|
|
Post by charleselan on Feb 9, 2019 9:47:20 GMT
Sorry to disappoint guys but there can only be one black & gold livery and that was Team Lotus from 1972 to 1986, period! Anything else is like a modern day TV Talent (more often than not, not) Show performer attempting a rendition of a great classic song from the past. It would also seem that energy drink producers are rapidly becoming the modern day cigarette sponsor way to go, maybe in twenty years from now we will see that they are equally bad for ones health  . |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Feb 9, 2019 10:44:37 GMT
Sorry to disappoint guys but there can only be one black & gold livery and that was Team Lotus from 1972 to 1986, period! Anything else is like a modern day TV Talent (more often than not, not) Show performer attempting a rendition of a great classic song from the past. It would also seem that energy drink producers are rapidly becoming the modern day cigarette sponsor way to go, maybe in twenty years from now we will see that they are equally bad for ones health . You’re quite right of course John, the JPS livery was, and is, a brilliantly simple and memorable scheme. But this new Haas colour scheme is far better than last years at least. And that’s an interesting point about the Energy drink business replacing the tabacco firms of the past...,,I hadn’t consciously noticed that but it’s absolutely true. There’s is no doubt there bad for you either..... to quote from The Inbetweeners: ‘just one of those drinks makes my s***s come out too fast’.... |
|
|
|
Post by René on Feb 9, 2019 11:40:45 GMT
Hi Jim, I enjoyed listening to the podcast so it was not a heavy task!  And yes, I do understand F1 cannot be changed overnight and I think not everything needs to be changed. F1 has never been about close racing. If you want to see that you should watch F3 or other one make series. F1 is all about engineering excellence and driving excellence. The best drivers in the fastest cars. And I do enjoy that, still do so we agree on that. I am just not convinced by the direction they are taking (again). The front wing is becoming even wider than it is which will not help in the looks department (also important) and will not be very handy on twisty circuits. The cars are already so big. I don’t agree with you that you need all this downforce to handle 1000bhp+. They handled it in the 80s and even in the early 70s in the CanAm. Having so much horsepower with less downforce lays more emphasis on the driver’s quality which can only be good. I also think the teams have grown too big, too many people trying to take every possible uncertainty and mistake away. I know you can’t take knowledge away but you could make it more difficult for teams to get everything right. The ’NASA style’ homebases of the teams are ridiculous and bring nothing to the actual racing. It only tries to minimize human error which sterilizes the sport. Less mechanics around the car for a pitstop would also be better. A 1.8 second pitstop is impressive but we’ve seen that trick by now. I think ‘less is more’ would be a good focus point for the rule makers. Small and elegant wings, only to stabilize the car, would be a good starting point. And bring back ground effect which is way less sensitive to ‘dirty air’ so would make following other cars ‘easier’. But hey, as I said, I have no technical education so I don’t have all the answers. I am just a passionate fan hoping for a healthy Formula One and some good racing! Cheers Rene, You make many good points. We do agree that F1 should be about excellence, in all aspects - but especially engineering and drivers (though I do harbour the view that if the Team and engineering are excellent, the driver is less important - Frank Williams famously supported that view). Your comment on the size of the cars is a great observation, it is true that the cars are becoming huge, and sadly relatively heavy. We'll have to see what the 2021 regulations allow, but I understand the reasons the reasons for pushing with wing out to the width of the front track. Its all part of the challenge of overcomming the basic flaw of F1 cars, leaving the front wheels exposed. Covering them would allow much simpler and effective aerodynamics, but the historic view that Formula cars must be 'Open wheelers' rules that obvious solution out of the discussions - a very blinkered view I think, but there you go. I think that there is lots of evidence that light weight, two wheel drive cars need aerodynamic load to use high power 'effectively'. The era of high powered Can-am cars, the F1 turbo era saw the most rapid development of wings and then ground effects as the designers struggled to get that power on the road. For me those periods of rapid technical development are the most exciting of all. In Can-am Chaparral went from no wings pre-66, to a movable wing, more fixed wings, and downforce bodywork 67 & 68, Ground effects in 69, then a fan car in 1970! Freaking genius that Jim Hall. I agree to a certain extent that the teams are too big, but think that is more that some teams are too big. And while I admire what Mercedes, and previously Red Bull have been able to achieve with their overwhelming technical resources. I agree that it doesn't make for an exciting competition at the front of F1. My hopes are that LM are successful in introducing an effective cost cap, and reallocation of the payments to Teams. Limiting and balancing out the resource available to the Teams should mean that its the smartest ideas that produce the best cars, rather than the biggest budget. Then provided that the technical regulations can also be opened up, we should get back to seeing a battle of ideas and innovation in a financially sustainable F1. Jim, we agree on many things. Certainly that Jim Hall was a freaking genius! He was a pioneer who designed many wonderful innovative cars. But calling the open front wheels of an F1 car a basic flaw is something I don’t agree with. Of course it is from an aerodynamic/engineering point of view but that is looking at it from the wrong perspective. F1 is an open wheel form of racing so that is the rule, deal with it. I am all for braking with traditions (the concept of traditions brings enough misery to this world) but in racing we have different categories and F1 happens to be open wheel. Has been since the beginning. Like football is 11 against 11 on a pitch with certain dimensions. I feel the problem is that the rules are written too much by the engineers while the engineers task should be to deal with the rules layed down by the governing body, the FIA. If the rules say that a car may be no longer than XX cm and no heavier than XX kg and the front and rear wing may have no more than three elements and have a maximum width of XX cm, than those are the rules. Build the best car within those rules. And those rules should be written in a way that the outcome produces a good looking car that can race. But the teams have too much influence and when you let the engineers write the rules, they are only thinking “I need a wide front wing to deal with the turbulances around the front wheels”. But the FIA should say: “no Mr. Engineer, you are not getting this wide wing. The wing must be no wider than the distance between the wheels, deal with it”. But they don’t and this is where it has gone wrong and why we have end up with the current type of cars. They are too big, too heavy and not really good looking which is all kinda weird for a Formula One car! |
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Feb 9, 2019 12:28:59 GMT
It would also seem that energy drink producers are rapidly becoming the modern day cigarette sponsor way to go, maybe in twenty years from now we will see that they are equally bad for ones health .
It's probably true, as many of them contain not only a good "shot" of caffeine but also of nicotine!
Still, in Japan, some "medicine-like" energy drinks have almost become an institution.
www.nytimes.com/2002/07/19/business/japanese-energy-drink-is-in-need-of-a-boost.html
 
Japan version U.S. version (not to scale ;-) )
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Feb 9, 2019 13:05:09 GMT
Sorry to disappoint guys but there can only be one black & gold livery and that was Team Lotus from 1972 to 1986, period! Anything else is like a modern day TV Talent (more often than not, not) Show performer attempting a rendition of a great classic song from the past. It would also seem that energy drink producers are rapidly becoming the modern day cigarette sponsor way to go, maybe in twenty years from now we will see that they are equally bad for ones health . You’re quite right of course John, the JPS livery was, and is, a brilliantly simple and memorable scheme. But this new Haas colour scheme is far better than last years at least. And that’s an interesting point about the Energy drink business replacing the tabacco firms of the past...,,I hadn’t consciously noticed that but it’s absolutely true. There’s is no doubt there bad for you either..... to quote from The Inbetweeners: ‘just one of those drinks makes my s***s come out too fast’.... Agreed Jamie. This years HAAS looks better than last season example, however I do feel that grey is one of those colours that doesn't get the credit it deserves. The "China Grey" Aston Martin's that ran at Bathurst last weekend gained quite a bit of praise, and rightly so as they looked superb. I am absolutely certain that the energy drink from any producer is bad for the consumer. It also amazes me that Coke, or the various replicant drinks, were allowed to continue to be made. Firstly with regard to the high sugar content which was proven to contribute to childhood tooth decay. Also what is in that terrible concoction that can clean a badly soiled/corroded coin in minutes, yet is deemed fit for the human stomach! |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Feb 9, 2019 13:07:28 GMT
It would also seem that energy drink producers are rapidly becoming the modern day cigarette sponsor way to go, maybe in twenty years from now we will see that they are equally bad for ones health .
It's probably true, as many of them contain not only a good "shot" of caffeine but also of nicotine!
Still, in Japan, some "medicine-like" energy drinks have almost become an institution.
www.nytimes.com/2002/07/19/business/japanese-energy-drink-is-in-need-of-a-boost.html
Japan version U.S. version (not to scale ;-) )
It is positively frightening to think that those "drinks" contain those substances Mikael. It just illustrates what wealth and power can get away with on the world wide market. |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Feb 9, 2019 13:29:16 GMT
The underlaying problem with the rules in F1, and some other big time categories, is the overpowering influence of the major manufacturers that are currently in the classes. Their self interest and greed will not allow the facile FIA to determine what the rules of a given formula will be.
As René mentions above the FIA should lay down the rules and the competitors should work within what has been directed, what other flaming top line sport has the competitor(s) laying down what the rules of engagement will be.
If, say, the governing body decide to drastically reduce aero in F1, then it is their obligation to implement similar restrictions in every other class, thereby enabling the status quo with regard to performance. F1 should always be the category that is the fastest and most spectacular, and by following these simple objectives that would be achieved.
Personally I cannot see how anyone would think that these truck like monstrosities we see in F1 currently are great racing cars; they are positively hideous an fly in the face of everything that a competition vehicle should resemble.
Time for the FIA to get tough and lay the law down, and if the big manufacturers don't like it then leave! One of the greatest periods for F1 was the 1970's and there wasn't a single major car maker present, until Renault came along that is. Ferrari could not be considered a major manufacturer in that decade, well not in my mind could they have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 9, 2019 17:08:03 GMT
Jim Hall was an unusually innovative engineer, but we forget that a large part of his genius derived from the engineering department of General Motors, officially proscribed from involvement in racing. The wonderful Chaparral wing technology arrived in Midland postmarked Detroit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 21:28:11 GMT
Jim, we agree on many things. Certainly that Jim Hall was a freaking genius! He was a pioneer who designed many wonderful innovative cars. But calling the open front wheels of an F1 car a basic flaw is something I don’t agree with. Of course it is from an aerodynamic/engineering point of view but that is looking at it from the wrong perspective. F1 is an open wheel form of racing so that is the rule, deal with it. I am all for braking with traditions (the concept of traditions brings enough misery to this world) but in racing we have different categories and F1 happens to be open wheel. Has been since the beginning. Like football is 11 against 11 on a pitch with certain dimensions. I feel the problem is that the rules are written too much by the engineers while the engineers task should be to deal with the rules layed down by the governing body, the FIA. If the rules say that a car may be no longer than XX cm and no heavier than XX kg and the front and rear wing may have no more than three elements and have a maximum width of XX cm, than those are the rules. Build the best car within those rules. And those rules should be written in a way that the outcome produces a good looking car that can race. But the teams have too much influence and when you let the engineers write the rules, they are only thinking “I need a wide front wing to deal with the turbulances around the front wheels”. But the FIA should say: “no Mr. Engineer, you are not getting this wide wing. The wing must be no wider than the distance between the wheels, deal with it”. But they don’t and this is where it has gone wrong and why we have end up with the current type of cars. They are too big, too heavy and not really good looking which is all kinda weird for a Formula One car! Cheers Rene, I think we are getting to the, 'lets agree to disagree stage', but being a pedantic b*gger, I feel compelled to respond to your points, sorry. As you concede yourself, from an aerodynamic point of view, Open wheels on fast cars is a flawed concept. 'Dealing with it' results in the aerodynamic add ons that people argue spoils the appearance of the cars. On the 'engineers' having too much influence over the rules. I'd argue that the reverse has been true. F1 has been subject to too many capricious and poorly considered rule changes from the FIA, and Bernie, in the past. These invariably result in unintended consequences, when the engineers 'deal with them' by interpreting the regs to gain maximum performance advantage. This then kicks off the next round of poorly considered knee-jerk responses. Look where that has got F1, and consider if the approach that the FIA have agreed to allow the LM technical group to follow, of developing regulations based on actual research and testing might not get at least a more predictable outcome. It may also result in more attractive cars, since that is one of Ross Brawn's stated aims. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 21:45:36 GMT
As René mentions above the FIA should lay down the rules and the competitors should work within what has been directed, what other flaming top line sport has the competitor(s) laying down what the rules of engagement will be. How about football? FIFA didn't create the concepts of the Premier League, and Champions League, those were developed by the competitors. There is massive conflict between the competitors (Clubs) and FIFA about the priority of these leagues over the FIFA lead international competitions. When there are such big sums of money as are involved in Football, and F1 all the parties with skin in the game will be wielding all the influence that they can - even fans in forums like this ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Feb 9, 2019 23:19:37 GMT
As René mentions above the FIA should lay down the rules and the competitors should work within what has been directed, what other flaming top line sport has the competitor(s) laying down what the rules of engagement will be. How about football? FIFA didn't create the concepts of the Premier League, and Champions League, those were developed by the competitors. There is massive conflict between the competitors (Clubs) and FIFA about the priority of these leagues over the FIFA lead international competitions. When there are such big sums of money as are involved in Football, and F1 all the parties with skin in the game will be wielding all the influence that they can - even fans in forums like this ;-) Ah! But! In feetball the rules of the game have not been changed by the teams; new categories are something entirely different in concept. Those who choose to kick a ball around may have the Premier League etc; motor sport has Formula E; all not quite the same thing as changing the rules to suit the teams. If these big spending Premier League teams said that they wished for the goals to be bigger so more goals could be scored, and then telling FIFA they would quit if not, that might be akin to F1 teams doing what they are doing now. I don't think there can be any doubt that the filthy rich dictate terms in every walk of life, and sport is no exception and the instigation of the Premier league and Champions League is not healthy for the sport as a whole. It may also be considered that the unlimited number of foreign players allowed to play for a club in any country is detrimental to the quality of players in National Teams, UK Teams being a major case in point. As you correctly say it is all down to money. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Feb 10, 2019 5:25:10 GMT
How about football? FIFA didn't create the concepts of the Premier League, and Champions League, those were developed by the competitors. There is massive conflict between the competitors (Clubs) and FIFA about the priority of these leagues over the FIFA lead international competitions. When there are such big sums of money as are involved in Football, and F1 all the parties with skin in the game will be wielding all the influence that they can - even fans in forums like this ;-) Ah! But! In feetball the rules of the game have not been changed by the teams; new categories are something entirely different in concept. Those who choose to kick a ball around may have the Premier League etc; motor sport has Formula E; all not quite the same thing as changing the rules to suit the teams. If these big spending Premier League teams said that they wished for the goals to be bigger so more goals could be scored, and then telling FIFA they would quit if not, that might be akin to F1 teams doing what they are doing now. I don't think there can be any doubt that the filthy rich dictate terms in every walk of life, and sport is no exception and the instigation of the Premier league and Champions League is not healthy for the sport as a whole. It may also be considered that the unlimited number of foreign players allowed to play for a club in any country is detrimental to the quality of players in National Teams, UK Teams being a major case in point. As you correctly say it is all down to money. Many perspectives are correct and sensible and sadly to no avail. The dismal truth is that the topmost members of many sport sanctioning bodies have self-enrichment as their main goal. Too many are underhanded clubs in which one hand washes the other and both come away dirty. In Formula One, the lesson provided by Ecclestone and Mosley, that money talks, ignores the dishonesty when it does. The structure is majestic and rotten at the same time, like ancient Rome, weakened to the point of collapse. There should be no room for massive corruption in sport, which will rejuvenate at honest levels when the swindlers are gone. If common ground and common sense continue to be ignored, amateur racing will save the sport.
John Charles: Your "feetball" is brilliant, both descriptive and disdainful... 
|
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Feb 10, 2019 8:24:36 GMT
Interesting to notice that the article in Motor Sport Magazine on Haas' 2019 F1 livery, posted on February 7th, hasn't brought about one single comment (as of February 10th).
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Feb 10, 2019 8:47:10 GMT
a lot of interesting subjects chaps, and some excellent points, we know the adage 'money talks' and it does, we also know that some people fear change for a variety of reasons, but should the FIA ever say - we are the rule-makers and therefore we decide, what would the reaction be? as John highlighted previously F1 was a whole lot more interesting when there were a limited or no Car manufacturers involved, maybe technically not as 'advanced' but racing wise a huge mile better, so should our little Frenchman ever find his steel again and say 'these are the rules' no negotiations no nothing, get on with it or leave - there would still be an F1 and Liberty may ring their bell but they would probably profit more from this approach, [more spectators]
it would be interesting from another perspective if Ms Todt did do this and the manufacturers threatened to walk away and form their own championship which series would get the greater following, simplified F1 with FIA or complex behemoths with the ringing bells,
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Feb 10, 2019 8:50:45 GMT
I saw that Mikael, wonder what that is about, I did also read some of the appalling comments from some others about a variety of topics, especially the Senna and Rossi bashing, I had hoped that their had been some seeds of improvement and less vitriol but sadly not - although there is a nice article of a great racer whose memory is well remembered, Cliff Alison, incidentally I did put a comment in MS and wonder what you chaps feel, had fate been otherwise would he have been the 1961 WDC?
|
|
.
