The F1 thread

PC_Dave

Dammit! Didn’t read the article. That’s a shame!! 

stickyfiddle

New Sauber looks like another "last year's Ferrari" but with a halo and more white on it.

The Renault on the other hand, is somehow simultaneously "none more black" and "bright fucking yellow"! 

Fretwired

I'm not getting excited by F1 this year - the cars don't that good with the Halo and the engine restrictions (number than can be used) will see teams cruising rather than racing to avoid penalties. It's not racing ...

stickyfiddle

All I want is half-decent racing. I'm not a huge fan of the halo or the engine rules, but if we get drivers side by side I'll be happy. 

Fretwired

stickyfiddle said:

All I want is half-decent racing. I'm not a huge fan of the halo or the engine rules, but if we get drivers side by side I'll be happy. 

Totally agree, but if you're say Ferrari  and you're at a track that you know Mercedes will dominate do you race hard or play percentages - with so few engines the championship could be decided by the team with the most reliable package not the fastest car.

Garthy

Fretwired said:

stickyfiddle said:

All I want is half-decent racing. I'm not a huge fan of the halo or the engine rules, but if we get drivers side by side I'll be happy. 

Totally agree, but if you're say Ferrari  and you're at a track that you know Mercedes will dominate do you race hard or play percentages - with so few engines the championship could be decided by the team with the most reliable package not the fastest car.

Almost all of Ferrari’s championships have been won that way. 

stickyfiddle

Fretwired said:

stickyfiddle said:

All I want is half-decent racing. I'm not a huge fan of the halo or the engine rules, but if we get drivers side by side I'll be happy. 

Totally agree, but if you're say Ferrari  and you're at a track that you know Mercedes will dominate do you race hard or play percentages - with so few engines the championship could be decided by the team with the most reliable package not the fastest car.

Sure. But I don't think that's going to be any worse this year than in any of the last 10.. 

I'd get rid of the engine limit tomorrow if it was an option. But in your example I don't think that would change anything - if Merc are clearly quicker Ferrari are still going to run at 95% instead of 99% because it maximises their chances of keeping the position they're already in.   

Fretwired

stickyfiddle said:

Fretwired said:

stickyfiddle said:

All I want is half-decent racing. I'm not a huge fan of the halo or the engine rules, but if we get drivers side by side I'll be happy. 

Totally agree, but if you're say Ferrari  and you're at a track that you know Mercedes will dominate do you race hard or play percentages - with so few engines the championship could be decided by the team with the most reliable package not the fastest car.

Sure. But I don't think that's going to be any worse this year than in any of the last 10.. 

I'd get rid of the engine limit tomorrow if it was an option. But in your example I don't think that would change anything - if Merc are clearly quicker Ferrari are still going to run at 95% instead of 99% because it maximises their chances of keeping the position they're already in.   

Only three engines this year.  Most teams think it will affect the racing.

sinbaadi

The inevitable penalties will affect the racing moreso than the engine limitations will.

Fretwired

sinbaadi said:

The inevitable penalties will affect the racing moreso than the engine limitations will.

The engine limitations will result in more penalties. It's just daft.

sinbaadi

It is.  
However, nobody wants free reign to spend whatever they want, because the big teams will use the budget and buy an advantage.  Not every team can afford a new engine for every race and 2 on Saturdays.

So what is the alternative?  A spec engine/power train, or cost controls.  Budget caps would be circumvented, but freezing engines and issuing a fixed number for a season with the challenge of: "make it reliable or you will be penalised" is, on paper, a great idea!

Sadly the spectacle is ruined in practice, because the engines are not as reliable as they need to be.  

Fretwired

sinbaadi said:

It is.  
However, nobody wants free reign to spend whatever they want, because the big teams will use the budget and buy an advantage.  Not every team can afford a new engine for every race and 2 on Saturdays.

So what is the alternative?  A spec engine/power train, or cost controls.  Budget caps would be circumvented, but freezing engines and issuing a fixed number for a season with the challenge of, make it reliable or you will be penalised is, on paper, a great idea!

Sadly the spectacle is ruined in practice, because the engines are not as reliable as they need to be.  

A reasonable number of engines and if a team like Mercedes has to use another engine they should supply an extra one to the teams they supply FOC. A penalty of 33 grid spaces is just daft. Hit the team with a points deduction from the Constructors championship but let the driver race for the championship without grid penalties.

Garthy

Fretwired said:

sinbaadi said:

It is.  
However, nobody wants free reign to spend whatever they want, because the big teams will use the budget and buy an advantage.  Not every team can afford a new engine for every race and 2 on Saturdays.

So what is the alternative?  A spec engine/power train, or cost controls.  Budget caps would be circumvented, but freezing engines and issuing a fixed number for a season with the challenge of, make it reliable or you will be penalised is, on paper, a great idea!

Sadly the spectacle is ruined in practice, because the engines are not as reliable as they need to be.  

A reasonable number of engines and if a team like Mercedes has to use another engine they should supply an extra one to the teams they supply FOC. A penalty of 33 grid spaces is just daft. Hit the team with a points deduction from the Constructors championship but let the driver race for the championship without grid penalties.

If Force India use 3 engines or 6 this season their engine costs remain the same, they will not and have not had to put their hand in their pockets to pay for extra engines. Mercedes bear that cost of extra engines to their customers as do the other manufacturers. When Torro Rosso ran out of parts it wasn't because they had run out of money but because Renault did.

It has cost far, far more to make an engine last 6 weekends than 30 shorter life'd engines last a session each over the same 6 meetings. This is why the likes of Merc have stuck firm on the engine numbers because they've already spent an eye watering amount on R&D to make an engine last this long.

Cheap, fast, reliable - pick any two.

stickyfiddle

Fretwired said:

sinbaadi said:

It is.  
However, nobody wants free reign to spend whatever they want, because the big teams will use the budget and buy an advantage.  Not every team can afford a new engine for every race and 2 on Saturdays.

So what is the alternative?  A spec engine/power train, or cost controls.  Budget caps would be circumvented, but freezing engines and issuing a fixed number for a season with the challenge of, make it reliable or you will be penalised is, on paper, a great idea!

Sadly the spectacle is ruined in practice, because the engines are not as reliable as they need to be.  

A reasonable number of engines and if a team like Mercedes has to use another engine they should supply an extra one to the teams they supply FOC. A penalty of 33 grid spaces is just daft. Hit the team with a points deduction from the Constructors championship but let the driver race for the championship without grid penalties.

I think a WCC penalty is the right to go about it. The team gets to take a call on whether a points loss for the team is worth the benefit in power and reliability. 

The really stupid thing about these engine limits was an apparent target to cut costs, which of course is nonsense, as it meant the engine builders (mostly Merc) just spent all the money on R&D instead of on multiple engines per race, so the per-season cost of engine supply hasn't actually got any better for the little guys. 

Fretwired

Garthy said:

Fretwired said:

sinbaadi said:

It is.  
However, nobody wants free reign to spend whatever they want, because the big teams will use the budget and buy an advantage.  Not every team can afford a new engine for every race and 2 on Saturdays.

So what is the alternative?  A spec engine/power train, or cost controls.  Budget caps would be circumvented, but freezing engines and issuing a fixed number for a season with the challenge of, make it reliable or you will be penalised is, on paper, a great idea!

Sadly the spectacle is ruined in practice, because the engines are not as reliable as they need to be.  

A reasonable number of engines and if a team like Mercedes has to use another engine they should supply an extra one to the teams they supply FOC. A penalty of 33 grid spaces is just daft. Hit the team with a points deduction from the Constructors championship but let the driver race for the championship without grid penalties.

If Force India use 3 engines or 6 this season their engine costs remain the same, they will not and have not had to put their hand in their pockets to pay for extra engines. Mercedes bear that cost of extra engines to their customers as do the other manufacturers. When Torro Rosso ran out of parts it wasn't because they had run out of money but because Renault did.

It has cost far, far more to make an engine last 6 weekends than 30 shorter life'd engines last a session each over the same 6 meetings. This is why the likes of Merc have stuck firm on the engine numbers because they've already spent an eye watering amount on R&D to make an engine last this long.

Cheap, fast, reliable - pick any two.

Can't disagree. It just makes F1 a shit spectacle.

You can pay a small fortune to go to a track to watch Hamilton race Vettel and Vestappen only to find Vettel and Vestappen are at the back of the grid through no fault of their own and Hamilton cruises to a victory. The penalty points make a mockery of the whole sport. How can you have a 33 place grid penalty? It's the fans who suffer.

Teams deciding where to take a penalty ... is this now part of the sport? It's a joke.

Garthy

I agree. I'd lose the longevity rules in a heartbeat.

Heartfeltdawn

Garthy said:

If Force India use 3 engines or 6 this season their engine costs remain the same, they will not and have not had to put their hand in their pockets to pay for extra engines. Mercedes bear that cost of extra engines to their customers as do the other manufacturers. When Torro Rosso ran out of parts it wasn't because they had run out of money but because Renault did.

It has cost far, far more to make an engine last 6 weekends than 30 shorter life'd engines last a session each over the same 6 meetings. 

Exactly. F1 should be about excess. In the world of endurance racing, engine longevity goes hand in hand. Applying it to F1 is stupid. 

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Garthy said:

If Force India use 3 engines or 6 this season their engine costs remain the same, they will not and have not had to put their hand in their pockets to pay for extra engines. Mercedes bear that cost of extra engines to their customers as do the other manufacturers. When Torro Rosso ran out of parts it wasn't because they had run out of money but because Renault did.

It has cost far, far more to make an engine last 6 weekends than 30 shorter life'd engines last a session each over the same 6 meetings. 

Exactly. F1 should be about excess. In the world of endurance racing, engine longevity goes hand in hand. Applying it to F1 is stupid. 

^^

This.

Bernie was right when he said F1 is in the entertainment business - big V8's cut the energy recovery crap and driver aids and get some hairy arsed racing. Formula E is more relevant to road cars - F1 should admit defeat and create the motoring equivalent to a trip to the Colosseum in the days of the Roman empire. Get the worldwide audience and the likes of Ferrari and Mercedes would remain. Longer term F1 may have to go electric but I think that's at least 10 years away.

Garthy

They've already got the most powerful F1 engines ever built and no driver aids. The tyres are the biggest problem to 'hairy arsed racing'. The only time we've had HAR was 2000-2008 when Bridgestone made fantastic tyres and the cars were lighter. 2005 being a blip. Even in the 70s and 80s there was a balance between pace and fuel economy, we just didn't get bombarded by team radio to know about it.

Fretwired

Garthy said:

They've already got the most powerful F1 engines ever built and no driver aids. The tyres are the biggest problem to 'hairy arsed racing'. The only time we've had HAR was 2000-2008 when Bridgestone made fantastic tyres and the cars were lighter. 2005 being a blip. Even in the 70s and 80s there was a balance between pace and fuel economy, we just didn't get bombarded by team radio to know about it.

The engines are complicated with all the energy recovery .. just bin it. F1 is no longer relevant to road cars. They are going electric.