Currently that human element barely exists as they always build on existing proving machinery.

Joeface

kksaints wrote: »

One thing I'll say about modern F1 is that there's very few completely rubbish drivers nowadays compared to the early-mid 90s and Minardis catalogue of pay drivers. Only Latifi would be comparable I find and even then he's just slow rather than slow and dangerous as some of his pay driver predecessors.

The fact that they have to Earn the Super License has a lot to do with that.

All the money men I can think off that will be driving next season . ( by money men I mean they had massive finances behind them in their youth I have no ill will towards any of them . They can all do something I cannot )

Lando Norris - F3 champ ., F2 runner up (Dads worth more than 1/2billion)
Stroll - F3 Champ - billionaire Pops
Laftifi F2 Runner Up - billionaire Pops
Mazipen - GP2 Series Runner Up , F2 Runner Up * - billionaire Pops
Mick Schumacher . F3 Champ . F2 Cham* < well Dad is worth Millions so he is included

You can buy your way into a drive in the lower tiers but you have to earn the right to buy your way into the F1 seat.
That does remove some of the risk factor at least the pay drivers like Mazipen , Stroll and Laftifi.

pjohnson

Faugheen wrote: »

Ricardo Rosset was the king

My áss.

Chanoch Nissany ftw. His FP1 session is legendary.

ELM327

quokula wrote: »

You probably shouldn't be accusing other people of not understanding F1 when history completely contradicts your claims. Big rule changes ended Ferrari's dominance in 2005. Big rule changes turned the form book on its head in 2009. Big rule changes completely changed the competitive landscape of F1 in 2014.

Minor rule changes led to Mercedes winning 7 titles in a row. Minor rule changes led to Red Bull winning 4 titles in a row.

Stable rules favour the competitive order being unchanged, because if you already have a fast car you just tweak it a little bit and it stays fast. Additionally, if you have more money, you have more to throw at the tiny incremental improvements that exist under these conditions.

Major rule changes mean people have to put their thinking caps on and come up with new ideas, look for loopholes, find completely new designs. More resources helps a lot with this of course, but there's always a human element that means anyone can find some great new idea, or by the same token a big team can mess up and go down the wrong path. Currently that human element barely exists as they always build on existing proving machinery.

110% this tbh
This is what's needed again. A large rule change and complete change of something major. EG revert to V8 engines.

Jordan 199

pjohnson wrote: »

My áss.

Chanoch Nissany ftw. His FP1 session is legendary.

I just read up on it. 6.8 seconds slower than team mate Albers and couldn't take the steering wheel off

quokula

ELM327 wrote: »

110% this tbh
This is what's needed again. A large rule change and complete change of something major. EG revert to V8 engines.

To put it another way.

When Liverpool play Manchester City, it doesn't matter how much resources they have or how they did last year. More resources theoretically means better players and coaching etc, but once they're on the pitch and they kick off, it's 100% down to what those people do during those 90 minutes. It's an entirely human endeavour and that's what makes sports popular. Roger Federer can be beaten by a rookie if he doesn't perform at his best.

F1 already lacks that on race day when cars are not competitive, it's completely out of driver's hands to a large extent, at least among those not right in the midfield. But lets zoom out a bit. We all accept that things aren't fully in the hands of drivers because it's an engineering sport, the engineers who built the best car won, and that's the human element for us to support.

But with stable rules, even at that level there is no human element right now. To go back to Liverpool v City, they don't say Liverpool won 2-0 last year so lets start the match at 2-0 and see if City can score 3 goals today to win. But that's what is happening in F1. If the Mercedes was a second faster last year then Red Bull need to improve their car by more than a second above what Mercedes improve their car by. And for two teams with similar resources, that is effectively impossible.

If they go back to the drawing board, as they did in 2009 for example, then suddenly there's a true competition between the engineers to create the best car, and that human element that should be so important in sport is back. If it so happens that the new rules create the magic of multiple competitive teams capable of winning races, like the 2009-2013 Formula did, then we get more of a human element among the drivers fighting for the win on track too, so it's win-win.

pjohnson

Jordan 199 wrote: »

I just read up on it. 6.8 seconds slower than team mate Albers and couldn't take the steering wheel off

I love that image. Just sitting there getting towed away

ELM327

Jordan 199 wrote: »

I just read up on it. 6.8 seconds slower than team mate Albers and couldn't take the steering wheel off

That's lord mahaveer territory!

ELM327

quokula wrote: »

To put it another way.

When Liverpool play Manchester City, it doesn't matter how much resources they have or how they did last year. More resources theoretically means better players and coaching etc, but once they're on the pitch and they kick off, it's 100% down to what those people do during those 90 minutes. It's an entirely human endeavour and that's what makes sports popular. Roger Federer can be beaten by a rookie if he doesn't perform at his best.

F1 already lacks that on race day when cars are not competitive, it's completely out of driver's hands to a large extent, at least among those not right in the midfield. But lets zoom out a bit. We all accept that things aren't fully in the hands of drivers because it's an engineering sport, the engineers who built the best car won, and that's the human element for us to support.

But with stable rules, even at that level there is no human element right now. To go back to Liverpool v City, they don't say Liverpool won 2-0 last year so lets start the match at 2-0 and see if City can score 3 goals today to win. But that's what is happening in F1. If the Mercedes was a second faster last year then Red Bull need to improve their car by more than a second above what Mercedes improve their car by. And for two teams with similar resources, that is effectively impossible.

If they go back to the drawing board, as they did in 2009 for example, then suddenly there's a true competition between the engineers to create the best car, and that human element that should be so important in sport is back. If it so happens that the new rules create the magic of multiple competitive teams capable of winning races, like the 2009-2013 Formula did, then we get more of a human element among the drivers fighting for the win on track too, so it's win-win.

Yes , I was agreeing with you before, and I'm agreeing again. 110%

PukkaStukka

More changes in the Ferrari technical department

https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/formula1/articles/technical-department-reorganisation-continues-at-scuderia-ferrari-mission-winnow

skipper_G

quokula wrote: »

You probably shouldn't be accusing other people of not understanding F1 when history completely contradicts your claims. Big rule changes ended Ferrari's dominance in 2005. Big rule changes turned the form book on its head in 2009. Big rule changes completely changed the competitive landscape of F1 in 2014.

Minor rule changes led to Mercedes winning 7 titles in a row. Minor rule changes led to Red Bull winning 4 titles in a row.

Stable rules favour the competitive order being unchanged, because if you already have a fast car you just tweak it a little bit and it stays fast. Additionally, if you have more money, you have more to throw at the tiny incremental improvements that exist under these conditions.

Major rule changes mean people have to put their thinking caps on and come up with new ideas, look for loopholes, find completely new designs. More resources helps a lot with this of course, but there's always a human element that means anyone can find some great new idea, or by the same token a big team can mess up and go down the wrong path. Currently that human element barely exists as they always build on existing proving machinery.

Major technical rule changes are the same for everyone, and the only guarantee is that they will be expensive. They will cost millions and millions of dollars and unless one of the smaller teams has a eureka moment that gives them an advantage, the pecking order will remain relatively unchanged. Even at that, how long does that advantage last for? You mentioned 2009, it lasted all of 7 races before the others caught up. You can keep talking about what happened 20 years ago or you can focus on what's happening now and into the future. F1 has suffered a massive decline in revenue this year, the teams will have probably half of the usual prize fund. You need to be realistic, money will be in short supply for the next couple of seasons at least. F1 doesn't need new technical regulations, it needs new sporting regulations that cover better revenue distribution, budget caps and so on.

recyclebin

A financial fair play system may actually be needed. But not like the FIFA one which actually protects the big teams.

eviltimeban

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes, I would agree.
There are still pay drivers but the delta between them and an average real on merit driver is a lot less now.


Remember pedro diniz!

Diniz was a pay driver, but he wasn't anywhere near as bad as Yoong, Rosset etc. He scored points and raced for six seasons, and out-qualified Hill twice!

dublinman1990

I am honestly surprised that Lewis Hamilton had tested positive for Covid as I only found this out news a few minutes ago via Youtube. I hope Covid doesn't eventually kill him because getting the virus in a place like the ME was one of the worst places to get it the during the 1st wave of the pandemic.

With that being said I wish George Russell luck in getting a podium for the weekend. I heard his time today was the fastest record set for FP1 at the Sakhir GP.

That's a great achievement for him. It will be interesting to see if Russell gets to beat Bottas at the weekend.

El_Duderino 09

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I am honestly surprised that Lewis Hamilton had tested positive for Covid as I only found this out news a few minutes ago via Youtube. I hope Covid doesn't eventually kill him because getting the virus in a place like the ME was one of the worst places to get it the during the 1st wave of the pandemic.
...

Lol. The Middle East has the best of everything.... IF you have the dolla to pay for it.

Lewis would get the best of care of he needed it.

tipp_tipp_tipp

Grosjean giving his account of how he got out of the car last weekend:
https://streamable.com/dp0y43

Busi_Girl08

tipp_tipp_tipp wrote: »

Grosjean giving his account of how he got out of the car last weekend:
https://streamable.com/dp0y43

Insane how much his mind processed so quickly in those 20 or so seconds

Ohmeha

Faugheen wrote: »

Ricardo Rosset was the king

"well it's a fairly short debate Murray"

https://streamable.com/1ttp4g

AMKC

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

Insane how much his mind processed so quickly in those 20 or so seconds

It is crazy. I would say time seemed like it had stopped for him or slowed down so to him it felt like 90 seconds.
He was very very lucky to get out. It could have ended a lot worse if he had giving up or not been able to get his leg out

Charlie-Bravo

tipp_tipp_tipp wrote: »

Grosjean giving his account of how he got out of the car last weekend:
https://streamable.com/dp0y43

That's amazing. I'd say the footage (if it was still recording) is some scary peice of imagery.

Top Dog

astrofluff wrote: »

That's amazing. I'd say the footage (if it was still recording) is some scary peice of imagery.

Footage from the camera above his head was broadcast after. Unsurprisingly it cut out on impact so didn't show the escape.

Jordan 199

Ohmeha wrote: »

"well it's a fairly short debate Murray"

https://streamable.com/1ttp4g

I'm always fond of those old skool TV graphics.

Gaoth Laidir

dublinman1990 wrote: »

With that being said I wish George Russell luck in getting a podium for the weekend. I heard his time today was the fastest record set for FP1 at the Sakhir GP.

That's a great achievement for him. It will be interesting to see if Russell gets to beat Bottas at the weekend.

Not sure if you were being tongue-in-cheek or not. FP1 was the first ever session in the first ever Sakhir GP on the first ever time on that track, so he didn't really break any record as there was none to break.

El_Duderino 09

AMKC wrote: »

It is crazy. I would say time seemed like it had stopped for him or slowed down so to him it felt like 90 seconds.
He was very very lucky to get out. It could have ended a lot worse if he had giving up or not been able to get his leg out

I don’t want to be a Captain Hindsight but....

With the benefit of hindsight, the fire appeared far more dramatic than it actually was. I’m sure we all thought from the size of the fireball, that the fuel tank had broken. But it was just the 2-3 litres of fuel in the engine that ignited. I say just 2-3 litres because it was a job to put out that much but putting out 100l would have been impossible if RG couldn’t say get himself out.

In reality they put out the fire shortly after he got out of the car anyway because it turns out it was only 2-3l of fuel and not 100l

It was very dramatic and for the time everyone thought it was the fuel take full of fuel on fire, it seemed a whole lot more dramatic.