Belgium GP

[Dare]

Pretty boring race. I got Charles may be wishing now
he was let go instead of Vettel. I bet Carlos is thinking
what have I done.

I'm betting the FIA does something to let Ferrari upgrade
their dog of a engine.

[Jericoke]

What I noticed most was the sheer number of camera angles they had for the race.  Some views behind barriers, some built into curbs, some behind photographers. 

It was the most unique at F1 racing we've gotten for sure.

[cosworth151]

Liberty does seem to have upped their game with the TV coverage. The graphics are far better & more innovative this season. Now we get some exciting new views. I hope they keep it up.

[Dare]

Liberty does seem to have upped their game with the TV coverage. The graphics are far better & more innovative this season. Now we get some exciting new views. I hope they keep it up.

I got F1tv this year and it has views from the drivers
cars. It also has F1,F2,and F3 and a nice archive section.

And the good thing is I don't need cable tv

[Monty]

Pretty boring race. I got Charles may be wishing now
he was let go instead of Vettel. I bet Carlos is thinking
what have I done.

I'm betting the FIA does something to let Ferrari upgrade
their dog of a engine.

I agree the race was boring but to be fair there was some excitement in the mid-pack. My issue is...if the Ferrari could be so fast last year (with a method of bypassing the fuel flow monitors) and the engines were not expiring every other race; just think how fast all the cars could be if the FIA stopped all the 'let's slow them down' rules.
I have said this many times before, I would love F1 cars to race 'flat-out' on decent tyres. Give them more fuel, more fuel pressure; make them start at a minimum weight (full of fuel) and really go for it. If a few engines went 'pop' so be it. There could still be a choice of tyres but all options should have really good life - the selection would be down to how long they will last on full fuel and how fast they can be on lighter fuel. At least we would not have races where they are fuel saving and tyre saving from lap one.

[Alianora La Canta]

The highlights reel appeared to have a lot of difficulty finding material to fill the timeslot. (Although this was hampered by its pre-watershed slot precluding certain language from being broadcast - apparently one of Charles' pitstops was so slow and of such questionable necessity that it led to him swearing in French. He had to apologise for it afterwards on Twitter, indicating someone, somewhere, must have broadcast it...) Discovering the Ferrari was as quick in qualifying as the 2018 Sauber he drove two years ago probably wasn't much fun either.

Lewis clearly had control of the race from the very beginning, keeping Valtteri mostly in the tyre-wrecking zone, who did the same to Max long enough to prevent him from doing anything. It was quite processional apart from DRS being clearly way too powerful for the circuit. (I don't like DRS at the best of times, but this was frustrating).

[rmassart]

I have said this many times before, I would love F1 cars to race 'flat-out' on decent tyres. Give them more fuel, more fuel pressure; make them start at a minimum weight (full of fuel) and really go for it. If a few engines went 'pop' so be it. There could still be a choice of tyres but all options should have really good life - the selection would be down to how long they will last on full fuel and how fast they can be on lighter fuel. At least we would not have races where they are fuel saving and tyre saving from lap one.

On the one hand I agree with both of these, on the other hand I am not sure of the technical possibility / outcome of either:

1. Tyres: surely tyres will always degrade in someway after 300km? So tyre management will always be a thing. Although I agree it would be nice if they didn't degrade quite as drastically as they do now.

2. Fuel: Surely teams will always put in the least amount of fuel possible. I remember cars running out of fuel in the 80s because they'd miscalculated by a litre or two how much would be needed.

[Alianora La Canta]

The fuel is because teams would take more time to do the race (i.e. be slower) if they put more fuel in (the power gain doesn't compensate for the weight). Making cars start with more fuel (i.e. make the minimum and maximum fuel loads the same) would result in more power usage, but only if that was compatible with reliability, and only if they couldn't burn extra fuel by doing wasteful additional installation laps (which every team would do to get optimal power/weight).

[Monty]

I speak with some (limited) experience that more fuel (volume and pressure) equals more power and it can definitely equal a lot more speed irrespective of the additional weight.
The FIA rules were declared to be an attempt to make F1 'greener' (using less fuel) but I suspect it was to make the cars slower - which was probably due to safety concerns. However, with no minimum starting weights the teams found that the fuel flow rules meant they were all extracting very similar power so running low fuel offered the best advantage across the whole race. If they were allowed to use higher fuel flow (more power) and forced to start 'full of fuel' there would be new strategy opportunities.

[John S]

1. Tyres: surely tyres will always degrade in someway after 300km? So tyre management will always be a thing. Although I agree it would be nice if they didn't degrade quite as drastically as they do now.

The teams only have themselves to blame for tyres that can't handle the increased downforce they've added year on year and rip themselves to shreds. Pirelli had a new spec for 2020 but it was rejected by the teams as supposedly 'too hard' in favour of the 2019 spec tyres which are still being used.

Pirelli gets it in the neck all ways, they introduced tyres with short life to FIA/FOM contract and get slagged off for it, then they want to beef up 2020 tyres and are prevented from doing that and get even more stick. I'm surprised they stay with the lack of support they get from nearly everyone in the F1 paddock and media in general.

[cosworth151]

The reason for making a tire change compulsory is to give the tire supplier more name exposure on the race coverage. Without that, about the only time the tire manufacturer would get mentioned would be when a tire failed. Definitely not the kind of publicity they're looking for.

Besides, tires hard enough to last an entire race would probably handle horribly.

[Jericoke]

The reason for making a tire change compulsory is to give the tire supplier more name exposure on the race coverage. Without that, about the only time the tire manufacturer would get mentioned would be when a tire failed. Definitely not the kind of publicity they're looking for.

Besides, tires hard enough to last an entire race would probably handle horribly.

I'd be willing to bet that, if so directed, Pirelli (or any other major tire company with racing experience) could easily create tires that would last an entire season while providing just as much traction as the current super softs.  (Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past, F1 cars would run multiple races on the same tires?)

But as you point out, that doesn't do much for the supplier, as they'd be brought up only when there's a failure.

The pit stop is an exciting change from the monotony of watching cars driving in a fancy circle for 90 + minutes.  Adding a level of strategy to it gives fans something to 'arm chair quaterback' (not sure what the British version of that term is).  Anything that gives the fans something to discuss is a good thing for the sport.

[lkjohnson1950]

Jim Clark once won 4 straight F1 races on the same set of Dunlops. But those were narrow, treaded and, harder than they run today. You don't see marbles (clag) around the tracks in the early to mid '60's. Clark was famously gentle on his tires as well. I don't think it would be a bad thing for them to have less grip than they have currently. Let's see who has good throttle control.