"Formula 1 shouldn't be a show of raw talent. It should be a display of highly developed ability in many different areas." Isn't that the same thing? Of course a driver needs to have many different abilities in order to be talented. I do agree with what you are saying, forcing people into the same strategy is not good, and yes we've had some varying results. But are those results reflective of drivers abilities, or just their driving management skills? F1 has of course always been a mixture of driver talent and car design. I just feel that by spicing up races it is becoming more about the car. Maybe I'm just getting old.
He undercut Button on his third stop I think. I vaguely remember Rosberg's second and third sector times on his out lap being purple.
Well, I meant developed abilities or skills as opposed to raw talent. Formula 1 isn't simply about a driver's innate talent. Many more highly developed and learned skills are necessary. I would say those are more like the same thing than raw talent and developed ability are but I would say if getting into Formula 1 is the result of a combination of both raw talent and learned skills (excluding pay drivers) then winning a race is even moreso. This season, however, circuit characteristics and ambient conditions are also playing a larger part than usual. I think F1 has specifically always been about the car: it's not an equal balance between man and machine but there's enough dependence on driver talent/abilities to make the difference when rival cars are similar on performance. Clearly we differ in opinion on this but I strongly believe that such a high dependence on tyre management shifts the balance back towards the driver because the car can really only be set up to be kind to its tyres in a neutral situation, which chasing or defending against other drivers isn't.
That would probably do it for me. Maybe make the rear a bit stronger as well but nothing major. I don't want them to be constantly flat out but it seems that if you go for it for more than 3 laps yours tyres are ruined.
This would be good. I think the only reason the rule is there is to ensure everyone makes at least one pit stop, it's not necessary now, and I wouldn't mind seeing someone trying to brave an entire race on a set of Pirellis any way. Get rid of the stupid "start on the tyres you qualify on" rule as well. It's unfair on midfield drivers who make it through Q2 and it encourages drivers to sit out Q3 if they get there. I'd like to see teams given the option to choose which compounds they take to a grand prix. I imagine most teams would stick to whatever sets Pirelli recommend, but you could get some teams gambling occasionally, maybe taking super-softs to get a good quali lap in and then trying to defend the lead with hards.
Maybe just a tweak to quali to say they have to start the race on the same compound they qualified on, not the same set?
see I dont think F1 needs to be awkward anymore. Teams are close, overtaking is more abundant. We just need to work on something more 'standard racing'. get 26 cars on the grid, another engine supplier and tyre manufacturer and imply a budget cap for unlimited development and lets watch what happens
The FIA are obsessed with rules, they want identical cars and then moan when they don't over take each other. If they really want to have so many rules then I wish they'd have parallel rules where teams have a choice of two or more options. Make the cars look and act much more different. Some fast at high speeds, some more nippy at lower speeds.
hmm, thinking about it and his approach to building a racing car, I can't think of anyone better at exploiting the written rules.
Benson has done a blog on Bahrain. I would recommend not scrolling down to the comments if you are allergic to concentrated stupid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2012/04/the_right_race_in_the_wrong_pl.html
These are not typos. This is another example of Benson's apparent fundamental inability to write English. He knows how the word sounds when spoken but not how it is written. His colleague, Lawrence Barretto, who ran the BBC's live commentary page, twice (on Friday and Saturday, I think) referred to drivers "wondering" down the pit lane. It's funny but, watching the race live, I almost posted in the race thread 'how are the BBC going to manage to condense this race?' but then something else happened to distract me. I had the the highlights show on when it was broadcast but didn't pay much attention to the race - I just wanted to see the interviews and post-race comment - so I don't know how good or bad the editing was compared to other highlights shows. It's difficult enough to cut a race down to edited highlights when it can take three or four laps to build up to a particular incident. This race in particular was chock full o' thrills. To achieve a quick turnaround, I suspect that the BBC use an editing formula with a specified amount of time given to each part of the race. Whether they stuck too rigidly to this and lost the story of the race, or deviated from it too much and lost the timeframe, I don't know. It'd be interesting to understand what people disliked about the highlights.
One thing I liked about the sky broadcast a few races ago was the formation lap where they had some 'build up' music and interviews going on and pit radio. That was real class and got me really pumped and excited for the lights out.....But it seems they dont do that anymore =/.
I didn't really care for it myself. I didn't realise they'd dropped it. I wonder what brought that about? It seemed to be in keeping with Sky's presentation.
