|
Ok a single car made by known cheaters williams how does that prove anything?
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
El Hefe posted:And maybe that's exactly why F1 is so poo poo then The sport is poo poo because it contains 70% whiny babby sperglords who want to spend endless hours fiddling with front wing elements in a simulator instead of actually building racing cars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
The worst thing is that drivers know it's poo poo and they have voiced their concern and nothing's gonna be done about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:The sport is poo poo because it contains 70% whiny babby sperglords who want to spend endless hours fiddling with front wing elements in a simulator instead of actually building racing cars. It's also poo poo because you can't develop worth poo poo during the season and it's even restricted during the offseason meaning that the best teams will stay on top until the next major rules shakeup. F1 is poo poo without development, I might as well just watch a spec series that doesn't claim to give a poo poo about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:It's also poo poo because you can't develop worth poo poo during the season and it's even restricted during the offseason meaning that the best teams will stay on top until the next major rules shakeup. F1 is poo poo without development, I might as well just watch a spec series that doesn't claim to give a poo poo about that. I completely agree. Watching 2006 I was shocked that Ferrari was able to come back after only a few races, now you're completely hosed for the season if you're even 10 horsepower off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Like there has to be a balance between limiting development costs by saying nobody can develop ever, and the days when Porsche would bring 10 qualifying engines made out of tissue paper to each race weekend, but the current one isn't working
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:Like there has to be a balance between limiting development costs by saying nobody can develop ever, and the days when Porsche would bring 10 qualifying engines made out of tissue paper to each race weekend, but the current one isn't working I don't think anybody is pining to go back to the days of running an engine three laps then changing it out for the race but there's no way the current system of pouring millions of dollars into super computers, windtunnels and full car testbeds is cheaper than just throwing in a few weeks of testing and incorporating the schedule so it is close to a race.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I don't think anybody is pining to go back to the days of running an engine three laps then changing it out for the race but there's no way the current system of pouring millions of dollars into super computers, windtunnels and full car testbeds is cheaper than just throwing in a few weeks of testing and incorporating the schedule so it is close to a race. Exactly, with testing at least you can see the cars running around even if the times are meaningless they are still putting tires on the asphalt and burning fuel which is what we like to see. Innovation is nice and when teams come up with things like mass dampers, double diffusers, and cheeky hidden fuel tanks it's all nice and part of F1 and I love that stuff but good racing should always be the priority and it obviously isn't right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Define good racing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
lol I went to F1 races in the 80s, on reflection I would rather not go back to the days when health and safety simply did not exist and tens of millions would tune in for the first corner at Monaco for the big crash and tune out again. If by good racing people mean mid fielders lucking into championships because they broke down the least, 6 drivers finishing a race being accepted as normal, or on one occasion one driver having to unlap himself while the second and third place drivers were broken down in the pits then I'm not sure where you are coming from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:lol I went to F1 races in the 80s, on reflection I would rather not go back to the days when health and safety simply did not exist and tens of millions would tune in for the first corner at Monaco for the big crash and tune out again. If by good racing people mean mid fielders lucking into championships because they broke down the least, 6 drivers finishing a race being accepted as normal, or on one occasion one driver having to unlap himself while the second and third place drivers were broken down in the pits then I'm not sure where you are coming from. A lot of those things kick loving rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Bring back insane turbo lag it made the cars look cool coming out of corners
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Bring back the Renaults being insanely fast for the first half of the race and then always catching on fire in the second half
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Yeah I quite enjoy Formula E because stupid poo poo like that happens all the time. It doesn't mean that the fastest and most reliable driver/car doesn't still win the championship. At least with a sample size of 1 so far anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
We had Walker and Hunt though, I don't even want to imagine how bad Brundle and Croft would be. This imo is one of the bigger problems with F1, since Walker and Brundle we have always had one really terrible presenter (with the exception of Brundle and DC). Sky like to bitch and whine about the state of the sport and not for one moment have they thought that, yes they may be good blokes and everyone's friends, but having David Croft and Di Resta on commentary on the world feed may be one of the reasons people are tuning out. loving hell, Crofty has made talking about cheese during races a thing for god's sake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Fake edit: Okay that was a lot more words on a lot more topics than I wanted to say. tl;dr Randomness in f1 is good, but too much is bad, and we can't largely get it these days without inducing it artificially ------------------------------------------------------ Alain Post posted:A lot of those things kick loving rear end. Well, kind of. Remember when Pirelli tyres were exploding everywhere? A lot of commentators/pundits got pissed off because you couldn't make a meaningful prediction or have meaningful expectations about performance, basically it all became a big game of tyre roulette where everything else that made F1 F1 (engine, aero, drivers etc) became so marginalised as to matter very little. If you wanna play roulette go to a casino. But on the other extreme we have FIArrai with Fighting Michael and the Vettelreich and now Das Merc Reich (loving Germans, right?) where everything is a foregone conclusion. yawnsville. There's a reason a football match lasts 90 minutes - it's long enough to allow team performance level to be a major factor but short enough that a big enough fuckup by the better team or a big enough scoop of luck for the underdog will shake things up and the crowd goes wild. Unfortunately as technology and measurement gets better The Best Solution begins to appear. Look at the early days of aviation, hell, even during the Cold War. New things were being tried and there were broadly differing solutions offered to the same problem. Now pretty much every fighter jet looks the same, and every airliner is more or less identical. For the current technology level, the optimum solution has been pretty well found. Cars too - even shitheaps start every time these days. Most cars solve the same problems in the same ways because the best solution had been found. Go back to the Rando era of F1. Did the engine explode because of design, defect, driver, or a weird combination or circumstantial factors? Welp, lacking good telemetry and QA and modelling it's actually quite hard to tell until we've run enough races to notice a trend. And changing one thing could have lots of knock on effects we can't accurately predict - I suppose we make our best guess and run with it. But those days are gone, at least in F1. I really like the innovation side of things. And the deception side, they usually go hand in hand. gently caress Pirelli mandating which way round tyres were run - let the teams take every risk they want with what's on the table, that's my view. But then gently caress the teams for blaming Pirelli and bitching when they didn't follow guidelines. That poo poo only served to make the marketing folks at Pirelli get defensive over brand reputation and force the tyres to be used as intended. Anyway, the point is that you need to have enough consistency to evaluate form, but enough of a fudge factor to shake things up once in a while. Since that is becoming less organic* you get Pirelli being told to make Crazy Rubber, you get Bernie suggesting sprinklers because wet races still have that shakeup effect, you get the Driver/Fan Boost or whatever it's called. DRS is a different kettle of fish and although I'm rambling I don't want to get off track too much. Personally, I think the answer is more options. The KERS button was good because it became a tactical decision of when to use it, In the driver's hands. I like the radio ban because it means that drivers effectively have to evaluate how to make their machine go faster around a track under their control (the very definition of racing driver, no?), rather than a computer in Milton Keynes running 5 simulations simultaneously and some guy on the pit wall just acting as a relay mouthpiece. More tyre choices are good because they broaden strategic options and variation. Give teams a clear goal, set hard limits, change those limits by a good degree every season or two. "But simplefish," you cry, "changing things a lot hurts little teams and helps big fat ones because they have the resources to try lots of things!" Yeah, no poo poo. But keeping them the same doesn't help either. Chances are the one who gets closest to Best Answer will have room to improve AND a massive head start, so even the other big boys are stuck playing catch up (see: nowadays Merc and Ferrari). At least big changes remove or reduce the head start, and opens up innovation (see: Brawn GP). So no, I don't have a solution to "More Money = More Better", especially as costs continue to rise**. And I'm not sure there is one. But what you CAN introduce is an avenue for more variation in design solution approach. Like when turbos were new, I suppose, and people didn't know if the NA engine was truly dead yet (but there was a best answer: Turbos are better) *and really, who can be shocked that engineers of all people would be good at eliminating unwanted variation as they gained access to better technology? This is why testing is restricted. They are trying in vain to keep as much guesswork in the design process as possible. The problem with restricting testing is one that I thought of a lot when wicka was going on last week about the state of F1. Wicka is right in that F1 is currently in a state of balance, it's not keeling over. But others were right in questioning sustainability. It's the underlying point of everything from economic bubbles to Japanese RPGs: imagine a seesaw. A beam with equal and equidistant mass on both sides of the pivot will. Be balanced. But as the beam gets longer, although it remains in balance, it takes a smaller and smaller variation to upset the system in a bigger fashion. A system can be balanced but unstable. An economy can be growing but overheated. Your character at Level 100 can do more damage but so can the enemies. A sport can be making money but risk the long term. In anything that involves humans, from sociology to politics to economics to sport sponsorship, past performance is not an assurance of future success. No, the sky isn't falling, but questions do need to be asked about where the sport is headed. And that brings me back to testing and development. **There's a good documentary from the ( Those links: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1LkxGx5WJzA Part 1 - 5:30 duckworth (as a spectator) just says to the head of ford Motorsport "We ought to start again... Make a new engine". And they do. Which is what the rest of the documentary is about https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7RCdRKkt4ds Part 2 simplefish fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
The Pirelli thing is different because Pirelli are very much not designing their tires to the limit, they are designing them "poorly" to add an element of strategy to the races. That's not really comparable to the cars breaking down frequently because you're pushing it to the limits, or making the car more and more fragile in the hopes of getting a tenth out of it. So when you get a lottery element because the Pirellis blow, you don't get that visceral feeling of machines on the absolute limit of engineering, you just see that a tire company managed to gently caress up making an intentionally bad tire. KERS is alright, I agree with that. I also like the hated DRS too- say what you want about "easy" DRS passes, but dirty air has been one of the biggest problems plaguing motorsport for the last, oh, 30 or 40 years, and it's about time someone actually tried to solve it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Hefe's "but what does it do for the racing?" bit, by the way, is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the Pirelli tires.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
That's my point, the tyre problem has been Solved, so any attempts to introduce variation via them are wholly artificial On the other hand, letting teams choose whether to mount them back-to-front on the hubs for grip gains but increased wear was a good example of More Options
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Tires aren't a solved problem, you see that any time you actually get a tire war in the sport and all of a sudden the super extreme qualifying compounds come out, and the rock-hard conservative tires go away. I mean, alright, maybe there aren't any significant advances left in tire technology, but at the same time, having your tire blow because Michelin made a softer compound to try to catch up to the Bridgestone runners is on a much different level of "artificiality" than your Pirelli tire blowing because Pirelli hosed it up again when trying to make an intentionally poor tire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
I understand that "DRS Zones" probably need to be a thing to stop lunatics trying to use it coming out of corners, but I'm not sure why it has to be restricted to drivers being within a second of each other. Yes it''s to help overtaking but when you have engines like the Mercedes able to blast past people without DRS anyway then there is not much point to it. F1 is traditionally not awesome when they introduce rules designed to stop one dominant team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
I believe Michelin can make as good a tyre as Bridgestone, and Pirelli, Goodyear and Dunlop (if they still exist) could do the same. The question then becomes did the Michelin soft go softer or harder than the Bridgestone soft? And that's not More Options because teams are locked in for a whole season*. May as well have standard compounds. Admittedly, I don't like tyre compounds changing mid season. A soft should be the same soft compound in race. 1 as the season finale. I don't mind single tyre manufacturers, but how the car is set up and driven will affect wear a lot. I think there should be more compounds to to choose from each race (so if more than one manufacturer, not making it illegal to switch from race to race, though teams may choose to stick with one manufacturer for sponsorship etc), and more range for the teams to set the car up in. *Compromise is the nature behind meaningful choices. If you can choose all of the gains and none of the drawbacks, it's not a choice at that point, but simply common sense. Selecting gear ratios for the season is good because you have to choose what you will compromise on a per track basis. Now, you may say the same about tyres. Assume that michelin run faster but wear faster than Bridgestone. Some tracks will be better for one supplier an another. Now, that does sound a lot like the gear ratio thing, but the difference is that it is each team that chooses their ratios, not an external supplier who has to try to keep lots of teams happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Dunlop most certainly still exist, you'll find them in LMP1 and 2 and as title sponsors of the BTCC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Dudley posted:Dunlop most certainly still exist, you'll find them in LMP1 and 2 and as title sponsors of the BTCC. They aren't Dunlop though really. They are just another brand name of Goodyear now 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Whitey Ford posted:Define good racing. Me on Forza 6 with medium difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
El Hefe posted:Exactly it doesn't provide any benefit for us the viewers who are ultimately the reason the sport exists today. they allow the racing to exist, how many loving times does this have to be explained?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Fernando will miss Bahrain, due to a "being dead" flareup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
RIP. He's dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alonso-will-not-race-in-the-bahrain-gp-683160/ Fernando Alonso will not be racing in the Bahrain Grand Prix after he was not cleared following medical checks on Thursday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
RIP again. Say hello to Princess Diana for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Ron Dennis hates Alonso so much that he killed him once, reanimated his corpse and then killed him again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
In more brighter news and a look towards the future of Formula 1 - the Roborace car (AI driven cars, running as a support series for Formula E) for next year has been unveiled, and shows exactly what you can do when you don't have to lug around a massive bag of meat. Should be able to go close to 200 MPH, so hope to god the AI coders don't gently caress up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oBnWsVhJms
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
STOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/alo_oficial/status/712954692125532162 Hes dead
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Will it be driven by Tay?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Looking forward to what Big Stof can do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:semi-auto gearboxes were implemented because a team (the Scud) thought it was an engineering advantage I was kinda unimpressed by Barnard's initial reason (he didn't want to run a linkage from the front to the rear of the car anymore).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
ukle posted:They aren't Dunlop though really. They are just another brand name of Goodyear now It gets more confusing because they are also owned by Sumitomo in Asia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Alain Post posted:teams doing cool poo poo to try to build the best car in the paddock isn't "just for the big companies", it is, in fact, part of the entire appeal of the sport. if people wanted Good Racing they'd watch the Indycars instead (they don't) this is A Good Post. people are sitting here saying they want close racing, more unpredictability, and less of a focus on ultra-advanced engineering. that describes indycar to a T. but indycar is, in many ways, exactly what F1 inherently isn't, never was, and never will be. so i continued to be baffled by these discussions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:57
|
|