Grand Prix Rejects

tommykl wrote:

Bleu wrote:We are now fourth season in the hybrid era. Still we see a lot of complaining about the car sounds. The current cars are very fast.

That led to my thinking:

When the change was done, there were a lot of other changes to the cars and therefore lap times were slower than in the last season of V8s.

From the first season of hybrids though, the straightline speeds have been faster. I feel that fact was much not highlighted in the change, making many people thinking that engines were the reason cars are slower.

That made the general reaction of the fans worse.

It's quite simple, really: people hate change. And many fans have grown up equating "Formula 1 = tinnitus-inducingly loud engines". Never mind the fact that many of the same fans point to the 1000bhp monstrosities of the mid-80s as examples of "real engines" without quite realising that they were also turbocharged engines with six cylinders or fewer.

Interestingly, I have now seen a few fans beginning to turn on the turbo engines of the 1980's and complain that they were not loud enough and lacked the high pitched wail of later engines.

I do agree that there is a sense of people resisting technological change over time. Perhaps it is just me, but in recent years it does feel as if a number of fans in the motorsport community have become, if anything, even more reactionary than in the past and increasingly turn to a romanticised fantasy of what F1 was like in the 1990's, demanding that the sport returns to an illusory version of the past that never existed, never can exist and never satisfy them.

1960: These smaller engines are going to ruin the sport.

1970: All the drivers are a bunch of babies now with their "safety boycotts".

1980: Turbos. What a joke.

1990: That Senna's making a complete mockery of good, fair racing.

And so on...

Is that not just an indictment of the current global attitude though, Mario? You can cut it from any angle: socially, politically, whatever you like, but people are always asking for things to be "back to how they were".

We're living in an age of highly-accelerated technological growth, with a more interconnected global society and the ability to view, act and react almost immediately everywhere you go. And people resist that. People don't like how quickly things are moving, and want to almost crawl back into a safe-space of when things were "easier".

Yet, they never were. Challenges and experiences are always romanticised in retrospect; I guarantee that most of you will yearn for the days you spent in primary school where everything was easy, you could play with your friends on a Friday afternoon and enjoy long, hot summers away. It wasn't like that at the time of course; the challenges "scale" up with how you grow, and at the time it wasn't easy. At the time, the long summers got boring, and the less said about school dinners, the better.

We all secretly want to go back to a point in the past, because we knew what happened then. It's the fear of the things we don't know that's responsible for the population's medically-prescribed rose-tinted spectacles.

And back to F1. People see the 1990s as a time with loud engines, drivers pushing to the limit and simple, sleek cars. Yet, like your fond memories of school days, only the best bits are ever remembered. Were people who watched F1 at the time happy with the highly-complex active suspension, traction control and other such additions? I'd wager they weren't.

People in 2040 will look back to the F1 of 2017 and point out that it was fantastic. There's a title battle with two (maybe three?) great drivers. Fantastically wide, low-slung cars. Amazing inventions under the cover which give our monstrous machines nearly 1000bhp. Their F1 will be too complicated. It won't be "pure" enough. It won't have the vicious growl of the turbo machines, snarling through Monaco's tunnel and prowling the streets of Baku.

"It's not like it was", the people of 2040 will say. "I liked them better thirty years ago", the genetically-modified people of 2070 will say. "People aren't like how they used to be", cries the cybernetically-augmented populace of 2100.

It's the cycle of life, wishing things back to how they were at a pre-defined period of time. If you appreciate things now for what they are, then you won't HAVE to want to go back.

Simtek wrote:1990: That Senna's making a complete mockery of good, fair racing.

That one is true to be fair.

I'll be honest, I'm enjoying the way life is at the moment, both on a personal level and when I watch F1. I do sometimes wish there was a bit more randomness about it (like when Jarno Trulli spent most of the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix in the lead for Ligier) but then look at the Azerbaijan GP - that was pretty mental too.

The only thing I reckon needs urgently to change is the spiralling cost, both of running a team and staging a race. Without teams and races there can be no F1 at all.

tommykl wrote:

Bleu wrote:We are now fourth season in the hybrid era. Still we see a lot of complaining about the car sounds. The current cars are very fast.

That led to my thinking:

When the change was done, there were a lot of other changes to the cars and therefore lap times were slower than in the last season of V8s.

From the first season of hybrids though, the straightline speeds have been faster. I feel that fact was much not highlighted in the change, making many people thinking that engines were the reason cars are slower.

That made the general reaction of the fans worse.

It's quite simple, really: people hate change. And many fans have grown up equating "Formula 1 = tinnitus-inducingly loud engines". Never mind the fact that many of the same fans point to the 1000bhp monstrosities of the mid-80s as examples of "real engines" without quite realising that they were also turbocharged engines with six cylinders or fewer.

And they'd blow up every 2 seconds unlike today (unless we're talking about Honda).

Ataxia wrote:Is that not just an indictment of the current global attitude though, Mario? You can cut it from any angle: socially, politically, whatever you like, but people are always asking for things to be "back to how they were".

We're living in an age of highly-accelerated technological growth, with a more interconnected global society and the ability to view, act and react almost immediately everywhere you go. And people resist that. People don't like how quickly things are moving, and want to almost crawl back into a safe-space of when things were "easier".

Yet, they never were. Challenges and experiences are always romanticised in retrospect; I guarantee that most of you will yearn for the days you spent in primary school where everything was easy, you could play with your friends on a Friday afternoon and enjoy long, hot summers away. It wasn't like that at the time of course; the challenges "scale" up with how you grow, and at the time it wasn't easy. At the time, the long summers got boring, and the less said about school dinners, the better.

We all secretly want to go back to a point in the past, because we knew what happened then. It's the fear of the things we don't know that's responsible for the population's medically-prescribed rose-tinted spectacles.

And back to F1. People see the 1990s as a time with loud engines, drivers pushing to the limit and simple, sleek cars. Yet, like your fond memories of school days, only the best bits are ever remembered. Were people who watched F1 at the time happy with the highly-complex active suspension, traction control and other such additions? I'd wager they weren't.

People in 2040 will look back to the F1 of 2017 and point out that it was fantastic. There's a title battle with two (maybe three?) great drivers. Fantastically wide, low-slung cars. Amazing inventions under the cover which give our monstrous machines nearly 1000bhp. Their F1 will be too complicated. It won't be "pure" enough. It won't have the vicious growl of the turbo machines, snarling through Monaco's tunnel and prowling the streets of Baku.

"It's not like it was", the people of 2040 will say. "I liked them better thirty years ago", the genetically-modified people of 2070 will say. "People aren't like how they used to be", cries the cybernetically-augmented populace of 2100.

It's the cycle of life, wishing things back to how they were at a pre-defined period of time. If you appreciate things now for what they are, then you won't HAVE to want to go back.

You, sir, are a philosopher. I take off my hat to applaud you.

Ataxia wrote:People in 2040 will look back to the F1 of 2017 and point out that it was fantastic. There's a title battle with two (maybe three?) great drivers. Fantastically wide, low-slung cars. Amazing inventions under the cover which give our monstrous machines nearly 1000bhp. Their F1 will be too complicated. It won't be "pure" enough. It won't have the vicious growl of the turbo machines, snarling through Monaco's tunnel and prowling the streets of Baku.

If F1 in 2040 isn't, essentially, Wipeout then whats the point of anything?

CoopsII wrote:

Ataxia wrote:People in 2040 will look back to the F1 of 2017 and point out that it was fantastic. There's a title battle with two (maybe three?) great drivers. Fantastically wide, low-slung cars. Amazing inventions under the cover which give our monstrous machines nearly 1000bhp. Their F1 will be too complicated. It won't be "pure" enough. It won't have the vicious growl of the turbo machines, snarling through Monaco's tunnel and prowling the streets of Baku.

If F1 in 2040 isn't, essentially, Wipeout then whats the point of anything?

well wacky races is also a possibility

This wrote:

CoopsII wrote:If F1 in 2040 isn't, essentially, Wipeout then whats the point of anything?

well wacky races is also a possibility

Wacky Races belongs in the past, not the future!

dr-baker wrote:

This wrote:

CoopsII wrote:If F1 in 2040 isn't, essentially, Wipeout then whats the point of anything?

well wacky races is also a possibility

Wacky Races belongs in the past, not the future!

Actual footage of next years force india car.....

WeirdKerr wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Wacky Races belongs in the past, not the future!

Actual footage of next years force india car.....

So you are saying either Perez or Ocon will win the championship? Cause the car has the #1...

AdrianBelmonte_ wrote:

WeirdKerr wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Wacky Races belongs in the past, not the future!

Actual footage of next years force india car.....

So you are saying either Perez or Ocon will win the championship? Cause the car has the #1...

Or, in a shock move, Lewis moves to the team!

The halo saga continues, now with the FIA changing the rule book in order to place the Halo in.

This might be one the most stupid saga's I've ever seen from Jean Todt and company: they're literally changing the rules of the sport in order to place this "thing", that no one wants, in order to show everyone they can do what they want and pass the message they want. The introduction of the halo must be stopped at all cost, or at least, replaced by something else...

Also, the halo is planned for F2, GP3 and/or F3 depending what happens in the ladder for 2019. Yeah, no.

This is EXACTLY what I've complained about; sure, the halo solves one problem, but creates so many more. You can't just compromise with safety, and move a goalpost back to what it was before.

Shocking decision making.

At least now when people are constantly whinging about the halo I'll agree with them.

When Lewis goes on about Hammer-time, I'm guessing he doesn't have this in mind: https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein ... .telBpoy9Y

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... d-for-2018

Pirelli want to add another dry compound tyre for next season. What that possibly could be is anyone's guess. Ultra hard, Slightly Soft, Somewhat medium. Why do we need 6 dry compounds, why not just have Soft Meduim Hard same tyres for every GP and the teams just have to use 2 of them.

Considering compounds it would be good if all current ones would be moved one step to the harder and then add one on the softer side.

Bleu wrote:Considering compounds it would be good if all current ones would be moved one step to the harder and then add one on the softer side.

Super-duper-ultra soft.
Soft-as-butter.
OMG-I-can't-believe-it's-not-softer.

dr-baker wrote:

Bleu wrote:Considering compounds it would be good if all current ones would be moved one step to the harder and then add one on the softer side.

Super-duper-ultra soft.
Soft-as-butter.
OMG-I-can't-believe-it's-not-softer.

Anyone else thinking that this sounds like Andrex is taking over the F1 tyre supply?

It's all part of the big plan, maybe Bernie's old big plan, to make F1 ridiculously complicated. Sort the aero so racing's impossible and bamboozle the fans a bit more with tyre choice.

This is why Indycar's system works. You got your FIRESTONE® Blacks and your FIRESTONE® Reds, and you know the reds are the softer tyre, regardless of whether it's a different construction to the previous race.

This can fit into Pirelli's branding. Use white text for the harder tyre, red text for medium, and a yellow wall with red text for the soft, and use that system for everything. You'll have teams deciding whether to go for a scrubbed set of PIRELLI P-ZERO® Reds or a sticker set of PIRELLI P-ZERO® Yellows, which could make all the difference at the SMP Racing Russian Grand Prix of Sochi...

What about a medium-rare tyre? No sidewall markings, just black on the outside that gets pinker towards the middle as the rubber gets worn off.

Back to wooden wheels. All that modern rubber bullshit.

BabyG wrote:What about a medium-rare tyre? No sidewall markings, just black on the outside that gets pinker towards the middle as the rubber gets worn off.

Reading an article about Tom Walkinshaw when a picture of the 2001 Arrows high front wing car came along. Bizarre.

I wish I had the confidence to start the Prediction Thread.

But I don't.

I might do it wrong.

Did Ben Edwards say that DRS's future is under review yesterday?

Spectoremg wrote:Did Ben Edwards say that DRS's future is under review yesterday?

Yes, a few days ago Ross Brawn stated that one of his longer term objectives would be to remove DRS - however, he has made clear that he does not want to rush into a decision. It looks like his intention is to spend the next few years evaluating potential alternative options, with the final decision likely to be made as part of the planned 2021 regulation package. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/grid ... rs-947189/

mario wrote:

Spectoremg wrote:Did Ben Edwards say that DRS's future is under review yesterday?

Yes, a few days ago Ross Brawn stated that one of his longer term objectives would be to remove DRS - however, he has made clear that he does not want to rush into a decision. It looks like his intention is to spend the next few years evaluating potential alternative options, with the final decision likely to be made as part of the planned 2021 regulation package. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/grid ... rs-947189/

Cheers Mario.
It seems to me that the situation has lacked joined up thinking over the last few years. For instance making the engines massively more complicated* and then doubly punishing teams when they go wrong.
*By embracing hybrid technology which is ridiculous and unnecessary.

Someone contact Van Rossem because

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pors ... 21-949446/

Spectoremg wrote:

mario wrote:

Spectoremg wrote:Did Ben Edwards say that DRS's future is under review yesterday?

Yes, a few days ago Ross Brawn stated that one of his longer term objectives would be to remove DRS - however, he has made clear that he does not want to rush into a decision. It looks like his intention is to spend the next few years evaluating potential alternative options, with the final decision likely to be made as part of the planned 2021 regulation package. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/grid ... rs-947189/

Cheers Mario.
It seems to me that the situation has lacked joined up thinking over the last few years. For instance making the engines massively more complicated* and then doubly punishing teams when they go wrong.
*By embracing hybrid technology which is ridiculous and unnecessary.

I guess that it is because I am quite technically minded, but I find the current power unit technology far more interesting than the older engines.

golic_2004 wrote:Someone contact Van Rossem because

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pors ... 21-949446/

Given that Porsche was also involved in the technical working group meetings that resulted in the current regulation package and have previously stated that they considered developing an engine for the current regulation package, I am not surprised that they have expressed an interest.

However, given that Porsche then chose to turn away from F1, I would not be at all surprised if it turns into the perennial story that Porsche/Audi/whatever part of the VW Group they choose this time around are on the verge of entering F1 "in a few years time", yet never seems to materialise.

I went on the internet and I found this:



...and I thought it was a picture of a Marussia, until I saw the Honda logo and realised it was Fernando Alonso sitting in a McLaren. It was the way the orange (that could have been "red under lights") and black are divided by the white stripe, and the Richard Mille sponsorship that did it.

I've previously looked at a Jaguar XF and thought for a second it was an Aston Martin - mainly due to the shape of the rear lights, even though I can usually spot the difference a mile away - but more unforgivably, I was once briefly tricked into thinking a Chrysler 300C was a Bentley, and this was not long after I'd seen a stretch-limo company advertising in a local takeaway with their stretched "Bentley" and immediately thought "hang, on, that's not a Bentley, it's a Chrysler 300C, can't fool me!"

I remember Nico Rosberg in an interview once—not anything special, just something to fill time in a race show—being asked if having a world champion father made things harder for him. He went off explaining that actually it made things easier because it was easier to get sponsorship, then partway through he realised the answer he was supposed to give and abruptly made something up like "but yeah, sometimes he would pressure me". I can't remember any other cases of drivers changing their answer to something as they're saying it, but they probably exist....

UgncreativeUsergname wrote:I remember Nico Rosberg in an interview once—not anything special, just something to fill time in a race show—being asked if having a world champion father made things harder for him. He went off explaining that actually it made things easier because it was easier to get sponsorship, then partway through he realised the answer he was supposed to give and abruptly made something up like "but yeah, sometimes he would pressure me". I can't remember any other cases of drivers changing their answer to something as they're saying it, but they probably exist....

Oh, yeah, it was so easy you can't believe it... No, it wasn't - Mika Häkkinen, after winning the 1999 Spanish Grand Prix

I was thinking... Now liberty media want to increase the calendar, could be interesting the inclusion of an oval race, we could have an oval race, some street races, some at night...

Aguvazk wrote:I was thinking... Now liberty media want to increase the calendar, could be interesting the inclusion of an oval race, we could have an oval race, some street races, some at night...

Judging by their latest strategy, it's more likely that Liberty Media are going to focus on boosting the number of street circuits on the calendar instead, hence why we are seeing proposals such as a street circuit in Copenhagen.

Speaking of which, we have now see Liberty Media put forward their latest proposal for the future development of F1, and it is one which I have a slight sense of unease about. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/form ... 51820/?s=1

Maybe it is me, but what Bratches calls his 'Revel in the racing’ objective sounds a bit mixed - whilst there is an argument for reapportioning revenue, the proposal for cost caps does also feel a bit like Liberty's way of justifying continuing to take a large chunk of the profits out of the sport (not to mention the difficulties of managing to impose such a system in the first place).

When he also talks about altering the governance structure, at the same time that does start to make me wonder if he is talking about increased standardisation of parts and a move towards a semi-spec series - something that would also tally with the increased emphasis on the drivers and their personalities at the expense of the teams.

mario wrote:Maybe it is me, but what Bratches calls his 'Revel in the racing’ objective sounds a bit mixed.

Sounds like it could be quite a nice livery option, I would like to see more chocolate companies in F1.

dr-baker wrote:

mario wrote:Maybe it is me, but what Bratches calls his 'Revel in the racing’ objective sounds a bit mixed.

Sounds like it could be quite a nice livery option, I would like to see more chocolate companies in F1.

Something like this?

(I do know how confusing a Revels-Renault would be alongside a Red Bull-Renault- that was the point)

This Could Be You wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

mario wrote:Maybe it is me, but what Bratches calls his 'Revel in the racing’ objective sounds a bit mixed.

Sounds like it could be quite a nice livery option, I would like to see more chocolate companies in F1.

Something like this?

(I do know how confusing a Revels-Renault would be alongside a Red Bull-Renault- that was the point)

I had imagined brighter oranges and yellows, but that's still pretty cool!