|
The only unpredictable thing that the qualifying did was knock out Kyvat, which, as it turns out, was irrelevant. I guess you can count the Haases missing Q2 but not really.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
learnincurve posted:You just did exactly what the sky presenters said people just looking at the results would do you muppet. Seriously, worse than those people who only watch gifs and claim to be an expert. The race was balls to the wall excitement from start to finish including some awesome stuff with fast cars being held up. God darn Haas being competitive and well in the points, and the biggest crash maybe ever. seriously these people are insane, mclaren had good pace all weekend, one of them goes airborne in the race and the other gets caught out by the red flag and suddenly they're the slowest team on the grid again. it's retarded. and like haas had a decent debut but they finished 6th because grosjean effectively didn't pit. lets actually watch the races and not just cherry pick results, please Alain Post posted:The only unpredictable thing that the qualifying did was knock out Kyvat, which, as it turns out, was irrelevant. I guess you can count the Haases missing Q2 but not really. really? pretty much no one was in the right spot after qualifying, the entire bottom 2/3 of the grid got caught out by the new format.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Haas got lucky with the red flag, but on the other hand they also had to start on the next-to-last row when they had midfield pace in qualifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Lol the Moto2 race is really entertaining so far. Maybe this series isn't garbage this year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:Haas got lucky with the red flag, but on the other hand they also had to start on the next-to-last row when they had midfield pace in qualifying. alonso was like 4th fastest in Q1 and then only had the tires to do one lap in Q2. i'm fairly certain every driver that was eliminated in Q2 either didn't have the tires to set a time or was on a fast lap when time expired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:Lol the Moto2 race is really entertaining so far. Maybe this series isn't garbage this year. No spoilers pls I'm watching the big Barca game and dvrng the race
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Losail has to be the most characterless circuit in the world, though Valencia (the MotoGP circuit) comes close.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:alonso was like 4th fastest in Q1 and then only had the tires to do one lap in Q2. i'm fairly certain every driver that was eliminated in Q2 either didn't have the tires to set a time or was on a fast lap when time expired. I actually like some of the ideas in that qualifying system but it absolutely does not work with the tyre allocation system lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
They were second and third in Q1 Wicka. That wasn't a bullshit time, they had the quali pace. Unfortunately they burnt out too many tyres so effectively had to drop themselves out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Its also worth noting that Alonso has stated that they won't have that car up to full pace until europe, and it still looks like they're working through the set up of that car. That car does seem to inconsistently show some real fast pace like in qualifying, I think they just need to wrap their heads around how to set it up. The red flag did genuinely gently caress up being able to read into any results since everyone but Mercedes were running a compromised strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:I actually like some of the ideas in that qualifying system but it absolutely does not work with the tyre allocation system lol It honestly would work if you said something like "Every 4 minutes eliminate two drivers" and had unlimited tires. Alternatively we could go back to the old bridgestone model of you get one set of tires the whole weekend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:I actually like some of the ideas in that qualifying system but it absolutely does not work with the tyre allocation system lol same, i think it would take minor tweaks to make it a good format IF we had enough tires, which we don't. and it's not like pirelli can just triple the number of tires they bring to these races at the drop of a hat. learnincurve posted:They were second and third in Q1 Wicka. That wasn't a bullshit time, they had the quali pace. Unfortunately they burnt out too many tyres so effectively had to drop themselves out. and of course they are not the second and third fastest cars, but they had good qualifying pace and expected even better race pace. i don't think that was actually the case during the first third of the race, but they were both in points-scoring positions (or thereabouts) when alonso crashed. it's just baffling to take button's 14th place entirely out of context and start writing them off again. it might be fair to criticize hamilton, he blew the start and then just whined and was unable to pass anyone, but ferrari had a great strategy going that was upended by the red flag. it's not fair to look at the results and be like "pfffffffft same as last year."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
I'm watching the motorcycles for the first time after many years and the first race ended with a victory by 0.003 seconds, while this second one had most of the first 2 rows jumping the start and having to do drivethroughs, it's been pretty entertaining
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
MotoGP was great great stuff last season, I'm hoping Maverick and Iannone can steal a few wins this season. Kind of expecting a Lorenzo walkover for the title, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
who was it that posted the speed trap data from practice/qualifying? is that out for the race yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Vettel FTW https://twitter.com/racinghumour/status/711448906589216769
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Somehow the drop in posters have worse opinions than the regular. So far we've had "lol these engines are poo poo let's bring back a worse formula" And "didn't watch the race here's my expert opinion" loving hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
You know when I said stuff like "the average fan is an idiot though" and you all mocked me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
The engine thing is particularly stupid. If you seriously still are complaining about the "noise" then you should probably buy one of those racing with autism shirts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
The restrictions on engine development/token system are dumb IMO, but I've never really believed in development restrictions/cost cutting measures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Should have specified the "engine noise" thing. This formula would be perfectly fine if they opened up development.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Should have specified the "engine noise" thing. This. And I personally think areo is a big problem with the current racing. Not sure what the solution would be to that. The cars are plenty fast, and actually sound unique and good this year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
This Moto2 race is entertaining but extremely, extremely stupid
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:The restrictions on engine development/token system are dumb IMO, but I've never really believed in development restrictions/cost cutting measures. I'm still confused how developing a completely different powertrain was supposed to cut costs, honestly dont care about the sound anywyay. I thought they sounded pretty cool when first introduced, you could hear the turbos spooling up and also the hybrid bits whining away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
i really don't get the noise complaints. of course the V10s sounded way better. but the lack of noise doesn't make a good race bad, nor do loud engines make a bad race good. it's one TINY piece of the puzzle and people are putting far, far too much emphasis on it. i feel the same way about the sparks. yeah, sparks are cool. but we expended real effort changing the legality planks to shoot pretty sparks out the back of cars instead of making, idk, real changes that actually improve the sport. it's a dumb thing to focus on. these are details that should addressed last, not first.track day bro! posted:I'm still confused how developing a completely different powertrain was supposed to cut costs, honestly dont care about the sound anywyay. I thought they sounded pretty cool when first introduced, you could hear the turbos spooling up and also the hybrid bits whining away. it wasn't supposed to cut costs. everyone knew it would be expensive and the development restrictions were meant to contain that expense. of course no one had the foresight to realize that ultra-complex engines tend to be unreliable in year one, nor did they realize how much better mercedes could be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
track day bro! posted:I'm still confused how developing a completely different powertrain was supposed to cut costs, honestly dont care about the sound anywyay. I thought they sounded pretty cool when first introduced, you could hear the turbos spooling up and also the hybrid bits whining away. I also feel like if you let teams/manufacturers push the envelope a bit you'd get more unpredictability in the form of unreliability, but maybe not, since mechanical attrition seems to be on the way out in all forms of motorsport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Norns posted:This. I've long thought that the best solution to aero is to limit the number of elements per section of the car. That way you can play around with aero and if you want to build a team around that you can still gain an advantage but it puts an end to these ridiculous front wings. Alain Post posted:I also feel like if you let teams/manufacturers push the envelope a bit you'd get more unpredictability in the form of unreliability, but maybe not, since mechanical attrition seems to be on the way out in all forms of motorsport. The problem is nobody is willing to make that gamble because under the current rules you're essentially punished twice for unreliability, once when you DNF then again for the engine penalty. If you took out the engine penalty I think you'd find a few manufacturers would be willing to race some riskier concepts to grab a few tenths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
And, if you spend your tokens on the wrong development path, you're hosed for the season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
It's also stupid that Alonso lost an engine already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
one of the guys on the Moto2 podium has the least flattering riding leathers i've ever seen
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
If you want a good example of workable high tech formulas and race direction, ACO/Le Mans is it. They have some fantastically complicated rule system that allows the LMP teams to run wildly different designs with gas, diesel, turbo, NA, batteries, flywheels, and they all still end up within a few laps of each other after a day long race. And their virtual pit lane sector is a hell of a lot better idea than the virtual safety car in F1 that allows cars to be boring and slow while simultaneously still being unlimited in specific speed and dangerous in any given corner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:I also feel like if you let teams/manufacturers push the envelope a bit you'd get more unpredictability in the form of unreliability, but maybe not, since mechanical attrition seems to be on the way out in all forms of motorsport. We did have a fair amount of unreliability last season though, just not from mercedes. It does feel like the limits on replacement everything seems far too low though. Maybe a couple more engine/gearbox/mgukbughsjh/turbo wouldnt hurt and I doubt it would cost that much more seeing as most of the cost of these things is in development anyway. be nice wicka posted:it wasn't supposed to cut costs. everyone knew it would be expensive and the development restrictions were meant to contain that expense. of course no one had the foresight to realize that ultra-complex engines tend to be unreliable in year one, nor did they realize how much better mercedes could be. Maybe it was the initial proposal of a 4cyl engine that was meant to cut costs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Moto2 wasn't bad but it was just weird. One of the strangest races I've seen from the bikes in a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
track day bro! posted:Maybe it was the initial proposal of a 4cyl engine that was meant to cut costs? The 4 cylinder engine was proposed on fuel savings/good for the enviroment grounds. Ironically the V6 got proposed on cost savings because it meant the engine could be a stressed member and they wouldn't need a space frame for the chassis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
no one wants more unreliable cars, that poo poo is boring as gently caress. it's technically unpredictable but it's really just a lottery. no one wants to watch a race that's decided because an engine grenaded on the last lap.track day bro! posted:Maybe it was the initial proposal of a 4cyl engine that was meant to cut costs? no, it wouldn't have been any cheaper, it was the exact same formula but with 4 cylinders instead of 6. the teams requested V6s because they wouldn't be able to use a 4 cylinder engine as a stressed member.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
unreliability is cool. i love the dynamic of fast-but-fragile, makes it at least worth watching when someone seems to be running away with the race i also miss 1989 when the reliability rate was so poor that you had a decent shot at a podium if you finished the race at all, which led to a bunch of really weird third-place finishers
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Should have specified the "engine noise" thing. if this thread is any indication, you people would complain about it because muh road car relevance and sunk costs fallacy
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:unreliability is cool. i love the dynamic of fast-but-fragile, makes it at least worth watching when someone seems to be running away with the race this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Triple A posted:if this thread is any indication, you people would complain about it because muh road car relevance and sunk costs fallacy my goodness you are thick as poo poo you realize that no one here cares about road relevancy, right? we're simply trying to explain to you why the car manufacturers want such a formula and why it's hard to replace their money. and sunk costs are not a fallacy. these companies have invested over a billion dollars into these new engines, if you introduce a formula that makes that investment worthless, they're going to leave.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Manufacturers can gently caress off like they have any time things haven't gone their way who cares about them Ferrari and Cosworth can make all the engines imho
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:41
|
|