|
|
Post by Carl on Apr 14, 2019 0:04:03 GMT
I haven't watched qualifying but having seen the times etc it looks very much like Noah's Ark, is that indicative of a poor circuit somewhat like Barcelona which is very car dependant. Oh! for the days where a genius can make up for a poor car, or simply demonstrate his class come what may. Not an ideal scenario to celebrate the 1000th Formula One race. I hadn't considered the idea that the two by two qualifying reflects that the drivers can't make a difference. I was quite impressed that the times were so tight (between the drivers in each team) and that we're seeing the absolute performance of each car. I agree with both points, although they express essentially different racing worlds. Some who remember when the surpassingly dominant championship was for drivers dislike today's corporate control, which at times is seen as drivers come and go like synchronized swimmers and are controlled by computer algorithms. The role of the driver seems to count for less nowadays. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 4:43:16 GMT
I hadn't considered the idea that the two by two qualifying reflects that the drivers can't make a difference. I was quite impressed that the times were so tight (between the drivers in each team) and that we're seeing the absolute performance of each car. I agree with both points, although they express essentially different racing worlds. Some who remember when the surpassingly dominant championship was for drivers dislike today's corporate control, which at times is seen as drivers come and go like synchronized swimmers and are controlled by computer algorithms. The role of the driver seems to count for less nowadays. I can also understand both viewpoints. Though I think in the modern era, with all of the analytical capabilities available to the teams, and the money invested in the racing, I can understand why the Teams try to give the drivers as much help as possible to maximise their performance (or to put it another way to minimise the chances that the driver stuffs it up - and I'm looking at you Verstappen, Grosjean and Vettel) |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Apr 14, 2019 19:45:11 GMT
I agree with both points, although they express essentially different racing worlds. Some who remember when the surpassingly dominant championship was for drivers dislike today's corporate control, which at times is seen as drivers come and go like synchronized swimmers and are controlled by computer algorithms. The role of the driver seems to count for less nowadays. I can also understand both viewpoints. Though I think in the modern era, with all of the analytical capabilities available to the teams, and the money invested in the racing, I can understand why the Teams try to give the drivers as much help as possible to maximise their performance (or to put it another way to minimise the chances that the driver stuffs it up - and I'm looking at you Verstappen, Grosjean and Vettel) The triumph of engineering will be complete when the notion of drivers is considered as quaint as riding mechanics and the Adrian Neweys of the future waste expensive champagne on the podium and need help stepping down because their glasses are fogged.  Sic transit gloria mundi... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 20:01:43 GMT
Well F1000 was a bit of a snooze fest wasn't it?
Not really the best example of a 69 year heritage of Grand Prix motor racing, but probably representative of the current hybrid era.
Ferrari's practice pace wasn't there is the race (again) and it looks like their strategy lost them 3rd & 4th in return for 3rd & 5th.
We they right to switch Vettel and LeClerc when they did?
Vettel was seemingly easilly able to stay within the 1 sec DRS activation zone, whereas Le Clerc quickly dropped out of it.
But It's no real surprise that Vettel wasn't able to pull away from Le Clerc, there was next to no difference in the pace of the two drivers at that stage of the race.
If they hadn't switched, would the marginally lower pace, and fasater degradation of Vettel's tyres, have meant that Verstappen could undercut both Ferraris, and take 3rd? That looks like a possibility.
Did they need to leave Le Clerc out to hold up Verstappen after his tyre stop, and then for another couple of laps to give Vettel a tow up to Verstappen? Possibly not, but would that have gifted Verstappen 3rd? Possibly.
Should LeClerc have been able to use a faster car and newer tyres to haul in an attack Verstappen in the last 15 laps of the race.
You'd think so, but that didn't pan out.
Hummmmm, a pretty disappointing race from Ferrari, and no end in sight of Mercedes and Hamilton dominance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Apr 14, 2019 20:20:47 GMT
The Chinese Grand Prix was as dull as unsweetened tapioca pudding, fairly exciting until the first pit stops, after which the announcers began in desperation to speak of golf...
The perverse irony is that IndyCar at Long Beach, soon to begin, will predictably be more exciting... and dismissed by some as uninteresting. |
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Apr 15, 2019 4:28:39 GMT
The Chinese Grand Prix was as dull as unsweetened tapioca pudding, fairly exciting until the first pit stops, after which the announcers began in desperation to speak of golf...
The perverse irony is that IndyCar at Long Beach, soon to begin, will predictably be more exciting... and dismissed by some as uninteresting. I must admit that I, In many (quite many ...) cases, miss out watching the whole GP's; yet I watch the highlights without fail. Hence I may not really be qualified to make the comment I am about to make. But isn't there a major problem with the commentary? The highlight on the Official F1 page are commented by Sky Sports' David Croft (with Martin Brundle) and, as I understand it, this (Sky Sports) is what many here are watching. This commentator is, in my opinion, trying to "oversell" the sport, and trying to make it appear more action-filled that it actually is. This over-selling seems to backfire, making the racing appear more dull than it actually is. Engine sounds, down-shifts, any interesting little thing drowns completely in this loud (way to loud!) continuous "talk-stream" - it kill's the race-atmosphere completely. (The 5, 6 minutes the highlights last are more than enough ...) Click here for link to F1's official YouTube channel (direct link not allowed ...)One can compare with older races available on YouTube, for example this complete coverage of the 1973 British GP, commented by Raymond Baxter. It's a pleasure to listen to. This is, I think, how an F1 race should be commented. Comments, explanations, yes, but no to many and not too much. Make time to let the pictures speak for themselves! Click here for link to the full 1973 British GP (YouTube) |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Apr 15, 2019 7:09:22 GMT
I don't really enjoy anything about the Chinese GP, the track, the fog that always seems around nor the races. Like Charles, I think it was a travesty to celebrate the 1000 GP at this track. I found the whole event quite boring in fact and the celebrations rather muted and rather shallow. In fact the anticipation far outweighed the reality in every single aspect.
Mercedes are doing a wonderful job and both drivers are performing near the peak of their abilities as is the car. Once again it is proving too much for the rest at this stage.
Ferrari are very disappointing in comparison to pre-season testing. At the moment Vettel does not seem to have the edge he once had. Leclerc is very good but still has a way to go before he can push Hamilton consistently. I do like the way he is as competitive as Vettel so very quickly. Unless the Ferrari is already at the limit of it's ability, it shows that Riciardio and Gasly are not such superstars as they are taking a lot of time to compete with or even beat their teammates. Charles has done that from day nova.
I am enjoying the progress of both Albon and Norris. They both seem very pleasant and talented lads. It is also good to see Renault progressing upward. Kimi is driving the Alfa as fast as it will safely go but he is not taking chances anymore. His speed is still there. Giovannazi is quite frankly a disappointment. Ocon would be a much better fit and Ferrari should have tried to get him. I wonder who Ferrari are targeting to replace Vettel in the next 18 months.
Hopefully this season will be a repeat of 1973 when Lotus looked to dominate before Tyrrell and Stewart reestablished themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Apr 15, 2019 15:57:00 GMT
In fact the anticipation far outweighed the reality in every single aspect. Rob, I think this sums up perfectly the Chinese Grand Prix weekend. It was boring and grey and not worthy of a milestone like the 1000th GP. We're in for another Mercedes dominated year it seems..... sigh... it was hard on me to be honest.
The quality of the camera control and images was also very bad at times. I watched the Indycar race later that evening and they have helmet cams and rotating cameras on the cars that show passes in a spectacular way. Why can't F1 have that?
Ah well, maybe next race is better. 
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Apr 15, 2019 16:00:25 GMT
But isn't there a major problem with the commentary? Mikael, you may have a point but I am afraid that even the commentary of Raymond Baxter or the enthusiasm of Murray Walker could not have turned this race into something exciting. It was rubbish, really not a good race. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Apr 15, 2019 16:16:52 GMT
The Chinese Grand Prix was as dull as unsweetened tapioca pudding, fairly exciting until the first pit stops, after which the announcers began in desperation to speak of golf...
The perverse irony is that IndyCar at Long Beach, soon to begin, will predictably be more exciting... and dismissed by some as uninteresting. I must admit that I, In many (quite many ...) cases, miss out watching the whole GP's; yet I watch the highlights without fail. Hence I may not really be qualified to make the comment I am about to make. But isn't there a major problem with the commentary? The highlight on the Official F1 page are commented by Sky Sports' David Croft (with Martin Brundle) and, as I understand it, this (Sky Sports) is what many here are watching. This commentator is, in my opinion, trying to "oversell" the sport, and trying to make it appear more action-filled that it actually is. This over-selling seems to backfire, making the racing appear more dull than it actually is. Engine sounds, down-shifts, any interesting little thing drowns completely in this loud (way to loud!) continuous "talk-stream" - it kill's the race-atmosphere completely. (The 5, 6 minutes the highlights last are more than enough ...) Click here for link to F1's official YouTube channel (direct link not allowed ...)One can compare with older races available on YouTube, for example this complete coverage of the 1973 British GP, commented by Raymond Baxter. It's a pleasure to listen to. This is, I think, how an F1 race should be commented. Comments, explanations, yes, but no to many and not too much. Make time to let the pictures speak for themselves! Click here for link to the full 1973 British GP (YouTube)Absolutely right, Mikael. David Croft is a complete fool too stupid to know it and everyone suffers as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Apr 15, 2019 16:27:15 GMT
But isn't there a major problem with the commentary? Mikael, you may have a point but I am afraid that even the commentary of Raymond Baxter or the enthusiasm of Murray Walker could not have turned this race into something exciting. It was rubbish, really not a good race. Good commentators have an allegiance to the fans and would have said exactly that. |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Apr 15, 2019 17:26:18 GMT
OK guys I understand your feelings completely, but that was my point about "the animals went in two by two" after qualification, as it was a summary of the state of this depressing circuit, and the standard of F1 today. For my part that now makes only one out of three races watched this season, and as i mentioned previously I am indebted to Bernie Ecclestone for placing exclusively live transmissions in the Uk behind the S*Y F1 paywall. I was darned if I was going to rise early on a Sunday morning to watch this excuse of a F1 race meeting, and one that should have been a full on celebration of the sport after 1000 race meetings of Grand Prix. I now read the race reports online and that then determines whether or not I watch the UK C4 High(or is it Low)lights package in the afternoon, or evening. In this case the early reports said enough for me not too waste a valuable afternoon on the ranch, and I had the MotoGP live to look forward to in the evening, so my day was set. With MB and Lewis Hamilton's dominance for yet another year, and now live coverage set behind a paywall in nearly every major country F1's fate is surely set. I read some of the comments on the MS Forum earlier and one of the current most vociferous participants came out with his usual blithe response to someones comment of utter boredom, that it has always been thus. Well Einstein I can give you many a season that was not, and so can the rest of the RRT! Interestingly, and far more so than this excuse for a race meeting, Nico Rosberg has suggested the reason why Ferrari are coming up short. Nico says that the whole concept of the Ferrari car is wrong with its emphasis on straight-line speed and low drag. This avenue of design is simply not working as it means the car is seriously compromised in the turns, and they have to compensate by applying a bigger wing which in itself creates a huge drag problem. He also says another big issue is the design of the front wing endplate which has an effect on the downforce the car generates, or words to that effect. It strikes me that Ferrari have some very talented designers but they do not have the right guy in overall charge of that area, someone who can balance this talent with pragmatism. They do not have an Adrian Newey or James Allison (ex of Ferrari and doing a great job at MB). With regard to commentators, Ray Baxter was the best ever but his "bandits at 4 o'clock" WW11 fighter pilot style wouldn't fit in with the street level they so crave for today, more is the pity. As Carl so eloquently states, Croft is a gabbling fool who was quite sound as a radio commentator years ago but it did not transcend to TV. It seems as though this constant need to babble relentlessly is catching as the BTSport MotoGP lead Keith Heuwen is imbued with the same idiotic affliction. Unfortunately it is either him or that clown with the voice of an ill educated adolescent Steve Day, who I wouldn't let announce at the local primary school sports day. Right rant over, I now need a drink  . |
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Apr 15, 2019 18:08:09 GMT
René I have been watching the Netflix series on last years F1 season and some of the photography and camera angles are excellent and far exceed what I see on the live feed from Sky. So the photography is there we are just not receiving it.
I have also been following this year on You Tube and there are some quite good clips there, especially the one between Charles Leclerc and his engineer during the last few laps of Bahrain. It was really interesting and showed what a driver hasto do apart from driving at top speed. I don't use my cell whilst driving as I get distracted and don't drive well. Therefore my admiration for these guys has gone up. Maybe it would be more interesting just to get the radio feeds with the odd comment from Martin Brundle thrown in for enlightenment rather than listen to the babble from Croft.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Apr 16, 2019 5:03:23 GMT
I listened to the race on the radio, whilst getting on with other things, i do like the radio and the commentator - yet another excitable individual - was a bit more subdued this time and reading yours and MH's comments - quite understand why, I was trying not to mention previous races as it becomes to easy to compare but seeing the above comments I am going to bang on about a GP some 54 years ago- namely the French GP at the marvellous Clermont Ferrand circuit - where a certain driver disappeared off into the distance in yet another demonstration of brilliance, but behind him was racing of a magnificent magnitude with Lorenzo holding others at bay, a sick Graham trying to race and someone I associate more with Charles LeC - Jackie Stewart carving through the pack to his status of number 2, but China, well certainly not on my mind, didn't even bother with the C4 highlights and was I C4 I would be re-considering the deal with Murdoch's minions
sorry chaps but I enjoyed that- something I am patently not doing with F1, and was I a fan who subscribed especially for this on Murdochs dream boat - wow would I want my money back
Nigel Roebuck who seems to be writing again for Autosport has penned another sad lament on the plight of F1, bemoaning basically everything and most of which i would wholeheartedly concur with and I am reminded of the 1980's and 1990's saloon car racing when the manufacturers became involved and it became a money-fest and whilst very competitive for a time - it seemed to depend on who invested the most won the most, saloon car racing was destroyed by this as is F1 being destroyed by terrible circuits, apalling racing and lousy commentary-
Oh, the commentary, I don't listen to Murdoch's minions but did remember Croft with affection when on the radio, bit funny defintely quirky and definitely sold out to what his paymasters expect of him, even he on C4 who used to be great - but now- it is as if they are trying to make up for the dreadful show, by pretending to be enthused,
MotoGP commentators - I wonder if Steve Day has had his knuckles rapped as Mat Burke [whomI like a great deal more] seems to be taking more of a lead this year and the Marquez adulation seems slightly less than last year and the pretend enthusiasm also seems diminished, it is as if they realise they have a good package and don't need to pretend otherwise, the guy who is doing the Moto2+3 sounds like he should still be at school awaiting puberty but at least he seems to have some people around him that calm him down, but do I miss Raymond - who could get excitable but still was measured and only when appropriate- whereas our dear Murray who could brighten up any dull day would struggle with today's famine
|
|
.