[pumpdoc]

Never thought I'd say this but today's Indy race in Sao Paulo easily trumped today race in Bahrain. There was "nuts to butts" racing the whole race, passing and a great pass for the lead and win with just 3 laps remaining, 2 wide side by side dicing for position, isn't that's what is supposed to happen in the "pinnacle" of motor-sports premiere series? Sad very sad.....................I forgot to add that all the high hopes I had for the new F-! season were pretty much dashed in the very first race in that desert, why o why?

[AleHop]

You're so right it hurts, Bruce.

Boring, boring, boring.

[DOF_power]

pumpdoc, on 14 March 2010 - 07:15 PM, said:

Never thought I'd say this but today's Indy race in Sao Paulo easily trumped today race in Bahrain. There was "nuts to butts" racing the whole race, passing and a great pass for the lead and win with just 3 laps remaining, 2 wide side by side dicing for position, isn't that's what is supposed to happen in the "pinnacle" of motor-sports premiere series? Sad very sad.....................I forgot to add that all the high hopes I had for the new F-! season were pretty much dashed in the very first race in that desert, why o why?

Poor aero package, poor engine and tire rules, no refueling.
Even in the last days of the no-refueling era, F1 was pretty dull compared to CART witch did have refueling.

This post has been edited by DOF_power: 14 March 2010 - 08:45 PM

[Schumikonen]

Man I didn't know that race was today I completely missed it.

[5P33D3V1L]

God, the FIA have actually killed a potentially classic season with pointless rule changes. Looks like we're going to see first lap action then cruise to the finish racing another 18 times this season. Rubbish!

[adamstrags]

To all those people who insisted that the refueling ban would lead to better racing and more overtaking etc etc etc, I'd love to say "I told you so!"







But I won't, because that would be juvenile and crass.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

adamstrags, on 15 March 2010 - 12:51 AM, said:

But I won't, because that would make me a twat-face be juvenile and crass.

Corrected back to original

Refuelling in itself does not make racing that exciting and can lead to its own anti-climax. Its the whole combination of car, tyres, rules, circuits that "make Jack a dull boy"....

[Quiet One]

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, on 15 March 2010 - 05:32 PM, said:

Corrected back to original

Refuelling in itself does not make racing that exciting and can lead to its own anti-climax. Its the whole combination of car, tyres, rules, circuits that "make Jack a dull boy"....

Yup. Let them run wild and free.

[JHS]

Huh? What? *Looks*

Oh. Spec series. Cool. 10 year old cars. Nice.

Snore.

I'll take a boring F1 race over an exciting SPEC SERIES race anyday of the week, tah.

This post has been edited by JHS: 15 March 2010 - 08:45 PM

[adamstrags]

Gertrude the Hockeyplayer, on 15 March 2010 - 05:32 PM, said:

Corrected back to original

Gimpboy the Hookersucker, on 15 March 2010 - 05:32 PM, said:

Refuelling in itself does not make racing that exciting and can lead to its own anti-climax. Its the whole combination of car, tyres, rules, circuits that "make Jack a dull boy"....

No it doesn't, but banning it is one more restrictive rule on top of many that are making the sport increasingly dull and predictable. The restrictions on tyres, cars and circuits are further nails in the coffin.
The nice thing about refueling is that the strategies become far more diverse - thus providing the potential for quick thinking to affect the result.
We didn't see any of that - the team strategists must be bored as ****.
As I've said many times before - they also need to make the rules about cars and tyres less restrictive too.
Remember my list of rules:
- Maximum dimensions
- Standard Fuel
- Minimum Safety Standards
Let the laws of physics set the limits.

Yours
TF1

[DOF_power]

adamstrags, on 15 March 2010 - 11:28 PM, said:

No it doesn't, but banning it is one more restrictive rule on top of many that are making the sport increasingly dull and predictable. The restrictions on tyres, cars and circuits are further nails in the coffin.
The nice thing about refueling is that the strategies become far more diverse - thus providing the potential for quick thinking to affect the result.
We didn't see any of that - the team strategists must be bored as ****.
As I've said many times before - they also need to make the rules about cars and tyres less restrictive too.
Remember my list of rules:
- Maximum dimensions
- Standard Fuel
- Minimum Safety Standards
Let the laws of physics set the limits.

Yours
TF1

Wake sensitivity and turbulence "safety" rules. Meaning is a car/aero part is too sensitive and/or cause excessive dirty air it will not allowed.

[adamstrags]

DOF_power, on 18 March 2010 - 10:34 PM, said:

Wake sensitivity and turbulence "safety" rules. Meaning is a car/aero part is too sensitive and/or cause excessive dirty air it will not allowed.

When I talk about minimum safety regs I'm only including wheel tethers, monoc#ck design and a few other things.

Why am I not bothered about aero?

You are indeed right that aero has become a big problem. Turbulance as a direct result of aero design limits passing under the current rules.
But I believe that situation has only arisen because of all electronics, tyre and engine restrictions. This has created an imbalance in the improtance of aero design.
If you allow freedom of design in all areas, then the importance of aero (and its resulting effects on passing) will diminish for 2 reasons....
1) Give them the freedom to make engines with a lot of grunt and electronics and tyres that help them stick to the road even when following another car and passing will increase.
2) Also - the use of aero will decrease since it won't be the only way of increasing grip and excesive aero will lead to loss of speed.

I don't think we need to replace one set of restrictions (on engines, tyres and electronics) with another set (on aero).
I think if we let the laws of physics decide, there will be a natural balance in the use of both - no design element will be artificially more important - that will give us the racing we want.
It will also open up the opportunity for different designers to find their own balance between different elements and we'll get different cars that are all doing a lap around the same time, but some will be faster on straights, some faster in the tight corners, some will be heavier but have bigger engines, some will be lighter with faster acceleration, some will rely more on mechanical grip, others on aero - if we get that, we get more exciting racing, plenty of passing and different winners at different tracks.

EDIT typos

This post has been edited by adamstrags: 19 March 2010 - 01:32 AM

[Autumnpuma]

What about lowering the front wing back to where it was a few years back?