The Current State of Formula 1

[F1fanaticBD]

I agree with Scott on the pit stops

But it isn't 'racing'. I want to see motor 'racing'!     

How come pit-stop is not a part of motor-racing Monty?

I believe its an essential part of motor-racing, yes there is a point you can argue do we have to have a mandatory pit-stop or not that is a whole different issue, but you cannot dismiss the pit-stop as a whole.

I am not as veteran as many of you regarding this sports, but I could say in 1989, when Senna & Prost collided at Suzuka, after the pit-stop, Ayrton produced one of the most stunning drive to the finish, now if we didn't have the pit-stop, would we be able to see such performance? I think there are thousands of instances when a driver opting for a different strategy won him the race, isn't that part of the motor-racing monty?

[Dare]

I enjoy the pit stops as much as the start of the
race.All we need now is some real close racing.

[cosworth151]

As I read BD talking about Suzuka 89 (a great race) I was reminded of possibly the greatest drive in F1 history - Fangio at the Nürburgring in 1957. He saw that Ferrari were setting up for a no stop race. He took softer tires and a lighter fuel load, built up a lead and pitted, 30 seconds ahead of 2nd place Mike Hawthorn. The stop was a disaster. He left the pits in 3rd, 48 seconds behind now 2nd place Peter Collins. In a truly epic drive, Juan Manuel came back for the win.




And all because of a pit stop! 

[Dare]

In 1957 F1 30 seconds is hardly a comfortable lead to
pit and change tires.You ever look at the mechanics and
their leisurely pace

[F1fanaticBD]

As I read BD talking about Suzuka 89 (a great race) I was reminded of possibly the greatest drive in F1 history - Fangio at the Nürburgring in 1957. He saw that Ferrari were setting up for a no stop race. He took softer tires and a lighter fuel load, built up a lead and pitted, 30 seconds ahead of 2nd place Mike Hawthorn. The stop was a disaster. He left the pits in 3rd, 48 seconds behind now 2nd place Peter Collins. In a truly epic drive, Juan Manuel came back for the win.




And all because of a pit stop! 

Thanks Cossie, I was looking for this piece, I remembered reading about this drive, but I could not place the accurate time of the race. According to Fangio, he admitted he had never driven like this before or after, Sir Stirling Moss still in an awe about that particular drive by Fangio.

[cosworth151]

The biggest problem they had on that pit stop was at the left rear. They lost the knock off from that wheel. Unbeknownst to the team, it had been accidentally kicked under the car. Since pit stops were not common then, they didn't have a spare close at hand. Other films show the pit stop a bit more completely.

[Monty]

Races were typically 3hours long in the 50's and the technology available meant that pit stops were essential.
There is no place in modern sprint races for pit stops, unless (which is of course the point), the organisers need to add uncertainty to the formula. Like I said, pit stops are nothing more than a roll of the dice. The end result is that the spectator only sees 'racing' when all of the pit stops are finished.
British Touring Cars, all motorbike series, the great majority of single seat car racing, etc., etc. all provide really exciting racing with no pit stops. Only F1 feels the need to include the completely artificial and unnecessary confusion of pit stops.

[vintly]

So sorry to interrupt you little tiff about football 

On a slightly less tangential note, am I the only person who doesn't like unreliability? It seems everyone would be happier if there were more 'uncertainties' to races – unreliability and rain notably. It's got to the point where car reliability is seen as a bad thing. This baffles me. Why would you want to invest time and interest into a sport for results to be thrown sideways by a shower, or an unreliable car? I'd prefer it if all races were dry and no car ever went bang. Just make the circuits a bit more dangerous to make me even happier.

A friend of mine and myself had an argument once about squirrels. He was saying that there shouldn't be any grey squirrels in the UK, only red ones, and that the grey squirrel has driven them away, and this was wrong and we should have just red squirrels and no grey squirrels (bear with me). I said 'ok but this is how it is now, there's no point looking back. Would you rather have grey squirrels or no squirrels?' He said he wanted red squirrels. I said 'that's not one of the answers on the table, do you want grey squires or no squirrels??' Again he said 'I want red squirrels.'

My point of course is this. They're only squirrels, and the lesser of the two options is still pretty good. Red squirrels is gone buddy! (Well mostly, and don't you start telling me how they're gonna come back.) Same goes for F1 as far as I'm concerned. Bar a few issues I'd rather were slightly different, it's great as it is, and I'm thankful for that. I'll happily debate a point 'til the sun goes down, but I'll certainly not get upset about it. Rather save my energy for things that really matter.

[Dare]

Where'd the reds squirrels go to?France by ferry

[F1fanaticBD]

On a slightly less tangential note, am I the only person who doesn't like unreliability? It seems everyone would be happier if there were more 'uncertainties' to races – unreliability and rain notably. It's got to the point where car reliability is seen as a bad thing. This baffles me. Why would you want to invest time and interest into a sport for results to be thrown sideways by a shower, or an unreliable car? I'd prefer it if all races were dry and no car ever went bang. Just make the circuits a bit more dangerous to make me even happier.

Count me in with you V, being an engineering enthusiast, I hate to see machine fail, because I feel like all the hard work put on by the mechanics, engineers goes in vain, which makes me really sad. The advancement of the technology means that now you can run-simulation of various degree, generating data, that will minimize any structural and engineering error, thus giving this sort of bullet proof reliability. Few years back I have seen the camera company Olympus producing an Endoscopic camera for engineers at Ferrari to be able see changes in the engine after a race, without dismantling it. Now if you have these much advancement, sure reliability will ensure, which every team strive for.

In short term prospect, I may have to accept the grey ones, but still I want the red ones, so I will be trying to get them if they exist anywhere, I will breed them so that after 10 years we have both kind of squirrels 

[cosworth151]

I'm half & half with vintly on this. I don't care for the mechanical failures. That one of many reasons why I have no use for turbo grenades.

On the other hand, I like occasional rain. I consider the ability to drive in the rain as an essential part of a driver's toolkit. Having a few rainy races each season helps bring out the best all-around drivers.

[vintly]

Can't argue with your point about the rain cos, it's right that an all-round racer should be able to handle themselves in the wet. Maybe I would miss it if all races were dry.

BD be careful with them squirrels, they're little buggers to keep tabs on. You might end up with pink ones!

Dare, I think there is a small red squirrel population in the UK, but on the Isle of Man (possibly). They've successfully stopped the grey squirrel crossing the water and joining the population - grey squirrels carry a disease that kills the reds. Maybe the tourist squirrels in France have honed their seafaring skills sufficiently to mount an attack by now. Horror! I must call the authorities at once - thanks for alerting me to the possibility, you may just have saved the day.

[Irisado]

On a slightly less tangential note, am I the only person who doesn't like unreliability? It seems everyone would be happier if there were more 'uncertainties' to races – unreliability and rain notably. It's got to the point where car reliability is seen as a bad thing. This baffles me. Why would you want to invest time and interest into a sport for results to be thrown sideways by a shower, or an unreliable car? I'd prefer it if all races were dry and no car ever went bang. Just make the circuits a bit more dangerous to make me even happier.

Rain is a great equaliser.  It allows drivers in inferior equipment a chance to showcase their talent.  Some of the best races of all time have taken place in wet conditions.  Monaco 1984 when Senna and Bellof could have won, Monaco 1996 when Panis won in incredibly difficult conditions when lots of other aces hit the wall or had some other drama, Belgium 1998 and the famous Jordan 1-2, the wet/dry Nurburgring race of 1999 where Johnny Herbert won in the Stewart, Button's incredible win in the Canadian Grand Prix when Vettel lost it in front of him on the last lap.  Great drama, tense all the way through, on the edge of your seat stuff.  That's why wet races are so exciting.  Drivers make more mistakes, they have to drive at the edge without going over it. 

Unreliability spices things up.  Again, I used to sit on the edge of my seat wondering whether drivers would finish.  Remember when the McLarens were super fast between 1998 and 2000?  They would often disappear into the distance, but the question was always would they finish?  Ferrari were slower but had better reliability.  It made for an interesting trade off.  How would things pan out?  That's part of the sport, and it's now missing from Formula 1.

It was also a great way for the smaller teams to pick up points, especially earlier in the year.  They could use their limited resources on ensuring reliability, and pick up the pieces when the larger teams (pushing the limits of reliability in exchange for performance) suffered mechanical failures.  All of this added an extra dimension to the racing for me, and its loss has made the races all the more predictable and boring to watch.

Regarding squirrels, I'll take no squirrels over grey squirrels any time.

[vintly]

'Unreliability spices things up'.

This is moot, as for you it spices things up in an interesting way, for me it's not part of racing. Yes reliability will always play a part, however small, but when it negatively affects a driver or team, it's just a shame because then they're not racing anymore.

Rain is just rain. Sport is sport. Rain and sport don't mix well, although of course in Motorsport it can provide extra entertainment. But, raindrops mean less speed. Less speed equals less exciting, and in some cases it's a joke, seeing F1 cars poodle about the track like fish out of water. In the same way you could say bumpy pitches make a great equaliser for football, or a slippery basketball court makes for a more dramatic match. I say it makes for a less refined and therefore reduced sporting spectacle, regardless of its affect on the outcome of the race or match.

For me the only variables required are driver talent and overall car speed. Everything else should be equal - that's a level playing field. Each to his own.

[F1fanaticBD]

On a slightly less tangential note, am I the only person who doesn't like unreliability? It seems everyone would be happier if there were more 'uncertainties' to races – unreliability and rain notably. It's got to the point where car reliability is seen as a bad thing. This baffles me. Why would you want to invest time and interest into a sport for results to be thrown sideways by a shower, or an unreliable car? I'd prefer it if all races were dry and no car ever went bang. Just make the circuits a bit more dangerous to make me even happier.

Rain is a great equaliser.  It allows drivers in inferior equipment a chance to showcase their talent.  Some of the best races of all time have taken place in wet conditions.  Monaco 1984 when Senna and Bellof could have won, Monaco 1996 when Panis won in incredibly difficult conditions when lots of other aces hit the wall or had some other drama, Belgium 1998 and the famous Jordan 1-2, the wet/dry Nurburgring race of 1999 where Johnny Herbert won in the Stewart, Button's incredible win in the Canadian Grand Prix when Vettel lost it in front of him on the last lap.  Great drama, tense all the way through, on the edge of your seat stuff.  That's why wet races are so exciting.  Drivers make more mistakes, they have to drive at the edge without going over it. 

You missed a guy from Germany winning in Monza for Toro Rosso Irisado 

Yes rain is a great way of testing the ability of a driver. It also erodes some of the superiority the big teams have, and let the talented driver in the small team show his mantle. But all of these will happen only if they let you race in the rain. Nowadays if there is heavy rain, either they call the safety car, or they stop the race, which is a shame. And nobody has any control over rain, places like Malaysia, Brazil, Spa, sometimes at Monza, as well as in Canada, it will rain, so can't do anything about it.

"Unreliability spices things up" forgive me if I am reading it in the wrong way, but a team of mechanics putting relentless effort to prepare a car to race, and that car does not reach the flag because somebody made a mistake while preparing the car, resulting no more running of the car, that will make me feel thrilled, excited?spice things up for me?


[F1 is in its hibernation, not much to talk about, so there will be storm on a tea-cup  ]