Formula 1 Discussion - And favourite driver?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Some memes
1771032130084.png 1771032139451.png 1771032224702.png 1771032259303.png 1771032384105.png 1771032524192.png 1771032733179.png
 
The idea that the need to do super clipping (apparently they're calling the full throttle-no acceleration mode) came up in simulations and FOM/FIA (idgaf which one is responsible) didn't immediately panic and make changes is insane, or even worse, have they been totally blindsided by this shitshow?

I'm not even sure exactly why they need to slow down so much to charge, I guess the engine is so heavily detuned that they'd rather burn the fuel to charge the hybrid system instead, is there a better explanation? It's like they realized that bringing refueling back really is the "fix everything" switch they need to flip (lighter cars -> smaller cars w/ same safety margin -> better racing, and better strategy with both tires and fuel under series management) so they made the product even worse so that flip couldn't fix it.
 
LMP1 cars with more advanced and more open hybrid concepts did the lift and coast thing a decade ago at Le Mans, for the same reason. They were only allowed to use a set amount of fuel per lap, and lifting before braking is simply the best way to save fuel. Corner exit is just way more important for a fast lap than late braking. Plus you get the hybrid boost on corner exit. The racing did not suffer, in fact the opposite. The stretch from 2013-2017 had some of the best racing ever seen in endurance racing.

But the rules were just much better thought out. Porsche and Toyota used two hybrid systems working in tandem to recover as much energy as possible while Audi stuck with just the one system on the front wheels. This difference in execution created differences between car strengths and weaknesses on different parts of the track, which always improves racing. F1 can't do that because there's too many stakeholders and you always end up with a huge compromise that everyone will hate.

I will call it now, this ruleset will be gone by 2030. Just like the completely overhyped ground effect nonsense, nothing is going to fix the racing in F1 because nothing can.
 
Excited Eraser said:
I will call it now, this ruleset will be gone by 2030. Just like the completely overhyped ground effect nonsense, nothing is going to fix the racing in F1 because nothing can.
Click to expand...
The ground effect worked until someone complained that they weren't effortlessly winning anymore.

In order to have good racing with modern cars, the most important thing for them to be able to follow each other. That means minimizing dirty air and ground effect helped with that. I doubt the smaller cars will create good racing, not that we'll even get the chance to see if they do with all the battery management going on.

The FIA, like all European bureaucracies, sucks at writing regulations. They want to dictate how the teams should design their cars when they really should be laying out high-level goals (e.g. survive a crash, don't create dirty air) and leave the teams to figure out how to meet them. That's how F1 used to be and an "engineering championship" should not have such strict rules that every car looks identical.

The root cause of all issues in F1 is the modern European elite's love regulating everything fun out of the world. The same type of assholes who wrote the cookie banner law are in charge of the sport and it shows.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what any of that has to do with 'Europe'. American racing is even more regulated and always has been, with everything sacrificed for 'the show'. BoP, complete spec cars, random safety cars to make everything but the last few laps redundant etc. There is no engineering in American racing in any sense of the word and there hasn't been since arguably CART in the late 90s.
 
The thjing ios though that the cars were so close together last year that the usual tactics didn't work unless some played rolling chicane that bunched up the rest of the field. Of course the new rules now shake it up but as usual the bigger teams can better compensate. I would bet that we will see races with cars that are several laps down instead of just one (or two at maximum) This might give us some more chaos when more cars are lapped but at the same time I fear we might see some constructors pull out if the results don't come. Though the real field composition will only be shown at Melbourne when they all drop the sand bags and go full power. I also expect way more driver coaching (so maybe Hamilton having a new engineer might help unless he gets Adami 2.0. Well that and Hamilton being incompetent as a tactical driver)
 
The "don't create dirty air" is a silly argument. As long as these cars have to use wings to create downforce, dirty air will stay an issue. The actual problems with racing are more related to there being little to no reward in taking risks on track because of things like there no longer being back-up cars and tires that are intentionally designed to have a very specific performance envelope.
 
The Grognard said:
The actual problems with racing are more related to there being little to no reward in taking risks on track
Click to expand...
DRS also did that, why go for the risky overtake into a corner when you can just wait for the next straight to be gifted the pass. I'm hoping losing that and going to tools that anyone can use anytime will mean they have to go for it in corners.

I am also hoping we get some decent defensive battles, we haven't had those in a long time thanks also to DRS. It opens up a lot of strategy options if you can defend your position.
 
Excited Eraser said:
I have no idea what any of that has to do with 'Europe'. American racing is even more regulated and always has been, with everything sacrificed for 'the show'. BoP, complete spec cars, random safety cars to make everything but the last few laps redundant etc. There is no engineering in American racing in any sense of the word and there hasn't been since arguably CART in the late 90s.
Click to expand...
No one cares if a spec series is regulated to hell because that’s the whole point. F1 is supposed to be an engineering competition, but it isn’t because you’re not actually allowed to do anything anymore.

Also, the FIA flat out said that the current regs are for “sustainability” reasons. Can’t get much more Eurocrat than that.
 
quaawaa said:
The root cause of all issues in F1 is the modern European elite's love regulating everything fun out of the world
Click to expand...
Excited Eraser said:
I have no idea what any of that has to do with 'Europe'.
Click to expand...
Let’s be honest here though: if F1 was not so Euro-centric, we wouldn’t be hearing all this bullshit about sustainability, which is the mantra that has led the FIA and F1 down this weird road of no refueling and EV experimentation. I’m not even necessarily saying that Americans would have better priorities with making good regulations, but we certainly wouldn’t be trying to fit square pegs (“environmentalism”) into round holes (an expensive sport about using lots of oil and rubber).
 
quaawaa said:
No one cares if a spec series is regulated to hell because that’s the whole point. F1 is supposed to be an engineering competition, but it isn’t because you’re not actually allowed to do anything anymore.

Also, the FIA flat out said that the current regs are for “sustainability” reasons. Can’t get much more Eurocrat than that.
Click to expand...
You should actually pay attention to the details of the cars, if you don't believe this sport isn't an engineering competition already. As for the "sustainability" you have to understand that the last thing FIA wants for the sport to become a fiscal arms race because the good times of the 90's and 2000's ended with the 2008 market crash. They want a stable grid where at least in theory, the manufacturers who answer to shareholders can justify staying in.

Großmann said:
Let’s be honest here though: if F1 was not so Euro-centric, we wouldn’t be hearing all this bullshit about sustainability, which is the mantra that has led the FIA and F1 down this weird road of no refueling and EV experimentation. I’m not even necessarily saying that Americans would have better priorities with making good regulations, but we certainly wouldn’t be trying to fit square pegs (“environmentalism”) into round holes (an expensive sport about using lots of oil and rubber).
Click to expand...
IIRC the real reason for dropping refueling was that the refueling equipment was very heavy and shipping them across the world was expensive. Safety was the official reason but that was secondary compared to finance. And we do know what American pressure looks like because the grid girls were dropped because Liberty Media thought they were "sexist".
 
The Grognard said:
You should actually pay attention to the details of the cars, if you don't believe this sport isn't an engineering competition already.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between coming up with new designs like six-wheelers and fan cars and slightly changing the shape of the body in a way that isn’t obvious to anyone who isn’t an expert in aerodynamics. Modern F1 only allows innovation in a handful of areas that get smaller and smaller every year.

With old-school rules, instead of worrying about a lack of racing, we’d be laughing at the retards who believed the hybrid meme when the ICE teams cruise past them.
The Grognard said:
As for the "sustainability" you have to understand that the last thing FIA wants for the sport to become a fiscal arms race because the good times of the 90's and 2000's ended with the 2008 market crash. They want a stable grid where at least in theory, the manufacturers who answer to shareholders can justify staying in.
Click to expand...
That’s a fundamental difference in culture: enforced mediocrity versus booms and busts.

Ironically, if they weren’t so heavily regulated, the costs would be lower because you’d be rewarded for thinking outside the box instead of having to grind to optimize the last little bit out of the existing design.

Also, there’s tons of money in F1, it just all goes to the athletes and executives instead of to engineering.
 
Last edited:
quaawaa said:
That’s a fundamental difference in culture: enforced mediocrity versus booms and busts.

Ironically, if they weren’t so heavily regulated, the costs would be lower because you’d be rewarded for thinking outside the box instead of having to grind to optimize the last little bit out of the existing design.

Also, there’s tons of money in F1, it just all goes to the athletes and executives instead of to engineering.
Click to expand...
The teams back in 2000's operated with a much bigger budget, with Toyota and Honda capping out at half a billion per year. Ferrari operated at around 400 million. The smallest teams operated at around 120ish million a year. The whole reason why the current reg mindset was implemented in the aftermath of that crash was that there was a serious risk of the sport's own existence because the car companies that backed the teams themselves were in fiscal turbulence.

As for the "costs would be lower if the regs were looser" is complete delusion and shows that you actually do not understand how the design process goes. Back in the day, teams would have multiple seperate iterations of every item which then would have to be extensively tested and refined. These results had to be verified on test mules and just about every week, there was a car on track specifically for the purposes of testing each iteration. Sometimes, even the components that are seen on other team's cars were fabricated and tested to see what they do. Nobody just "wings it" in this sport and hopes for the best. There is no room for such nonsense.
 
Excited Eraser said:
LMP1 cars with more advanced and more open hybrid concepts did the lift and coast thing a decade ago at Le Mans, for the same reason. They were only allowed to use a set amount of fuel per lap, and lifting before braking is simply the best way to save fuel. Corner exit is just way more important for a fast lap than late braking. Plus you get the hybrid boost on corner exit. The racing did not suffer, in fact the opposite. The stretch from 2013-2017 had some of the best racing ever seen in endurance racing.

But the rules were just much better thought out. Porsche and Toyota used two hybrid systems working in tandem to recover as much energy as possible while Audi stuck with just the one system on the front wheels. This difference in execution created differences between car strengths and weaknesses on different parts of the track, which always improves racing. F1 can't do that because there's too many stakeholders and you always end up with a huge compromise that everyone will hate.

I will call it now, this ruleset will be gone by 2030. Just like the completely overhyped ground effect nonsense, nothing is going to fix the racing in F1 because nothing can.
Click to expand...
Front axle recuperation
Which the 2026 F1 cars explicitly don't have
That's the big problem
 
Analysts of top speeds during testing, with the heavy caveat of we don't know what map they had/how much they were pushing.

Screenshot_20260214_154520_Brave.jpg
 
Coccxys said:
Analysts of top speeds during testing, with the heavy caveat of we don't know what map they had/how much they were pushing.

View attachment 8560217
Click to expand...
The real test will be how this performance is drawn out when you consider the battery management during the race, but it's heartening to see Red Bull looking healthy and Cadillac performing at least not as bad as other teams, which is going to turn some heads when the racing starts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom