Snrub

iTrader: (1)

That race sucked serious ***. There wasn't a single competitive pass. After years of garbage F1 finally had decent racing going on in 2004. I'd rather a red car was leading and there was decent racing behind it. Shades of 1998-99. The drivers putted around not pushing particularly hard. Where was the racing?

I'm really looking forward to the Champ Car season now.

Feds

Hmmm, where you guys "asleep" or "passed out"? I guess I did only watch half of it, I did have a 1.5 hour drive home afterall.

Kristen made some good points about how the cars are too far from being cars, and how dumb it was that they needed to be pushed behind the wall if they stalled, and how spinning can put you out of the race.

I think as F1 moves further away from "cars" it is going to be more difficult for them to attract new fans, alienating everyone but the "hard core"

Oh, and did anyone watch CARMAGEDDON on Spike between qualifying and the race? LOL Rednecks racing buses, and trucks pulling camper trailers!!! LMAO!!!

Nick86

iTrader: (1)

So many things to gripe about! Where to start?

The new aero rules suck. They just seem to amplify the problems that they had in previous years. It used to be that when a car came up behind another one, their wings were not as effective (due to air flow) and therefore you'd get cars stuck behind each other - just far enough away that they couldn't pass. Well, now remove 30% of the wing's effectiveness, and the cars are 30% less stable behind another car! That, and the aero "unbalance" starts further back! Drivers were complaining that there were no blue flags - well, truth is tha the cars couldn't get close enough to the slower car to have it appear that they were "all over the back of them". That means thatthe lead car won't get out of the way!

The new qualifying was a farce - pure and simple. The aggregate time scheme made the sunday sesson worthless, and the timing/scoring was stupid. Do you know who was the fastest car in the sunday qualifying sesson? No? It was Mark Webber. If you didn't know that, then don't feel bad - Mark only found out after the race.

Any possible good racing that we could of had was sunk by this qualifying format. When the grid gets mixed up like this, the result is that the faster cars get held up, and those fast cars with clear air fly off into the distance. I fear that even when the qualifying is all in dry weather, the end result will be freight trains of F1 cars who only pass in the pits.

I dissagree that one of F1's problems is that they are too far from regular cars. Part of the allure of F1 is that they are cutting edge technology. The problem of F1 is tha there are TOO MANY rules governing the cars! If they let the engineers loose, we'd have 10 very different cars on the track, and a lot more competitiveness. In order to get any advantage these days, it comes fromminute changes after months in the wind tunnel. It has become "Who can make the most aerodynamically efficient version of this one car". Lets get back to slick tires, wide cars, ground effects and small wings.

I guess we have to wait to see what the next race brings. In the mean time we get to listen to Schumi try and convince people that taking out Heidfeld wasn't his fault!

Feds

I agree with this completely. Limit fuel flow, or the total fuel available for the race, and then limit the box that the cars must fit in. Otherwise, go to town. BUT, a starter and a clutch pedal would make the cars seem a lot less silly to the casual fan.

I say ditch the wings altogether, or at least all of those stupid wings in the middle of the car. That's just rediculous!

Snrub

iTrader: (1)

I don't think it's as simple as saying that less aero means that the cars are effected by turbulance by an equivilent amount. Look at Champ Car, they have a LOT less downforce generated by the wings and they're able to get close. Back around 1998-99 the problem in F1 was that they produced much more turbulant air, it wasn't that they had more downforce than in 2004.

There's also a magic ratio of mechanical grip vs. aero grip. If 80% of their grip is aero it means that when the air is turbulant they cannot even make an attempt at a pass. The tire war ment that the ratio was drastically altered towards the tires. Take a look at the change in lap times from when the tire war started to now. It's around 10 seconds a lap!!!Last year they also required the rear wing to be larger, which would help promote passing by increasing the draft. This is why we had passing in 2004, but none in '98-99. The tires have been hardened substantially for 2005 (they have to last 3x longer) and most of the pure downforce has been gained back (75%+ gained back). That means the ratio has been moved in the wrong direction.

I'm also curious, undertrays are an aero device, but are far less susceptable to dirty air than wings are. I wonder if some of reason for this is because they're close to the ground and less turbulant air is produced down there? By raising the wings, are they now receiving much more turbulant air when behind another car?

Nick86

iTrader: (1)

No, I know - you're right, I was just trying to simplify the problem a bit. I guess I was trying to say that their levels of mechanical grip are far too little in comparison with the gains in aero grip.


The closer to the road a wing is, the more efficient it is, and the greater effect small changes in it's shape have. The FIA's goal in raising the front wing was to make it less efficient. As the shape of the bottom of the cars are so limited in their design these days - I too would like to know if this front wing reg had any change in the efficiency of the undertary. I did notice however that the barge boards were substantially bigger and lower this year - maybe that is to "tame" the air going under the car and around the sides? I dunno. Maybe we should call Dino Toso or Adrian Newey. That'd be a great conversation!


FEDS: I agree - they should get back to manual shifting - and yes even have a starter. It's funny though, starting an F1 (or even champcar) engine when it's warm is no problem But when it's cold - it takes about an hour to get it running! Because the engines have no gaskets and run with such low tolerances, the engines have to be warmed up to operating temp by having hot oil and coolant pumped through them. That way all the metals will have expanded to their proper tolerance, and the engine can be turned over!

Snrub

iTrader: (1)

By undertrays, I was meaning the way CCs have undertrays that produce downforce vs. F1 cars have a flat bottom. The FIA's intent was good, but it backfired because they managed to get all of the downforce back. I wish the commentators would address these types of concerns.

I didn't realize that the engines had no gaskets.

RacerJason

iTrader: (5)

Funny how all the Ferrari fans are silent... Three races in and they're sixth in the constructors championship... Today was the first time in four years over-rated Schuey retired due to a technical failure. I hope this season continues to be a demonstration that Ferrari are mortal...

Death to Tifosi everywhere! I hear the bandwagon is becoming lighter and lighter.

eViLRotor

iTrader: (2)

Hehe! Well, the new F2005 was at least a lot faster than the old car.

The 7-time paper champion started in 2nd at least I think things are looking up, but it will be tough for Ferrari.

The Renaults are too good...time to change the rules!

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

The look on Schuey's face when Alonso got the Pole was classic. He looked like he was going to smack the first engineer he could get his hands on. I love it.

Feds

Once again, there was a "casual fan" moment in the race. Kristen was FREAKING OUT when Button couldn't get out fo the pits..

"He get's paid HOW MUCH, and he can't even get the car moving!?!?"

"But..but.. you've seen F1 clutches, they're small, no flywheel effect. And the clutch is just a button..."

"I don't care, it's stupid!"

"I agree, but that's F1"

Snrub

iTrader: (1)

It's funny how people like something simply because it's successful. If something's really successful I don't want to cheer for it, because continuing domination is not interesting. I can understand why there are Italian Tifosi, but now at every event there are Tifosi. Why do they want Ferrari domination? Wouldn't it be more interesting if multiple teams/DRIVERS could challange at the front? It's nice to see a change in domination at the front, but it's no more interesting now that Renault are leading instead of Ferrari. I have no interest in cheering for Renault. (although I would like to see Fisi do better)

I really like what Red Bull is doing this year. They're carrying the banner for the independant teams and what F1 should be about. They're doing well and they're not so arrogant. Hey David, if you want to grow a beard is YOUR choice,. we won't stop you. If you want to talk to the press, you don't have to follow the corporate line, say what you'd like. It's funny because I think DC is really rising to the challange. He's racing better than he has for a number of years now or perhaps ever. I was accustom to DC qualifying poorly, starting poorly, racing poorly and being passive. Now he's the exact opposite. The only negative I've seen is that I'm not keen on the axe being held over Klein's head. He's doing a great job and they should just let him race.

eViLRotor

iTrader: (2)

People hate something just because it is successful as well.

I'm not going to apologise for loving Ferrari. I was driving along with Niki Lauda in front of the TV when I was 5 years old. I'm Austrian, so of course we cheered for him and Ferrari. Then came Gerhard Berger.

That doesn't mean I didn't find F1 tedious to watch a lot of times, especially during the domination years. I actually like it more this year, because Ferrari really has to step it up now. I think they are up for the challenge!

Heck, you can even call Schumacher overrated. It's all good. He doesn't have to prove anything.