There's life in the old dog yet (and I don't just mean Ernie). It's good to know people are not quite so jaded about F1 that their passion for it has disappeared.
Yea, I suppose any thread with any hint of a Schumacher element is likely to cause vehement debate, I am not a MS fan and started this thread with a cynical approach however it appears there are two definite camps regarding the Pirellis with a 50/50 split, half wrong and half right. Ha Ha Genji, yes, I am still breathing mate.
Neither did the Bridgestones, everyone had the same tyre. But I agree the Pirelli seems the better, more entertaining tyre.
No they didn't. Ferrari had bespoke tyres developed with Schumacher, which no other team were permitted to use. Ernie - that's good to know!
It's Saturday evening and I'm well into the Australiam Wed Wine my Wife bought today, so don't expect much sense from me tonight,
Just a little note about Schumacher's safety car quip. A pit stop takes about 23 seconds, there are 57 laps of the Bahrain GP, which means if you're having to back off by 4/10ths you might as well take and extra stop and push harder. Also, if 4/10ths feels like you're driving to a delta behind the safety car, you have to wonder what on earth Schumacher was doing in China when he was over half a second slower than his team mate in qualifying.
Hey, Bahji, didn't a certain US president come from a round your neck of the woods, I always liked him, he was a real bloke. I remember the speech he did in the house of parliament here in the UK a few years back, God he was brilliant, I could have believed every word if only he weren't a proven liar.
Sorry, Ernie. Didn't intend to rant. I just find some dismissive tones uncalled for. The early 2000's onwards may have been dull, but that doesn't make what we have now right either. The tyres bother me, they'd bother me less if the drop off was less exaggerated, but that's not the only thing that bothers me. I don't like the implementation of DRS and KERS is a joke among others... I'm also amazed at how the most minor of incidents cause uproar. If somebody loses a wing, or has a tyres shredded (e.g. The Vettel/Cucumber incident) it gets blown out of all proportion by stewards and fans. Any contact these days and somebody is baying for blood. If somebody pulls a dangerous move, they are shamed for it. What happened? It was all in a days racing once.
Might be wrong, but isn't Karthikeyan the only driver to get penalised this season? Even then it was some mickey mouse punishment that didn't change anything. What bothers you about Kers, Bhaji? I can understand DRS because it's a bit gimmicky how it's deployed, but Kers is a real world technology and it's not really any different to the boost buttons they had in the turbo era?
I don't think KERS adds anything at all, it's neither green nor useful. It can be used to negate DRS and is an expense that smaller teams struggle with. DRS could be great if KERS was dropped and DRS was a tool to use at will. I think we'd see an element of driver error if that were the case, which would naturally help mix things up.
I like KERS myself because it can be used to attack or defend tactically. I think the current limitations are a little too stringent on its use and seem somewhat arbitrary.
Is part of F1's problems down to the fact that the regs are just too restrictive now? Everybody has to design within such fine lines that cars can become too similar and operate very much the same. Would opening up the rules both in car an engine design help in any way? I guess that would play in to the hands of the money teams, but I can't help feel some diversity couldn't hurt. The cars have become homogenized to an extent. It's really hard to innovate these days. Maybe the homogenization is what's closing the field, hard to say with other factors to take in to consideration.
There are some very interesting perspectives being expressed in this debate. One thing stands out above all others, which I hope is not being overlooked for its subtlety: the very cause of this debate is F1's fan-base - the spectators themselves - who roundly criticised F1, bleating, "it's processional !". This complaint was having a negative impact upon audiences and clearly something needed to be done to satisfy ever the more exacting demands of the sport's ultimate paymaster: you, the viewer. The Overtaking Working Group did a lot of head scratching. As most followers of this pinnacle of motorsport are well aware, the technological aspects of F1 (often cited as a significant part of the reason for its fascination) have led to the dominance of aerodynamics - a technology which cannot be 'unlearned' - and as such is very much here to stay. But of course this was spoiling the spectacle for those who wanted wheel to wheel action! Various ideas (gimmicks for want of a better word) were presented and some of them were tried with little success: for instance, the adjustable front wing. Others showed more potential, some of which have come to form a part of the present recipe. And yes; they are 'gimmicks'; they had to be because an action hungry audience required them, largely disregarding the effects of technology which made 'action' harder to spot (less overtaking). Remember that a demanding audience is far from a panel of experts: and it is necessarily prone to making unreasonable demands, followed by criticizing the result of efforts made on their behalf ! If F1 is a spectacle, its primary function will be to satiate the demands of its audience (unfortunately). There is no getting away from this; we can lament it as much as we like but it is a 'fact', if ever there was one. And we would do well to remember that the core, dyed in the wool F1 fan - whose enthusiasm reaches out to a forum such as this - is not the audience F1 has needed to make a special effort to reach out to because these people are already quasi-permanent fixtures. If I sound as if I'm wandering off in a ramble, it may be because core 'fans' may easily overlook that it is the less well-informed fan who is being placated and not the expert! Ultimately, it was the fans who wanted more 'action' (however contrived). One final word. The 'formula' we currently have is equal for every driver and team. Indeed, it is probably as close to being equal for all, as it ever has been; and is most certainly preferable to regulations heavily influenced and/or subjugated by F1's favourite team - especially with regard to bespoke tyresâ¦
I agree Cosi, in that the regs are equal for every driver every season. They all have to work within the same parameters. That can't be said for all teams unfortunately, but that's a whole different argument. *fan of more balanced coffers distribution*
I hope you don't mind being Fisked, Bhaji, but you've raised some interesting points and broadened the discussion to embrace my own pet interests. You can't have perfection. What's "right" for one pocket of fans won't be right for another. What we have now provides better racing than the early 2000s because the driver has more control and more choice, and because strategy is no longer just a matter of identifying the fastest way around a circuit. The drivers that are compromised by this (temporarily, I might add) seem to be those who generally depend far more than others on the pit wall to do the racing for them. Do you mean the drop-off isn't the only thing that bothers you, or the tyres (vs. KERS/DRS) aren't the only thing that bothers you? I agree that the drop-off is too high but it does need to be very high. It is impossible to manufacture a tyre that provides just the right amount of drop-off to equalise the two-stoppers, three-stoppers and four-stoppers in the final five laps at every circuit. The choice, then, is between developing a compound that will drop off enough to have an effect during a stint and developing one that might drop off to some extent some time in the future. The latter is what Bridgestone delivered in 2010 with only one race really being affected. F1 looked at that one race and said, "we want more of that." The drop-off might be too high but if it wasn't too high then it would not be high enough. I also share your disappointment at the implementation of DRS. The FIA was justified in 2011 in being very conservative in implementing a device that instantaneously sheds downforce but they appear to have failed in gradually opening up its use. I'm surprised and disheartened that it's the same this year as last. My own solution would be to allow its use in the race as per practice sessions and disable it for drivers less than a second ahead in the prescribed activation zones. I don't share your dislike of KERS, excepting (once again) its implementation (it should not be charged from the mains in the garage before the race and it should be more open in application). This season I think most drivers are on top of using it strategically to enhance their cars' specific advantages rather than just as a push-to-pass solution and I like the fact that it gives them something to defend with against DRS. This is answered by your next point, in my opinion: Forgive me for taking this out of context but I think the sporting regulations are a load of crap. Piddling and sometimes spiteful little rules have been introduced reactively to specific manoeuvres that are aggressive but not dangerous (in the context of an inherently dangerous sport) or unfair. In my opinion, the FIA doesn't appropriately constrain itself in its responsibility for enhancing safety. Quite rightly, they want to prevent injury to drivers, marshals, spectators and so on. Quite rightly they have sought to achieve this by various means affecting car construction and trackside protection. Quite wrongly (in my opinion) they have also sought to achieve it by preventing contact between cars in order to prevent collisions. However, I think it's perfectly appropriate for commentators and fans to debate and react to breaches of driver protocol especially when the sporting regulations include specific examples of what is not tolerated by the FIA. It's not correct to say that "any contact these days and somebody is baying for blood." A bit of wheel-banging or tyre marks down the sidepod is relished by all fans in my experience. Only race-affecting collisions or contact that appears to contravene the sporting regulations stokes umbrage as far as I can see. It's healthy debate between your Stirling Mosses and your Jackie Stewarts. To return to your context: FIA technical regulations are, I think, rightly focused on determining physical restrictions, with sensible exceptions such as the SECU. It is a fundamental principle of F1 that constructors are free to design and build a car within those restrictions, using in-house engineering, rather than simply assemble off-the-shelf components. This is why the prize money is awarded to constructors. Just as drivers' freedom to race within the confines of the circuit with due regard to safety and sportsmanship are compromised by the examples of driving protocol that pepper the sporting regulations, my impression of the technical regulations is that, through them, teams are similarly compromised by the need to cut costs. Ideally, teams should be free to spend what they like in building a car that adheres to the technical requirements. We are hypocritical beings, though, and I accept that they can't be because there is a greater need to ensure the viable future of F1 in its current form, i.e. as a commercial enterprise. I don't agree that F1 is overly homogenised by regulation. There is still a lot of scope for innovation (F-ducts, DDRS, sidepod tunnels, DDDs, artesian wells and so on are all recent innovations; aerodynamics are widely developed throughout a season). Even within the confines of homologation we have engines that behave differently and KERS solutions that are easier to manage. However, if a team implements a solution that gives them an advantage then it's right that other teams will copy and adapt it. Sauber's 2012 exhaust has already been adopted by Red Bull and Ferrari look set to follow suit yet no regulation imposes the Sauber solution. What closes the field up is stability in the regulations, which allows the rest of the field to catch up in areas that one team or another stole a march the previous season. You may call this closing up "homogenisation" (I wouldn't, except perhaps in terms of performance or output) but it isn't induced by too much regulation, rather by too little new regulation. To return to what I see as your main point: What problems? I don't see that there any fundamental problems. F1 always exists in a state of flux and for thirty years has been developed to be a very saleable commercial product on that basis. Once 1.6 litre V6 turbos have ceased to be controversial, the current tyre compounds will be replaced with hard grooves or KERS will be banned or DRS usage will be opened up or moveable front wings will return... Drivers often say "you're only as good as your last race." F1's only as good as its last race, too, and that was a corker (crap circumstances in which to hold a race but the point stands) so what's the problem?
I think an important point to remember when talking about the tyres is that the FIA didn't decided to replace the Bridgestone rubber. Bridgestone withdrew from F1 and was therefore replaced by Pirelli, which gave the FIA a perfect opportunity to try something that could make races more interesting to the general fan. On the whole, I think it has worked.
