GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Scott on October 12, 2014, 05:30:15 PM
-
Heroes:
Lewis, for staying cool, staying in front of Bottas and not making any mistakes.
Bottas for staying in it and even doing FL on the penultimate lap.
Rosberg (see below) for a great comeback and running the car for 52 laps on one set of tires.
Ricciardo for starting and finishing in front of Vettel (though for a while there...).
Button - 4th. Though his demeanour seems to indicate he has already been given his walking papers, I hope it's not the case. Even though Magnussen came up from further back, Button Q'd 4th and stayed 4th. If a seat has to be vacated next year, I don't know why they don't offer reserve driver to Magnussen and if Button doesn't perform at the beginning of the year, they can always swap them out.
Alonso for keeping a smiling face among a massive career crisis. Come on Ron, just stop the games and sign him.
Cos, for cracking us up in chat with his '...traditional Russian territory' remarks.
Zeroes:
Putin - for making a late race entrance that for some reason the TV director thought should be documented. For sitting like a Mafioso in the stands with Bernie (and passing him something suspicious on camera - couldn't be a bribe, could it?), and gradually allowing himself to be surrounded by his greedy adoring minions. And for demanding total silence during the playing of the Russian national anthem. What a joke that everyone had to line up like that and pretend they held the Russian Anthem in reverence. Yeeeeeeesh. http://www.pitpass.com/52713/Putin-orders-respect-for-anthem
Podium guy, for his memorably stereotypical comments 'You like thee race, no? You were impressed with thee Russian GP. Wonderful time we have here, no?'
Tilke - no excuse that he had to put a track in the space he was given - he still could have done a better job, even at simply painting the lines that everybody ignored through the first lap anyhow.
Rosberg - Mr Impatience blows another race. Fire his butt and hire Alonso next year. He also bullied Bottas when he passed him - 'Give way or crash' doesn't show much talent.
Race Stewards for penalizing Grossjean when there was nothing he could have done about not hitting Sutil. Most everyone in chat agreed it was just racing.
-
Pretty spot on Scotty
Hero's
Button-I hate to see it when a driver reaches
the end of his F1 career......hopefully
Jensen will have one more year.
Lewis-I've never liked him and I don't really know why?
He'a always reminded me of a ungrateful kid that
doesn't know how lucky he is.
Bottas-given a decent car he's proven how good he is.....
but isn't that the case with most non pay drivers
Zero's-the track,I know he didn't have much land to work
with but couldn't he at least had one good turn
pit lane-looked a little on the narrow side,didn't it
podium interviewer-a comic wasn't needed
Putin-for being Putin
Bernie-for sleeping with the devil for money
Super hero's
The guys in the chat room.....hope we can stay together
for years to come
Everyone missed Ian :good:hasn't been on since the 9th..hope your
okay Ian
Wizzo's new Caterham......come May someone gonna be a happy camper.
-
I thought Wizzo said in chat (maybe before you got there) that Ian is having PC problems again, which might explain his absence from the forum as well.
-
I thought Wizzo said in chat (maybe before you got there) that Ian is having PC problems again, which might explain his absence from the forum as well.
Nobody tells me anything around this joint ;)
-
:good:
Lewis - great all weekend
Rosberg - I've never liked him and I don't really know why? He always reminded me of a ungrateful kid that doesn't know how lucky he is. ;) He drove brilliantly after a schoolboy error.
Bottas - although the car is good, he is making it look fantastic
Button - getting back to his best, a well thought out race although I'm sure he was being told that Rosberg would definitely have to pit.
:nono:
The track - dull as ditchwater. The only positive was the surface - wasn't it great not to see a single line through layers of tyre marbles?
F1 - Everyone was fuel saving; what could the racing be like if everyone could use as much fuel as they like? If Rosberg could come from the back that fast, how fast could Hamilton have gone if he didn't have to nurse his power unit. This is meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport but it is being regulated into mediocrity.
Rosberg - I've never liked him and I don't really know why? He always reminded me of a ungrateful kid that doesn't know how lucky he is. Like a petulant kid he would not accept that Hamilton was going to be first into that corner. He could have ruined the race for both of them.
-
Thank you, Scott.
Heroes:
Mercedes, for its first ever WCC. Remember, there was no WCC when they were dominate back in the mid-1950's.
Ross Brawn, for making it possible.
Lewis, for being back on stride.
Bottas, for punching above his (car's) weight.
Button, for proving he still has what it takes.
Zeroes:
The new Axis of Evil - Putin, Bernie & Todt. I tried to see if they were all wearing their SPECTRE octopus rings.
The track - :sick:
-
I have trouble calling Hamilton a hero - he ran virtually uncontested, even by his teammate after turn 2 on the opening lap.
I am also not sure I could call Bottas a hero, as he too was more-or-less unrivaled. I also don't believe he was really out of his weight class, as the Williams was very quick - demonstrated in qualifying.
HERO: Rosberg gets my vote. Realizing the problem that put him last, except for Massa, was after all, a self-inflicted wound, he still did really well to get himself back into the mix.
ZERO: Williams, even Smedley confessed that the screwed up pitting Massa at the end of lap 1. Felipe had passed seven cars on the first lap, all of which he had to pass again. Perez held him up for a while and after his second stop, was behind Perez again and unable to get by safely, even with DRS. Had they left him out and made a one stop race of it, he could likely have finished fourth or fifth.
-
I have trouble calling Hamilton a hero - he ran virtually uncontested, even by his teammate after turn 2 on the opening lap.
I am also not sure I could call Bottas a hero, as he too was more-or-less unrivaled. I also don't believe he was really out of his weight class, as the Williams was very quick - demonstrated in qualifying.
While I appreciate Hamilton's race was un interesting from a spectator's point of view, making the rest of the field look like slugs is the very definition of 'heroism' in the context of motorsports.
Hamilton could very easily have panicked and had a problem while Rosberg was trying to pass him. He stayed clear and clean. He made it look easy, while Rosberg made it look hard.
I'd also like to add that 65,000 spectators showed that Russians are interested in F1. I won't debate whether the nation deserves the race or not, but I'd say the fans do. Hopefully over time they can prove that they love racing as much as we do.
-
One thing that struck me was the time spread. By lap 10, Hamilton had something like 15seconds on the pack and it was like that pretty much all the way down the field. Nobody could stay together, and there were only small bursts of close racing.
Really, it's just a horrible track with regards to racing, and will really need a good re-think, if it's either longer or more DRS zones or re-painting the lines. Maybe when they realize they won't ever use that speed skating or curling rinks again, they can tear them down and re-format the track.
-
One thing that struck me was the time spread. By lap 10, Hamilton had something like 15seconds on the pack and it was like that pretty much all the way down the field. Nobody could stay together, and there were only small bursts of close racing.
Really, it's just a horrible track with regards to racing, and will really need a good re-think, if it's either longer or more DRS zones or re-painting the lines. Maybe when they realize they won't ever use that speed skating or curling rinks again, they can tear them down and re-format the track.
They've already turned the speed skating building into tennis courts. I presume the curling facility also has another use by now.
Here's an interesting thought about the track layout 'creating' a gap between cars. Perhaps most tracks are 'artificially' keeping cars close together, and a wide open track like Sochi lets us see how the cars truly stand.
Doesn't make it a 'good track', but just something to keep in mind. I think with more even cars, it would provide a better spectacle. Damn Mercedes for getting it so right!
-
I agree Mercedes is probably in a class of its own but from the drivers comments it seems that the other teams had banked on probably several safety cars and had under-fuelled. Most cars were fuel saving (to avoid running out, not just keeping within the fuel rate regs). I think the regs should set a minimum starting weight rule that encourages the cars to start with full tanks and use every bit of power they have available. So far the rules are mostly about reducing cost. It is about time they start making the rules encourage close racing.
-
I agree Mercedes is probably in a class of its own but from the drivers comments it seems that the other teams had banked on probably several safety cars and had under-fuelled. Most cars were fuel saving (to avoid running out, not just keeping within the fuel rate regs). I think the regs should set a minimum starting weight rule that encourages the cars to start with full tanks and use every bit of power they have available. So far the rules are mostly about reducing cost. It is about time they start making the rules encourage close racing.
Yeah, after the disaster in Japan, I was sure the safety car would be out the first time Rosberg cut a chicane. Can't blame the teams for being convinced that Whiting would over react.
It is a bit of a problem that the FIA rules don't appear to take a wholistic aproach to the sport, but rather different areas in a quiltwork of well meaning patches that are individually well reasoned, but once assembled seem to spell out something the decency filter won't let me post.
Quite honestly, I would love to see them throw out the rule book, and start 100% from scratch (though I would concede that the power unit regs, as unpopular as they are, need to be maintained to keep suppliers happy)
I'd even go so far as to adopt the Indycar approach of providing teams with a standard monocoque safety cell to build off of. That keeps down costs as we don't have each team creating their own safety features which must then be tested, but still allows the creation of unique aerodynamic and 'power unit' solutions.
-
I'd even go so far as to adopt the Indycar approach of providing teams with a standard monocoque safety cell to build off of. That keeps down costs as we don't have each team creating their own safety features which must then be tested, but still allows the creation of unique aerodynamic and 'power unit' solutions.
Not to mention preventing the teams from designing monocoque around a teeny tiny driver.
-
I'd even go so far as to adopt the Indycar approach of providing teams with a standard monocoque safety cell to build off of. That keeps down costs as we don't have each team creating their own safety features which must then be tested, but still allows the creation of unique aerodynamic and 'power unit' solutions.
Not to mention preventing the teams from designing monocoque around a teeny tiny driver.
So we'll have just a 24 car team in F1 then. ::)
I mean why bother with 3 or even 4 car teams. :P
-
I'd even go so far as to adopt the Indycar approach of providing teams with a standard monocoque safety cell to build off of. That keeps down costs as we don't have each team creating their own safety features which must then be tested, but still allows the creation of unique aerodynamic and 'power unit' solutions.
Not to mention preventing the teams from designing monocoque around a teeny tiny driver.
So we'll have just a 24 car team in F1 then. ::)
I mean why bother with 3 or even 4 car teams. :P
Really? You think a variety of monocoques is what defines the teams? I hope not... :DntKnw:
I think that's a great idea Jeri, but only if they opened up the aero rules so the teams could go back to experimenting with different wings, suspension and aero features.
-
The whole essence of F1 from the start has been a variety of individual constructors rather than a single chassis maker. It nearly became a one engine series during the Ford DFV era, but that's another story.
I thought one of the main reasons the 3 car teams scenario is so hotly debated is to prevent dilution of the ingenuity and individuality amongst the cars and therefore the teams. So yes to a very large extent in F1 the car's constructor defines the teams and always has.
Most of us don't think of Stirling Moss winning in the 1960 & 61 Monaco GPs in a Rob Walker racing team car but rather in a Lotus 18.
-
It's no different than the FIA signing up Pirelli as the only tire supplier. Create a monocoque that the teams can build their car on top of. It doesn't mean the cars won't be quite different in their final design.
For me the problem with the 3 car teams is simply that it means fewer teams. I even agree with customer cars, in fact I think it's a brilliant idea to remove so much R&D costs from a small team, so I have no problem with more than 2 cars from one manufacturer on the grid.
-
Create a monocoque that the teams can build their car on top of. It doesn't mean the cars won't be quite different in their final design.
Wouldn't that be the same as the IRL idea of "aero kits?"
Customer cars do have a long history in F1. Rob Walker running customer Lotus cars back in the 60's. Remember, the Lotus 18 that Sterling Moss drove to his famous 1961 victory at Monaco was entered by Rob Walker, not Colin Chapman. In this millennium, Aguri Suzuki did a tremendous job with cars that were little more than year old Hondas.
-
Create a monocoque that the teams can build their car on top of. It doesn't mean the cars won't be quite different in their final design.
Wouldn't that be the same as the IRL idea of "aero kits?"
Customer cars do have a long history in F1. Rob Walker running customer Lotus cars back in the 60's. Remember, the Lotus 18 that Sterling Moss drove to his famous 1961 victory at Monaco was entered by Rob Walker, not Colin Chapman. In this millennium, Aguri Suzuki did a tremendous job with cars that were little more than year old Hondas.
Yes, my suggestion was to copy the IRL's idea. I'm not suggesting the entire chassis be standard, simply the driver safety cell so teams (and the FIA) don't have to waste time and money crash testing every single one.
It doesn't make sense for Williams, Ferrari and Marussia to each design their own roll hoop, or for Lotus, Caterham and Sauber to each solve the side crash impact zone problem. We need to guarantee each car is safe. It's a bonus that we can include that as a cost cutting measure.
-
Oh I get it now Jeri, you want them all to run 'stock' cars. :D
I heard the idea took off in North America, ;) but it never seemed to catch on real well over here. :D
-
Oh I get it now Jeri, you want them all to run 'stock' cars. :D
I heard the idea took off in North America, ;) but it never seemed to catch on real well over here. :D
Given how many parts of an F1 car are currently 'stock', doesn't it seem absurd that safety features AREN'T standardized?
-
Given how many parts of an F1 car are currently 'stock', doesn't it seem absurd that safety features AREN'T standardized?
But they are Jeri, they just don't have to be the same design.
-
Given how many parts of an F1 car are currently 'stock', doesn't it seem absurd that safety features AREN'T standardized?
But they are Jeri, they just don't have to be the same design.
I bet the amount of money that goes into punching out another engine block is considerably less than what it costs to design, build and test a new safety cell, yet the FIA would rather the teams saved money by limiting engines instead....what Jeri said - absurd.
-
We have ventured into a whole new subject with nothing to do with the Russian GP but the various views are fascinating.
It is all total speculation because the FIA never listen to the enthusiasts anyway!
I veer from wanting more regulation to wanting no regulation.
I think we all want close racing but what bothers me is that F1 used to be the fastest of all motorsports but GP2 cars can lap certain tracks faster that the current F1 car - that cannot be what race fans want!
The latest regulated (strangled) F1 car is too easy to drive (hence the new young drivers), is not operated at 100% of its potential (fuel saving, protecting reliability, etc.) plus the drivers rely on too much outside assistance (telemetry, engineers advice, etc.).
There have been good points made in this thread but I feel that most would dumb down F1 even more (however, I don't have any ideas that are necessarily better!).
One thing I'm sure of is that they need to stop making such massive changes to the regulations from one year to the next. I think they should retain the current technical regulations but they should increase the minimum starting weight (make sure they all start with full tanks), they should split the allocation of power units into first half and second half of the season and allow one engine design upgrade in the middle of the year, drop the stupid double points rule, give points for pole, give points for the driver that strings the fastest 10 race laps together, and, and.......
-
We have ventured into a whole new subject with nothing to do with the Russian GP but the various views are fascinating.
It is all total speculation because the FIA never listen to the enthusiasts anyway!
I veer from wanting more regulation to wanting no regulation.
I think we all want close racing but what bothers me is that F1 used to be the fastest of all motorsports but GP2 cars can lap certain tracks faster that the current F1 car - that cannot be what race fans want!
The latest regulated (strangled) F1 car is too easy to drive (hence the new young drivers), is not operated at 100% of its potential (fuel saving, protecting reliability, etc.) plus the drivers rely on too much outside assistance (telemetry, engineers advice, etc.).
There have been good points made in this thread but I feel that most would dumb down F1 even more (however, I don't have any ideas that are necessarily better!).
One thing I'm sure of is that they need to stop making such massive changes to the regulations from one year to the next. I think they should retain the current technical regulations but they should increase the minimum starting weight (make sure they all start with full tanks), they should split the allocation of power units into first half and second half of the season and allow one engine design upgrade in the middle of the year, drop the stupid double points rule, give points for pole, give points for the driver that strings the fastest 10 race laps together, and, and.......
Off topic on GP Wizard? Never happens :P
There are plenty of 'good' reasons for the rules to change year over year. Safetey issues come up, suppliers make demands that must be met, teams believe that certain rules aren't clear.
Individually they make sense. As a whole... that's another story.
-
They've tried customer cars before, and it has never worked. Standardisation isn't the way forward. If they want to save money, they need to look at other options, and the teams need to receive more income from the television and commercial rights holder. That way we could have a full grid of 13 diverse teams.
-
Actually, customer cars have worked quite well. As noted Rob Walker ran a number of cars for drivers such as Stirling Moss, Seppi Siffert and Graham Hill with remarkable success. March sold cars to Ken Tyrrell for Stewart and they were usually faster than the works team. Others, like Innes Ireland and Hector Rebaque ran Lotus chassis for private teams with varying results. Ferrari was even going to supply Walker with a car for Moss until the later was injured.
-
I think it was the inception of the constructors championship that killed off customer cars, and that championship is the stumbling block today about allowing customer cars.
Most of the big names in F1, in the teams, FOM and FIA, seem reluctant to concede just 2 classes of entrant in F1, let alone more like endurance racing.
The argument is and always has been about keeping the purity of F1, if you're good enough to be on the grid you should be striving to win a race along with all the other contestants. Now if you're not good enough the reasoning continues, you should vacate your place for someone else to take a shot, after all there's quite a lot of lower series if you can't stand the heat.
I can't make up my mind whether I'm for or agin 2 classes in F1, although I know really that's what we've got currently.
For me separate F1 classes just seems to be one of those 'crossing the Rubicon' issues, which the current Caesar 'Bernie' flatly refuses to even acknowledge let alone allow discussion on.
-
In the early days only the highest placed car scored points. So if Moss won in Walker's Cooper, Cooper got 1st place points and the factory Coopers scored nil.
-
They could also simply change the Constructors Championship to the F1 Team Championship.
-
Actually, customer cars have worked quite well. As noted Rob Walker ran a number of cars for drivers such as Stirling Moss, Seppi Siffert and Graham Hill with remarkable success. March sold cars to Ken Tyrrell for Stewart and they were usually faster than the works team. Others, like Innes Ireland and Hector Rebaque ran Lotus chassis for private teams with varying results. Ferrari was even going to supply Walker with a car for Moss until the later was injured.
I wasn't thinking of the 1960s and 1970s ;). I was thinking of more recent attempts at customer cars or customer chassis. These have all failed.
I also don't see customer cars as being a positive step for Formula 1 at all. All this does is reduce diversity, and turns the small teams into nothing more than satellite operations without any identity (this is effectively what Toro Rosso is, for even though they have to design their own car these days, they were the Red Bull customer chassis team, and still operate very much in that mode).
-
Actually, customer cars have worked quite well. As noted Rob Walker ran a number of cars for drivers such as Stirling Moss, Seppi Siffert and Graham Hill with remarkable success. March sold cars to Ken Tyrrell for Stewart and they were usually faster than the works team. Others, like Innes Ireland and Hector Rebaque ran Lotus chassis for private teams with varying results. Ferrari was even going to supply Walker with a car for Moss until the later was injured.
I wasn't thinking of the 1960s and 1970s ;). I was thinking of more recent attempts at customer cars or customer chassis. These have all failed.
I also don't see customer cars as being a positive step for Formula 1 at all. All this does is reduce diversity, and turns the small teams into nothing more than satellite operations without any identity (this is effectively what Toro Rosso is, for even though they have to design their own car these days, they were the Red Bull customer chassis team, and still operate very much in that mode).
If the small teams did produce competitive cars, I'd agree with you, and there's no way we'd have this discussion.
STR tanked once they were forbidden from running RBR chassis (Remember when STR beat RBR?). Caterham and Marussia continue to struggle as their entire budget is eaten up producing a car that meets the 107% rule. Who is benefiting from sending substandard cars to the every race weekend?
Who was the last 'small' team to design a winning chassis? A championship chassis?
Adjust the rules for new entries. Allow a start up team to run, say, 3 years with a customer chassis. They can build a reputation and earn sponsorship to fund the development of their 'real' car, all while learning the ins and outs of running an F1 team.
Yes, there will be plenty of teams that run for three years and then fold up shop, but they won't all be like that.
When McLaren and Ferrari were becoming the teams they are now, yes, they built their own chassis, but they ALSO sold their chassis as customer cars. That's part of how they became big successful race teams.
-
They can't produce what you deem to be a competitive car because of the importance of aerodynamics and the high costs of racing. Pay them more and change the rules to make aero less critical. Problem solved :).
Your choice of words always makes me scratch my head. Why substandard? Substandard means defective. The cars are not defective. They'd have to be fitted with fake or broken components for that to be true. Even Caterham's suspension repair on Kobayashi's car in Russia wouldn't be classed as a defect, because repairs were attempted.
The small teams are the lifeblood, not the manufacturers. Your vision of a Formula 1 dominated by big bucks manufacturers selling hand me down customer cars to independents would just kill the whole sport for me Jeri. Diverse teams is an integral part of the Formula 1 experience in my opinion. Customer chassis should be for lower formulae.
Also, the whole discussion about competitive seems rather moot to me. Lap times from the back to the front of the grid are much closer than they ever were in previous eras, so I don't really understand where all this 'they're uncompetitive' mindset comes from. Anyone not having watched the sport would think they were 10-20 seconds off the pace or something from reading your post :P.
As for the 107% rule, it shouldn't be present. It's simply not needed at all.
-
I agree with Irisado about the big manufacturers. We've seen that they will come and go whenever it suits them. The non-manufacturer teams (I don't say "small" because I I would include McLaren & Williams) exist to race. They can be depended on.
-
Substandard just means below standard, not defective. It CAN mean defective, if 'standard' means 'by design' but not necessarily. Non competitive cars from previous eras had more of a chance because of the often large number of DNF's of the fragile front runners. Today's backmarkers don't have a chance.
-
They can't produce what you deem to be a competitive car because of the importance of aerodynamics and the high costs of racing. Pay them more and change the rules to make aero less critical. Problem solved :).
Pay them more? Even if FOM was out of the picture and teams earned 100% of F1 revenue: winning teams will always get more than losing teams. Ferrari will always spend more than Caterham.
If aero is regulated to the point that it doesn't matter... that's the same as saying chassis design is unimportant. If chassis design is unimportant, then what's the problem with using customer chassis?
As for the first issue, F1 could completely reform. In North America the 'big four' professional sports leagues (Football, baseball, basketball and hockey) operate as partners off the field, and competitors on the field. The big teams realize that the small teams have to be healthy to provide competition. F1 teams could find a way to share money equally. Of course, that would require a new Concorde, and there is one person standing in the way of that.
As for the second issue, I love that each team designs their own car. I agree there needs to be a way to give everyone a chance. I think that making safety aspects of the car standard issue will save R&D money that can then be focused on aero, weight savings and balance.
-
Non competitive cars from previous eras had more of a chance because of the often large number of DNF's of the fragile front runners. Today's backmarkers don't have a chance.
Well, they have a chance. Bianchi scored points at Monaco after all, and Ericsson almost scored at the same race. They just have far less of a chance than they used to.
That's not the fault of the small teams though, that's the fault of excessive reliability caused by the rules.
Pay them more? Even if FOM was out of the picture and teams earned 100% of F1 revenue: winning teams will always get more than losing teams. Ferrari will always spend more than Caterham.
Correct, but smaller teams would be able to compete more effectively with the midfield with more money to obtain the resources needed to give them a better chance of investing in the necessary staff and facilities.
If aero is regulated to the point that it doesn't matter... that's the same as saying chassis design is unimportant. If chassis design is unimportant, then what's the problem with using customer chassis?
I'm talking about aero dependency. Red Bull dominated for the previous four years because of their superb chassis (the aero being a huge part of that) combined with a drivable engine (it wasn't the most powerful). Red Bull had the money, staff, and facilities to develop that level of aerodynamic proficiency. The smaller teams don't have any of that, because they cannot afford it.
As for the first issue, F1 could completely reform. In North America the 'big four' professional sports leagues (Football, baseball, basketball and hockey) operate as partners off the field, and competitors on the field. The big teams realize that the small teams have to be healthy to provide competition. F1 teams could find a way to share money equally. Of course, that would require a new Concorde, and there is one person standing in the way of that.
Let us hope that when said individual is no longer an obstacle, that this become a reality :).