[Autumnpuma]

Michael Schumacher shaving the gap to Nico by two-tenths in a few laps was a harbinger of what's to come. We all expected the man to dominate the race were let down when he stayed right where he started all race. Boring on the face of it, but there was a story brewing there if you chose to watch it and it was exciting to see. It was clear all the drivers were unsure how hard they could push but some of them did push and show their speed. Nico wasn't cruising, he was going almost all-out. Mikey was going less than that. For those few, magical laps Mikey showed us what he is still capable of. This story makes me want to turn the page to Australia.

Alonso's masterful drive. Yes his car wasn't the class of the field, but he showed Massa just how he got two WDCs. Lewis made a comment in the pre-race about how tough a competitor Fernando is. He said that just when he'd go out and set a mega lap, Fernando would better it. Alonso is a sleeper..he's very Prost-like in approach and will only go as fast as needed. Getting the car home with maximum points and never, never quiting is what he taught Massa and it was very fun to watch. I especially liked the part where Alonso pushed a bit and showed us just what speed he has held in reserve while looking after the tyres. As with Nico, I get the feeling Massa was holding less speed in reserve than Alonso.

I like Button. I really do. But I think Lewis will have him this season and it was a blast to see him come to grips with the tyres and the car set-up better than Button did. There was always the expectation that one of the driver's would blink and just go balls-out near the end and I was eagerly waiting for Lewis to turn it up. That he never really did (nobody really did) only hit me after the race. During the race I was excited about seeing it. I think on how the race made me feel while watching it, not ruminating on it afterwards and the McLaren boys kept me interested.

Overtaking, but not for the lead. I have never understood people who complain about no overtaking and flatly ignore the many battles that go on mid-pack. A pass is a pass and I don't give a damn where in the pecking order it is.

Martin Brundle. Nuff said. Even Ledgard grows on you, like that odd but well-meaning uncle that comes around for the holidays. Before anyone grabs the pitchforks and heads for old Johnny's house, kindly remember how endearing Murray Walker is. If you can't remember, enjoy this page of Murray Walker quotes.

Lotus on track. Green and yellow. Yellow rims. Lotus insignia on the nose. DC touching that insignia in the pre-race. In the words of Maure, it made me smile. It still needs a yellow windscreen.

Vettel losing the plot after he found that his slutty sally or whatever he calls his car had just admitted to giving him the clap. Brundle pointed this out far better than I can here. I love getting a look inside the driver's heads while they ply their trade and the look I got into Vettel's will be an ongoing saga.

Speaking of driver's heads, is anyone not excited to see Mikey, after the race, looking at the other cars? I think he's realized that he does have something to prove after all, but he had to get his butt handed to him by Keke's son in order to figure that out.

[monza gorilla]

So you watched the same race as me, then. Lotus and Virgin were fun. But the tyres are still too durable.

[james]

Indeed.

[adamstrags]

Nice attempt - I respect the gritty determination in finding the positives.

monza gorilla, on 16 March 2010 - 09:00 AM, said:

But the tyres are still too durable.

Hello Monza. I'm not disagreeing per se, but I would disagree with where I think your thought process might lead...

This has surfaced in a few places - not least from Martin Whitmarsh too.
I don't disagree with the idea that the tyres are very durable, but what exactly is too durable? And if we want them less durable, will that solve our problems?

Firstly asking Bridgestone to effectively do a worse job (by making tyres that break up quicker) is kind of the antithesis of what they do.
It would be a bitter pill for them to swallow and opens up various other serious questions such as "why did they bother rooting out the best tyre manufacturer where we don't want the best tyres?" and going on from that "can there ever be multiple tyre suppliers again if they what their providing is artificially limited?" to which the answer is no.
It's a dangerous route to follow.

Second issue with attempting to get less durable tyres...
Would that make the drivers drive faster and change them more?
No, they would go even slower to conserve them.
What tactical change would occur?
None really. It might be that every team stops twice rather than once, but how exactly does that make things better?

Before anyone says 'we just want more difference between the compounds' - That would cause the same problems anyway, even if you're only talking about changing 1 compound.

It's okay to say the tyres are too durable for this format / this set of rules - I agree. But changing the tyre compounds isn't the answer - infact it would open a can of nasty worms. The issue is the set of rules under which those tyres are being used.

Just imagine - top class cars on Sh#tty tyres - what kind of Frankenstein's monster would that be?

[monza gorilla]

Obviously Bridgestone don't want to produce an inferior tyre. Bad for brand image. But a less durable tyre ain't necessarily an inferior tyre. I'm thinking soft and sticky. Loadsa grip 'til there isn't. Sort of a quali tyre of old but one that'll last 20 laps or so. And one compound only. No choice. For the whole year. Your car won't work with this tyre on this circuit? Tough. Better luck next time.

[adamstrags]

monza gorilla, on 16 March 2010 - 10:38 AM, said:

Obviously Bridgestone don't want to produce an inferior tyre. Bad for brand image. But a less durable tyre ain't necessarily an inferior tyre. I'm thinking soft and sticky. Loadsa grip 'til there isn't. Sort of a quali tyre of old but one that'll last 20 laps or so. And one compound only. No choice. For the whole year. Your car won't work with this tyre on this circuit? Tough. Better luck next time.

What you're describing sounds suspiciously like an inferior tyre to me

EDIT I honestly think we have to look at undoing some of the damage done by several years worth of rule chages rather than sticking on increasingly dodgy patches to a loophole-riddled book of rules.
The old adage about addressing the causes not the symptoms springs to mind.
The FIA keep chasing their tails but refuse to go back on any of their mistakes. They refuse to even aknowledge any mistakes. For now we're stuck in self propagating spiral of decline.
They need to go back to the fundamentals and build from there - I don't see it happening any time soon.
Todt at least may give them an oportunity to pin some blame on Max and get back to racing, but I'm not entirely convinced.

This post has been edited by adamstrags: 16 March 2010 - 11:23 AM

[Quiet One]

Mike

I agree 50% with you. I agre with you when you say that there was plenty of things to watch (I mentioned a few on my report) and that people moaned more than Trulli on an average race day. The famous video about the Villeneuve vs Arnoux duel has ruined many people's tastes, making them think that what they did was the usual approach. It was certainly more common than today. It is also certain that it usually ended in tears. And it wasn't even THAT common to see that kind of battles. Learning to enjoy F1 is not for anyone. It's like learning to enjoy classical music. You need to understand the nuances, not look for the big crashes and spectacular overtaking manoeuvres.

That said, it is also true that there were very little in terms of strategy, non-existant crashes and (for me) one spectacular pass (Nando over Massa), one thrilling battle (Kovy vs whathisname...I think it was Kobayashi). The fact that Schumi admitted that it was a boring race, that Nando said that so far he thinks that Q3 and the first corner are the only places for making an actual difference and afterwards is just luck, point to a rather dull race, nuances or not.

One thing I WOULD propose if I could is multiple views, or getting really serious about finding a competent TV director for races. The amount of good stuff we are probably missing is tragical. Mostly when you find after the season is over that there are on board cameras for many cars showing many interesting things we never got to see, or lots of battles we missed. I think that could be done even today somehow and it is an area where F1 is sorely lacking.

My thoughts on different drivers I will give you maybe some other time.

[Quiet One]

monza gorilla, on 16 March 2010 - 09:00 AM, said:

So you watched the same race as me, then. Lotus and Virgin were fun. But the tyres are still too durable.

Sorry, but I disagree. I am with Adam on this one. There's an increasingly pressure to have Bridgestone manufacture worse tires. If that is the way to improve the show, we could just take the easy path and just bring back worse drivers. Suddenly Piquet Jr sounds like a good option!

I say let them make the best, more durable and most fitting tire for the race (which will also be then useful for better tires outside F1). If a single set of tires can last the whole race, then welcome. Just don't try to artificially make everything look worse and you will have competition at a higher level. Don't force any pitstops. Don't force a set number of engines. Have minimal rules. Let them bring 100 engines until they all go bankrupt, and learn to find a reasonable level. Let them choose whatever strategy they want, with whatever strange car they want to bring to the track. Let them make diffusers, to difficult other cars get close to theirs, and force other teams to find extra power, or some ingenuous way to find downforce and cooling engines while under dirty air. In short, let the ****ing teams think by themselves. Just limit the weight, dimensions and number of cylinders or something as minimalist like that. A few safety regulations to avoid the worst and that's all (OT: nobody cried too much about the criminal smoke coming from the RBR, despite being VERY dangerous...last year that would have called for a public bonfire...funny...)

Oh, well...

[adamstrags]

Quiet One, on 16 March 2010 - 12:17 PM, said:

Sorry, but I disagree. I am with Adam on this one.

I've changed my mind.

[Quiet One]

adamstrags, on 16 March 2010 - 12:36 PM, said:

I've changed my mind.

Ok, then I changed my mind, as well.

[Argento Reloaded]

Oh Noooo! DC had touched the Lotus insignia! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Lotus is dead. Again. Bad luck will follow. DC had passed hit.
For me the race was as boring or exciting as the average race of the last decade. Is too early to grab conclusions. Let´s wait until Monaco or Turkey. The fact that all the first 4 races are in new tracks doesn´t add much more fun.
nevertheless i think the battles between teammates and team will keep the season very interesting! It´s a pity the WDC fight is close: Nando Will win his 3rd. WC!!!

[adamstrags]

Quiet One, on 16 March 2010 - 12:49 PM, said:

Ok, then I changed my mind, as well.

god damn it

[monza gorilla]

adamstrags, on 16 March 2010 - 11:13 AM, said:

What you're describing sounds suspiciously like an inferior tyre to me

EDIT I honestly think we have to look at undoing some of the damage done by several years worth of rule chages rather than sticking on increasingly dodgy patches to a loophole-riddled book of rules.
The old adage about addressing the causes not the symptoms springs to mind.
The FIA keep chasing their tails but refuse to go back on any of their mistakes. They refuse to even aknowledge any mistakes. For now we're stuck in self propagating spiral of decline.
They need to go back to the fundamentals and build from there - I don't see it happening any time soon.
Todt at least may give them an oportunity to pin some blame on Max and get back to racing, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Firstly, the tyre thing. My own car has terrific grip and goes round the twisty bits very nicely. The tyres are all used up and raggedy looking rather quickly compared to my neighbour's econobox, which will do a zillion miles on it's original boots but falls over at the first bend you come to. Which tyre is superior? Depends what you want from a tyre. I'll take my stickies thanks. I'm happy with the relatively short lifespan/high grip trade off.
Secondly, I agree that a clean sheet, fresh start is needed to undo all the accumulated damage done, but that will take time to formulate. Until then, unfortunately, we need patches. So, super stickies all round then.

I refuse to change my mind.

This post has been edited by monza gorilla: 16 March 2010 - 01:32 PM

[Quiet One]

monza gorilla, on 16 March 2010 - 01:32 PM, said:

Firstly, the tyre thing. My own car has terrific grip and goes round the twisty bits very nicely. The tyres are all used up and raggedy looking rather quickly compared to my neighbour's econobox, which will do a zillion miles on it's original boots but falls over at the first bend you come to. Which tyre is superior? Depends what you want from a tyre. I'll take my stickies thanks. I'm happy with the relatively short lifespan/high grip trade off.
Secondly, I agree that a clean sheet, fresh start is needed to undo all the accumulated damage done, but that will take time to formulate. Until then, unfortunately, we need patches. So, super stickies all round then.

I refuse to change my mind.

You should at least change your underwear. No, seriously.

EDIT: What a lame joke for my 7,500th post!

This post has been edited by Quiet One: 16 March 2010 - 01:44 PM

[monza gorilla]

Quiet One, on 16 March 2010 - 12:17 PM, said:

Sorry, but I disagree. I am with Adam on this one. There's an increasingly pressure to have Bridgestone manufacture worse tires. Not worse. Different.

I say let them make the best, more durable and most fitting tire for the race (which will also be then useful for better tires outside F1).By doing that you just remove an element of the competition.

Happy 7,500!

[cavallino]

Autumnpuma, on 16 March 2010 - 07:20 AM, said:

he had to get his butt handed to him by Keke's son in order to figure that out.

Hardly. Might be news to some but Schumacher's teammates did sometimes finish ahead of him. Noone's ever beaten him over a whole season though.

[AleHop]

adamstrags, on 16 March 2010 - 12:36 PM, said:

I've changed my mind.

Quiet One, on 16 March 2010 - 12:49 PM, said:

Ok, then I changed my mind, as well.

You swapped it?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

cavallino, on 16 March 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

Hardly. Might be news to some but Schumacher's teammates did sometimes finish ahead of him. Noone's ever beaten him over a whole season though.

....yet

[Autumnpuma]

cavallino, on 16 March 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

Hardly. Might be news to some but Schumacher's teammates did sometimes finish ahead of him. Noone's ever beaten him over a whole season though.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Nico beat Mikey in every regard over the course of the Bahrain weekend and the truth of that showed quite clearly on Mikey's face in the few interviews he spoke at.

But you're right about nobody ever beating him over a whole season, but that wasn't ever my point. My point was that he was so soundly beaten by Keke's son that the warmth of overconfidence was replaced by the fire of competition. Wasn't it fascinating to watch him go from confident to unsure to disgusted to realizing he'll need to up his game? None of that was an overtake on the track, but it's one dimension that I loved about Bahrain. That was my point.

On the tyre issue, stickier would be better, but I think the drivers were holding back, too. As the season progresses they'll start realizing that they need the points and they'll start pushing more.

This post has been edited by Autumnpuma: 16 March 2010 - 06:37 PM

[Jean Todt]

james, on 16 March 2010 - 09:14 AM, said:

Indeed.

James...its James James...

Welcome back...

[Max Mosley]

monza gorilla, on 16 March 2010 - 10:38 AM, said:

Obviously Bridgestone don't want to produce an inferior tyre. Bad for brand image. But a less durable tyre ain't necessarily an inferior tyre. I'm thinking soft and sticky.

I agree. Softer and stickier is definitely not necessarily a worse tyre. It's just different in the sense of being faster but less durable and anyone who disagrees can go change Monza's y-fronts.

Methinks the real issue is hidden at the start of your typically concise post. Bridgestone will rather produce a tyre that Messers Strags and Shiny agree is 'better' than one that they think is 'inferior'. Although it is not an issue of being better, as you rightly point out, people will say bad things about Bridgestone if it appears to be inferior. No one notices if a tyre is durable but slow, whereas everyone notices when a fast tyre fails. It's typical F1 imho. Everyone is disincentivised to produce a good show and then everyone wonders why we don't end up with one.

adamstrags, on 16 March 2010 - 11:13 AM, said:

What you're describing sounds suspiciously like an inferior tyre to me

EDIT I honestly think we have to look at undoing some of the damage done by several years worth of rule chages rather than sticking on increasingly dodgy patches to a loophole-riddled book of rules.
The old adage about addressing the causes not the symptoms springs to mind.
The FIA keep chasing their tails but refuse to go back on any of their mistakes. They refuse to even aknowledge any mistakes. For now we're stuck in self propagating spiral of decline.
They need to go back to the fundamentals and build from there - I don't see it happening any time soon.
Todt at least may give them an oportunity to pin some blame on Max and get back to racing, but I'm not entirely convinced.

I disagree. I think, and I don't know if I've ever said this, but it seems to me as if some of these bad ideas were opposed by the FIA and Max Mosley but forced upon them by the teams. Not only that but one minute fans accuse Max Mosley of changing his mind and the rules too much, the next minute they change their mind and accuse him of never going back on any of his mistakes.

Quiet One, on 16 March 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

One thing I WOULD propose if I could is multiple views, or getting really serious about finding a competent TV director for races. The amount of good stuff we are probably missing is tragical. Mostly when you find after the season is over that there are on board cameras for many cars showing many interesting things we never got to see, or lots of battles we missed. I think that could be done even today somehow and it is an area where F1 is sorely lacking.

Andres

I agree 61.2% with you. You are correct that we never see all the good stuff happening at the back. Except when we do see it, of course - and I thought the director did a good job of showing us some action from Virgin and Lotus (and I'm sure you forgive them for not showing much of Karun, bless him). Perhaps I'm being unfair to you because it might have been that those teams were so hopeless that there was a ton of passing and mistakes that we mainly missed. I dunno. But we at least got to see some good battles at the back I thought. That said, perhaps it was such a boring race that they were forced to make the most of what they had.

This post has been edited by Max Mosley: 16 March 2010 - 08:27 PM

[JHS]

Autumnpuma, on 16 March 2010 - 07:20 AM, said:

Overtaking, but not for the lead. I have never understood people who complain about no overtaking and flatly ignore the many battles that go on mid-pack. A pass is a pass and I don't give a damn where in the pecking order it is.

Thank you! Same here. There were some great battles lower down the order that everybody seems to have missed being so "OMG, HOW BORING!". Overtaking is overtaking, however it comes.

[Redout]

I see the fuss over the tires and I agree that softer, stickier, less durable tires are probably a better way to go. Quite honestly, the closest that F1 technology has gotten to being included on your cousin's hot hatch was when Honda let the S2000 rev up to 9000 rpm before needing to shift, or possibly when some random hot hatch got a sequential manual transmission. Thus, I reckon that F1 "needing" more durable tires "for the advancement of tire technology" is rather silly. Motor oil? Yeah. Fuels? Maybe. But tires? No. Whole different box of crackers if you ask me.

So basically I reckon the F1 needs grippier tires at the expense of durability. It's not a bunch of gerbils running around a maze—it's a competition!

[AleHop]

Redout, on 16 March 2010 - 09:30 PM, said:

I see the fuss over the tires and I agree that softer, stickier, less durable tires are probably a better way to go. Quite honestly, the closest that F1 technology has gotten to being included on your cousin's hot hatch was when Honda let the S2000 rev up to 9000 rpm before needing to shift, or possibly when some random hot hatch got a sequential manual transmission. Thus, I reckon that F1 "needing" more durable tires "for the advancement of tire technology" is rather silly. Motor oil? Yeah. Fuels? Maybe. But tires? No. Whole different box of crackers if you ask me.

So basically I reckon the F1 needs grippier tires at the expense of durability. It's not a bunch of gerbils running around a maze—it's a competition!

Great post.

Welcome to the forums.

[Max Mosley]

Yeah welcome, Mr Redout. I also doubt very much that Bridgestone do much research into F1 tyres. I was a gap year student in Shell's R&D lab in the UK, where they make the fuels and lubricants for Ferrari's F1 team. Of course, we got to see all the latest adverts they made where some big cheese from the marketing department would stand next to Michael Schumacher and say how wonderful the Ferrari-Shell partnership was and how we all benefit from it. But the truth was that they did virtually no research on lubricants and the fuels research was done by a friend of mine straight out of high school who wrote a little Excel macro one day... Mostly they had a baseline high performance fuel and lubricant that the technician just tweaked a little by feel for each race based on their experience with road cars. Most of the scientists thought the whole partnership a waste of time and I frequently saw them argue about it with the marketing people. They used to give us bonuses when Ferrari won just to generate some interest amongst the scientists they employed!

[The Professor]

Hmm, I saw those things too, despite the fact I was futilely looking for a pass (in a race, silly me!).

As you know enjoyment is subjective, I saw all of the things you mentioned and I agree that they are good, interesting things. But that doesn't mean F1 is in a good state; it should have all of those elements plus some actual racing. It is a racing series, after all. You know, I love all the human interest stories but I can read the news if I am looking for that, and if I want strategy I can play a game of chess. F1 is the place where I want to find racing, of the wheel to wheel sort, the best kind of racing with some of the best drivers in some of the best cars. Everything else should be secondary, as far as I am concerned. F1 isn't really doing that at the moment imo. So I think some of criticisms following the race, although potentially premature, are fair enough. Again, this is mostly subjective.

As for harbingers, Schumacher pointed out that passing was "almost impossible" in the current environment (iirc). I'll wait and see though.

If it is the case that the regs have killed the racing (more so than last season), I agree with whoever said that F1 needs to start clean, and not keep adding on regulations as if patching it up.

[Autumnpuma]

Max Mosley, on 16 March 2010 - 08:25 PM, said:

Bridgestone will rather produce a tyre that Messers Strags and Shiny agree is 'better' than one that they think is 'inferior'.

You're thinking the FIA and the teams are omniscient. They're not. Like everyone else, Bridgstone didn't know what to expect with the new sized fronts, the heat of Bahrain and the heavier cars and with virtually no testing data, they guessed. Even if they guessed right, the drivers were too skittish in this first race to push Bridgstone's creations. I think they made the tyres too hard, but they may not have. The driver's caution may have skewed our perceptions of the tyre.

Tyre manufacturers know full well that they will be the first one's blamed and they do try to get the compounds right (by right I mean as sticky as possible). I'm surprised Bridgstone did so well, actually.

[Jean Todt]

Interesting points by Mike, as usual he tends to put things in a different perspective, but as usual, I may not agree with everything..

Its only the pit crew and few fans who really really notice such things in detail...for example if I brought a ticket for the previous race, the only chance I could have managed to stay awake is if brought the ticket to the seat near the main straight , because the sound of the engine snoring past you within half its rev limit could have kept me awake. I wont have a chance to observe the way you did while watching it on TV, atleast if the positions kept changing things would have kept me interested.

Newey made an interesting comment about Vettel's performance, he said that Vettel manged to hold on to his fourth by showing incredible speeds in corners. He kinda balanced it out as much as he can. Really impressive stuff...But did any of us know this during the race? Nope.....not even the commentators would have noticed it......There actually many interesting things happening during most of the so called boring races...its just that 99% of the fans can't just notice...we need fights, the crowds always love fights.. A crowd will never love a fight where the fighters are using just half their strength to trash their opponents so that they could preserve their strength till the end of the fight which could be hours away from the first blow.....

But then..lets wait, its only one race that has gone by....I am sure if we continue to have atleast two more races similar to Bahrain, they will make some big changes..in the end of the day its us they are all striving to satisfy.... (not to mention, 'their pockets)

This post has been edited by Jean Todt: 17 March 2010 - 12:00 AM

[Jean Todt]

I still havn't read through every post in this thread yet...

Man, Its getting tough to catch up with you guys...

[Autumnpuma]

Nivola, on 16 March 2010 - 11:42 PM, said:

Hmm, I saw those things too, despite the fact I was futilely looking for a pass (in a race, silly me!).

As you know enjoyment is subjective, I saw all of the things you mentioned and I agree that they are good, interesting things. But that doesn't mean F1 is in a good state; it should have all of those elements plus some actual racing. It is a racing series, after all. You know, I love all the human interest stories but I can read the news if I am looking for that, and if I want strategy I can play a game of chess. F1 is the place where I want to find racing, of the wheel to wheel sort, the best kind of racing with some of the best drivers in some of the best cars. Everything else should be secondary, as far as I am concerned. F1 isn't really doing that at the moment imo. So I think some of criticisms following the race, although potentially premature, are fair enough. Again, this is mostly subjective.

As for harbingers, Schumacher pointed out that passing was "almost impossible" in the current environment (iirc). I'll wait and see though.

If it is the case that the regs have killed the racing (more so than last season), I agree with whoever said that F1 needs to start clean, and not keep adding on regulations as if patching it up.

I can't really argue with that, but I'm still left with the firm conviction that the race, rules and tyres aren't as bad as everyone is making out. One thing I will dispute, every single time, is the statement about passing being almost impossible. All that says is that the driver quoted couldn't manage to pass anyone. There were plenty of passes in the race.

Racing is made up of people and understanding what makes them tick adds depth and perspective to a race weekend. Everything I mentioned here will play a part as the season progresses and is just as important in the formation of a WDC as anything happening on-track. In fact, much of it is the genesis of what we see on-track.