|
Basically F1 has no idea what it wants to be and is trying to achieve two mutually conflicting goals - be the most advanced cutting edge glamorous technological series while simultaneously giving the most exciting closely matched racing spectacle - whilst simultaneously trying to hark back to a rose-tinted glory era which never existed. Look at the history of F1 and click on a random race report and you'll most likely see a story of how Schumacher/Prost/Andretti/Moss/Fangio started from pole and won by half a lap because that's how it has always been, the reason everyone has Arnoux and Villeneuve at Dijon 79 imprinted on their minds is because the wheel to wheel battling was exceptionally rare even back then but everyone wants to 'bring back the real racing like the good old days' because people are dumb. If F1 want to make close unpredictable racing a regular feature the first thing F1 could and should do is re-balance the payments so smaller teams have more resources try to compete with the big boys but that would mean Bernie agreeing to not be paid a zillion dollars for being a grumpy dwarf and old teams agreeing not to be paid a zillion dollars just for being old teams so good luck with that.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Helicon One posted:Counter-thought: if some cars are faster than others, and the qualifying system causes the faster cars to start the race in front of the slower cars....? Although this is true, different cars also have different ways of performing. Maybe the cars in front have great one-lap pace but don't have race pace, or they're worse on their tires, or they perform badly when it's a hot day. When the cars get close to each other, a lot of that potential for differentiation is lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
The way to make formula 1 better is to bring in more engine manufacturers to subsidise development and have more of the grid works or like renault were for a few years. This won't happen unless F1 is made more of an attractive option as a research platform, not to dumb down the sport. It is probable that a lot of big car manufacturers look at the way F1 is run by Bernie and want nothing to do with it. If you were a multi national would you want to be anywhere near mysterious middle eastern investors who take 49% (or something like that) of the profits when no one can understand how the sport even got sold to them in the first place, and a promoter who wheels and deals and funnels money out of the sport when most big companies have a small department perfectly capable of doing the same job for a cost of £200,000 a year instead of untold millions. It's ludicrous. The teams own the equipment, the track owners own the track, the FIA govern the rules and Sky/BBC/other broadcaster and perfectly capable of filming and broadcasting. There is literally no point to Bernie or the FOM and hasn't been for years, no wonder big western corporations and sponsors look at the sport and go "well that's very corrupt isn't it, nope". btw and here's a fun fact: Mexico happened not because of Bernie who had nothing to do with it but because Arrivabene in his capacity at marlboro and as the sponsors representative on the world council got it done, for free. learnincurve fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:Thought experiment: If all the cars are the same, how can they overtake each other? Blessed drivers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Helicon One posted:Basically F1 has no idea what it wants to be and is trying to achieve two mutually conflicting goals - be the most advanced cutting edge glamorous technological series while simultaneously giving the most exciting closely matched racing spectacle - whilst simultaneously trying to hark back to a rose-tinted glory era which never existed. Pretty much this, F1 is a big tech show where occasionally a race breaks out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TeamMcLaren/status/718047942888857600
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
I particularly enjoy the aspect of the sport where billion dollar multinational companies and wealthy individuals squander eye watering amounts of money to complete, yet completely suck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
The best bit is the inevitable Williams loving up of a pit stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
Helicon One posted:Development wars are the best when you have the tobacco industry fire-hosing money into the sport to pay for it all but welp Helicon One posted:Basically F1 has no idea what it wants to be and is trying to achieve two mutually conflicting goals - be the most advanced cutting edge glamorous technological series while simultaneously giving the most exciting closely matched racing spectacle - whilst simultaneously trying to hark back to a rose-tinted glory era which never existed. preach
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
the "problem" F1 faces with all its current attempts at making the racing better is that mercedes is still simply better than everyone else. there's no way to get them off the front of the grid without crashing into them or explicitly penalizing them for being good. the new tire rules, for example, are great because they give teams a wider array of strategy options. mercedes has always picked the right one. ferrari had a chance at the win in melbourne and blew their tire strategy. e: oh hey ericsson's personal sponsors gave sauber an advance so they don't have to die: http://www.eurosport.com/formula-1/sauber-gets-sponsor-advance-to-pay-salaries_sto5426417/story.shtml wicka fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Helicon One posted:Basically F1 has no idea what it wants to be
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:Pick starting grid spots out of a hat. A reminder Nascar has literally done this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Dudley posted:A reminder Nascar has literally done this. ...when?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
I know Indycar did it once in 2011, are you thinking of that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Reading Will Buxtons latest article about Haas and Williams i learned a few interesting things about their early days, i knew they were a customer/indie team, but i didnt know how hypocritical their early years make them, starting with their first car, a definitely-not-brabham. I knew that, but what i didnt know is from 1970 to 1978 they only really "made" two cars, both of which were done in very Haas/Dallara like partnerships, otherwise they were outright running other peoples cars, 2007-2008-era toro rosso style Its almost as if "sour grapes" was invented for european racing teams. MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Reading Will Buxtons latest article about Haas and Williams i learned a few interesting things about their early days, i knew they were a customer/indie team, but i didnt know how hypocritical their early years make them, starting with their first car, a not-brabham. You seem to have a bit of a bug up your arse about the perception of an American team. It really doesn't make any difference - any, and I mean any team doing what Haas did would attract the same ire; Toro Rosso did years back, as did Ligier in 1995. As for F1 forty years ago, it was en entirely different animal. You could still buy a chassis and stick a DFV and Hewland 'box in it and go racing; this was pre the TV money era and what constitutes a team in terms of revenue share an voting power has completely changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Helicon One posted:Look at the history of F1 and click on a random race report and you'll most likely see a story of how Schumacher/Prost/Andretti/Moss/Fangio started from pole and won by half a lap because that's how it has always been, the reason everyone has Arnoux and Villeneuve at Dijon 79 imprinted on their minds is because the wheel to wheel battling was exceptionally rare even back then but everyone wants to 'bring back the real racing like the good old days' because people are dumb. The important difference, and one we can never change, is that back in Ye Olde Days regardless of what was going on, there was always the possibility of death and explosions and all that jolly stuff. Now we're living in a world where a McLaren can do an impromptu Baryshnikov interpretation and its driver can walk away perfectly fine bar a scuffed tattoo, it's not enough to just be fast any more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:37
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
It's true that any team would attract the same ire as Haas. But Pat Symonds and Williams are taking a very annoying approach with their criticism, holding themselves out to be the last bastion of pure constructor hope whilst staring deep into the abyss of prudent and economical team formation. They have too high an opinion of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Xisticide posted:I know Indycar did it once in 2011, are you thinking of that? Nascar did it for a non points race but oh god you're right, Indycar did it in one that mattered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Indycar is where record breaking race finisher Our Max Chilton went, so it clearly has the best ideas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Imola man is holding talks with Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
I'm not optimistic, but I'd love it if it came back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Bernie is posturing to get Monza to cough up more money, in my not particularly insightful opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Or possibly doing something like Germany and alternating Monza / Imola to try and save both while saving each a bit of money?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
GentlemanofLeisure posted:Or possibly doing something like Germany and alternating Monza / Imola to try and save both while saving each a bit of money? I'd be okay with this. Imola is a rad track. Monza has uhhh tradition and stuff...
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
I am not in favour of dropping Monza, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Doesn't the Nürburgring suggest that the forgone revenue outweighs the cost of paying the goblin more? Or are their financial difficulties independent from F1?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:I am not in favour of dropping Monza, sorry. runoverbobby posted:Doesn't the Nürburgring suggest that the forgone revenue outweighs the cost of paying the goblin more? Or are their financial difficulties independent from F1?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
runoverbobby posted:Bernie is posturing to get Monza to cough up more money, in my not particularly insightful opinion. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Came across a collection of all the F1 event artwork for each race from '46-'16. I will say, 2010 was sweet. http://www.cr-images.de/collections.php
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
GentlemanofLeisure posted:Or possibly doing something like Germany and alternating Monza / Imola to try and save both while saving each a bit of money? It's so F1 that tracks are expected to lose money by having a race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
GramCracker posted:Came across a collection of all the F1 event artwork for each race from '46-'16. I will say, 2010 was sweet. I'm a big fan of the 2011 ones as well, and the wireframe look of 2000.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
GramCracker posted:Came across a collection of all the F1 event artwork for each race from '46-'16. I will say, 2010 was sweet. I love these so much. Think I need some prints. I already have so much F1 wall art...just a couple more won't hurt. Also looking at getting a F1 Wheel to turn into a coffee table to put next to my sim rig.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Norns posted:Imola is a rad track.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:It's killed some good drivers, sure. What track has killed the most drivers, anyway? I know what team has. Lotus surely. Nurburgring. Indianapolis tops it though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
More people have died at Monza than Imola anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Norns posted:Nurburgring. Indianapolis tops it though. When you read about the conditions at the old nurburgring it's actually scary that they used to run there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:When you read about the conditions at the old nurburgring it's actually scary that they used to run there. Other series still run there which is crazy because that track is scary even in racing sims.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Many old tracks were insanely dangerous. Fuji's very first configuration dropped you into a steeply banked turn at 300km/h.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:It's killed some good drivers, sure. What track has killed the most drivers, anyway? I know what team has. Lotus surely. Yes, but I kinda feel like a lot of fatal Lotus wrecks weren't so much the fault of Lotus. Ronnie Peterson and Jim Clark's deaths could have happened to anyone in any car, in my opinion. Jochen Rindt is definitely an exception though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:16
|
|