codrus wrote:
Advan046 wrote:
The whole fuel concern is just silly.
...
Fuel is part of the rules what dummy designed a car to use more fuel than what is allowed. UGH
The problem is that fuel economy racing is boring. So if it turns out that the fastest way around the track is to build a car that you need to drive in fuel conservation mode for 98% of the race, then we the viewers will suffer because it'll become yet another multi-colored parade.
I disagree 100%.
Every car in every pro racing series that has a format where fuel matters in races will always have a balance of fuel efficiency/power/fuel weight. The engineering team figures the best of that mix. If you engineer too much inefficiency in your fuel usage you will lose. The rule applies to everyone so they will race 100% within the rules. If there is a parade it would hardly be due to fuel. Case in point during the refueling years there was a much higher chance of a parade when fuel saving didn't matter as much. And more people ran out of fuel in the races back then! 
If we had anything goes F1 then yes the cars would be silly fast and maybe last one or two years before everyone gets priced out of the competition. I would think the odds heavily favoring widely spaced parades over those two years. It is inevitable that any series will eventually have to set limits.
markwemple wrote:
McLaren, Honda or MB power?
Honda for 8-7 more years. What is the win ratio for MB power since they joined back in the 80s was it?
Advan046 wrote:
Every car in every pro racing series that has a format where fuel matters in races will always have a balance of fuel efficiency/power/fuel weight. The engineering team figures the best of that mix. If you engineer too much inefficiency in your fuel usage you will lose.
It's not a question of engineering efficiency, it's a question of driving efficiency. Racing for position means using all the revs, it means pulling out of the draft to make passes, scrubbing off speed in corners, etc. It costs fuel to try to pass someone. We've seen that in F1 recently, in the last few years there have been a number of cases in which the engineers on the pit wall have called out to the drivers at the end of the race to tell them to "lift and coast", hold position or even give up positions because they were in danger of not finishing the race due to fuel concerns.
F1 has balanced it pretty carefully the last couple of years, it's an issue, but not one that has caused really significant problems (at least, not so far -- it remains to be seen what effect the new aero rules will have on that). IIRC, CART/IRL/ChampCar/whatever had some significant fuel-related parades in the 90s/early 2000s.
As for passing in F1, lately it's been better yes, but it's not the fuel restrictions that are responsible for that. The DRS and (especially) tire rules have made the big difference.
alfadriver wrote:
Or you can go faster on straights by lowering downforce to lower drag and lower fuel consumption.
And lower downforce would be fun to watch.
Removing downforce doesn't lower fuel consumption, it just raises top speed. They're still running the engines flat out.
codrus wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
Or you can go faster on straights by lowering downforce to lower drag and lower fuel consumption.
And lower downforce would be fun to watch.
Removing downforce doesn't lower fuel consumption, it just raises top speed. They're still running the engines flat out.
It does lower drag in the corners, and the lower cornering speeds will also have lower power ranges. And lower top speeds because of lower cornering speeds (lowering the peak power demands).
Besides- this isn't a new rule at all. For that matter, the rules have a allowed a small increase of fuel. So why are we back in 2014?
Advan046 wrote:
markwemple wrote:
McLaren, Honda or MB power?
Honda for 8-7 more years. What is the win ratio for MB power since they joined back in the 80s was it?
So you didn't hear the news that McLaren is trying to secure Manor's 2017 MB engines?
In reply to alfadriver:
Yes I did. I've also heard they are speaking directly to mb. The big issue is sponsors.
markwemple wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
Yes I did. I've also heard they are speaking directly to mb. The big issue is sponsors.
Exactly- will sponsors stay around if they keep losing? 
codrus wrote:
The problem is that fuel economy racing is boring. So if it turns out that the fastest way around the track is to build a car that you need to drive in fuel conservation mode for 98% of the race, then we the viewers will suffer because it'll become yet another multi-colored parade.
Group C called and disagrees with you. the Group C regs were written entirely around fuel efficiency and it was so good and successful F1 got worried and had the FIA impose engine parity rules with F1 and killed it off in just a couple of years. I’m really tired of people blaming fuel consumption for poor racing. Every series including F1 calculates how much fuel they expect to use in a race (or stint) and fuel up accordingly. How many times over the last few years do we hear that team X or Y fueled light expecting more or longer safety car periods so the drivers had to back off. They then bitch about the rules completely ongoing the fact they chose to fuel light by a few Kg’s. they could have brimmed the tank, but chose not too and now it’s the rule makers fault.
Well based on some generic web searching I see that Mercedes engine powered cars in the 90's didn't win for the first three years. Then it took McLaren to a few championships but then went backward for a few years until Brawn.
Basically it took 20 years to become a dominant player.
But all of a sudden two years in Honda should be scrapped!!!!!! NOW Scrap them, don't even think about it. Look at Red Bull they threw so much shade and hate at Renault, they obviously should have switched motors otherwise they wouldn't have ended up second in the .......... wait they got stuck it out with the crappy Renault engine and beat Ferrari last year?!?! Wait... NO ignore data, Get rid of Honda!!! 
In reply to Advan046:
I think there's a big difference between taking three years to win a race and producing a complete turd of an engine that in three years blows up constantly and can only scrape together a handful of points
In reply to Advan046:
I think the issue is that McLaren sees the Honda taking zero steps forward, and perhaps steps backward.
If they went from the back of the pack, to low, to mid- there would be some hope.
Interesting note: one of my friend who used to work for Mercedes High Performance Engines (aka F1) just started work at McLaren.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:
In reply to Advan046:
I think there's a big difference between taking three years to win a race and producing a complete turd of an engine that in three years blows up constantly and can only scrape together a handful of points
Yes part of that big difference is that MB could bring a fully updated engine at race 3 while Honda had to wait for the end of the year for any major tweaks. Basically Honda and Mclaren I think tried to sneak around the rules to maybe get an exemption for Honda's first year to allow them to do major updates through the year but it didn't work they only got a few more tokens or something. So to your point with the new rules structure of frozen engine designs I think Honda should be expected to take longer.
alfadriver wrote:
In reply to Advan046:
I think the issue is that McLaren sees the Honda taking zero steps forward, and perhaps steps backward.
If they went from the back of the pack, to low, to mid- there would be some hope.
They seemed to be doing just that last season. Actually getting up into the points instead of trailing behind Manor. I do not think that Honda has been great at all but given the rules structure they have done ok. Look at Renault they had a sucky year and then had an ok to good half year. Maybe Honda will do the same this year. Suck at two races then get going.
BTW while I am a Lewis fan I have always been a McLaren fan and hope they get back on the front of the pack soon.
Qualifying.... Hamilton, Vettel, Bottas.... and in 6th Grosjean - go HAAS!
Quali was pretty cool. First laps in Q3...Bottas on pole, now Seb pole by.003, oh, look, I guess Lewis earns his money, on pole by .300. Last laps in Q3...Bottas on pole, now Seb on pole by a few hundredths, and here comes Lewis, earning his damn paycheque again, .300 faster.
It bodes well for the season, I think. There sure are a lot of guys two or so seconds down, too. Should be the same interesting racing in the middle of the pack this year.
And I am not going to bet too hard against Bottas this year.
And, whats the deal with the tv antenna/coat hanger looking wing on the Mercs? It must do something, I suppose.
I want Lewis to win the WDC but I would like it to be a nail biter all the way to the end. The problem I see with modern Formula 1 is that there is no room for creative engineering. The engines are regulated to such a fine degree that if you get it slightly wrong, you can't test enough to fix the problem and you can't make radical changes because you're only allowed to use 4 engines for 20 races. IMO, Formula 1 should reduce the rules to permit different ways of thinking. Have a minimum weight, maximum fuel capacity, maximum overall dimensions and allow single element wings only-then let the teams figure out the rest. If Ferrari wants to run a naturally aspirated v8, fine, they still have to get to the end of the race on the same amount of fuel as everybody else. I would like to see closer battles but that can only happen if cars can follow each other closely, like MotoGP, so aero grip needs to be reduced.
loosecannon wrote:
I want Lewis to win the WDC but I would like it to be a nail biter all the way to the end. The problem I see with modern Formula 1 is that there is no room for creative engineering. The engines are regulated to such a fine degree that if you get it slightly wrong, you can't test enough to fix the problem and you can't make radical changes because you're only allowed to use 4 engines for 20 races. IMO, Formula 1 should reduce the rules to permit different ways of thinking. Have a minimum weight, maximum fuel capacity, maximum overall dimensions and allow single element wings only-then let the teams figure out the rest. If Ferrari wants to run a naturally aspirated v8, fine, they still have to get to the end of the race on the same amount of fuel as everybody else. I would like to see closer battles but that can only happen if cars can follow each other closely, like MotoGP, so aero grip needs to be reduced.
For a long time, it was close to that. Eventually, that led to the entire field having V10s. Even the turbo era pretty much settled on V6 at the pointy end.
And the risk of really taking a chance is pretty high, and with the cost of just playing the way it is- it's unlikely that you'd really see something radical.
For the most part, letting the rules be more open is just an invitation to spend a lot more money. So the spread from front to back would get more wide.
I'd prefer Alonso, Riccardo or Massa to be WDC. Massa should have had 1 and but for Ferrari's effe ups, Alonso would have 2 more. I lnow the car matters but I hate that. The last 8 championshops have been the car. LH and Seb aren't as good as their numbers.
Here's to Raikkonen and Botas pulling a Rosberg!
Well, that doesn't bode well for passing with the new package, does it? Maybe a bunch more DRS would do it.
markwemple wrote:
I'd prefer Alonso, Riccardo or Massa to be WDC. Massa should have had 1 and but for Ferrari's effe ups, Alonso would have 2 more. I lnow the car matters but I hate that. The last 8 championshops have been the car. LH and Seb aren't as good as their numbers.
This vid would suggest otherwise for Hamilton.
Hamilton Top Gear lap
Well, Bottas almost pulled a Rosberg. Too bad Ferrari couldn't pull their heads out of their butts when Alonso was with them. Feel bad for Riccardo.
