TBK-Light.com
https://www.tbk-light.com/phpBB3/

2013 Random F1 Discussion
https://www.tbk-light.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=7968		 Page 291 of 335
Author:  cookie [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
phil1993 wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
Give me 22 1 car teams compared to 12 teams telling their drivers not to race, any day.


Wasn't that basically A1GP?

That worked well.



Not really, most teams ran 2 or 3 nations cars. We never saw team orders, but it would have been possible.
Author:  phil1993 [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
codename_47 wrote:
When they say Merger do they mean a relationship the same way Red Bull (the parent company) owns Torro Rosso or...just Lotus/Williams absorbing the entire team and it's equipment, Champcar/Indycar "merger" style?


No, a proper merger. Williams/Marussia becomes one team.

Oh, and my bad, forgot that about A1GP!
Author:  kals [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
Yes but A1GP was 22 almost identically produced cars. That's not F1.
Author:  codename_47 [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
phil1993 wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
When they say Merger do they mean a relationship the same way Red Bull (the parent company) owns Torro Rosso or...just Lotus/Williams absorbing the entire team and it's equipment, Champcar/Indycar "merger" style?


No, a proper merger. Williams/Marussia becomes one team.

Oh, and my bad, forgot that about A1GP!


With 4 cars? Williams and Williams light?
Author:  James B [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
kals wrote:
The idea that a driver will simply come up behind a competitor and easily move past is totally false. If that were indeed true then races would be a total lottery.

I wouldn't necessarily say it would be a lottery. If overtaking was easy, all you'd get is all the cars ordered from fastest to slowest - and if taken to its conclusion, theoretically you'd end up with no overtaking, because no car would be fast enough to overtake another. If we had no refuelling and no tyre changes, this is essentially what would happen (apart from differing performance at different stages of the race). That's why you need some kind of strategy in F1 - otherwise it would just become a form of endurance racing, which is what F1 basically used to be until they added refuelling in 94

My favourite seasons out of the ones I've watched were 1997 and 2008. Not every race in those two seasons was exciting, and there wasn't an awful lot of overtaking either, but both had great title battles and many sub-plots behind that. They were also both the final seasons of their particular rules packages - 1998 and 2009 both saw new types of car designed to create more overtaking. Neither worked. It just goes to show that it's the circumstances that make a season exciting, not the rules

We can scrutinise too much. Sometimes motor racing is exciting just because it is - a perfect storm. You don't necessarily need a gadget like DRS to make things interesting
Author:  phil1993 [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
codename_47 wrote:
phil1993 wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
When they say Merger do they mean a relationship the same way Red Bull (the parent company) owns Torro Rosso or...just Lotus/Williams absorbing the entire team and it's equipment, Champcar/Indycar "merger" style?


No, a proper merger. Williams/Marussia becomes one team.

Oh, and my bad, forgot that about A1GP!


With 4 cars? Williams and Williams light?


No, 3 cars. 8 teams of 3 cars is what Rencken reckons is happening.
Author:  kals [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
James B wrote:
kals wrote:
The idea that a driver will simply come up behind a competitor and easily move past is totally false. If that were indeed true then races would be a total lottery.

I wouldn't necessarily say it would be a lottery. If overtaking was easy, all you'd get is all the cars ordered from fastest to slowest - and if taken to its conclusion, theoretically you'd end up with no overtaking, because no car would be fast enough to overtake another. If we had no refuelling and no tyre changes, this is essentially what would happen (apart from differing performance at different stages of the race). That's why you need some kind of strategy in F1 - otherwise it would just become a form of endurance racing, which is what F1 basically used to be until they added refuelling in 94

My favourite seasons out of the ones I've watched were 1997 and 2008. Not every race in those two seasons was exciting, and there wasn't an awful lot of overtaking either, but both had great title battles and many sub-plots behind that. They were also both the final seasons of their particular rules packages - 1998 and 2009 both saw new types of car designed to create more overtaking. Neither worked. It just goes to show that it's the circumstances that make a season exciting, not the rules

We can scrutinise too much. Sometimes motor racing is exciting just because it is - a perfect storm. You don't necessarily need a gadget like DRS to make things interesting


I get what you say but I still disagree. Strategy tended to be one-dimensional during the refueling era. Overtaking on track was a rarity. Some races / season were a change from the norm (2008 for instance), but even in 2003 and 2005 (what are regarded as fine seasons) there was still a lack of on-track action.

What is needed are variables. People obsess about DRS but in fact DRS is one of three components that work very well together... DRS, KERS and Pirelli. Those are variables.
Author:  phil1993 [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
The best variable is when teams build cars that are similar in pace. In 2003, you had Williams, McLaren and Ferrari with fairly equal cars, with Renault also in the mix.

You can have the same regulations in two seasons, but in one you might have one team with a much better car. Is 2012 and 2013 really that different in terms of regulations? Not really - Red Bull just nailed it. Vettel made no errors.
Author:  aerogi [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
codename_47 wrote:
I can't believe the nostalgia for 2004. It was a terrible season.



i'm with you on this. If I would have to pick one season as being the worst since I am watching F1 in 1986, this is the one to pick!
Author:  kals [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
phil1993 wrote:
The best variable is when teams build cars that are similar in pace.


I couldn't disagreeing more. How is building cars with almost exactly the same pace seen as a variable? That may generate some different winners, but when you have cars on similar to identical pace then they cannot and will not pass.
Author:  phil1993 [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
kals wrote:
phil1993 wrote:
The best variable is when teams build cars that are similar in pace.


I couldn't disagreeing more. How is building cars with almost exactly the same pace seen as a variable? That may generate some different winners, but when you have cars on similar to identical pace then they cannot and will not pass.


Oh sorry, I meant for a championship battle. Recently the passing problem is because cars have such good brakes that out-braking a rival is trickier + I agree the cars are so close that it makes it difficult if your nearest [team] rival is only 0.2s/lap slower than you.
Author:  BrainPain [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
I don't understand the merge rumour at all. What is the gain for Williams and Lotus if they buy the bottom end teams?
Author:  micha [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
phil1993 wrote:

No, 3 cars. 8 teams of 3 cars is what Rencken reckons is happening.



And no room at all for a 9th team in the foreseeable future. And that 9th team probably would have to run 3 cars as well then if allowed in thus raising the bar even more.
On the other hand, if one team falls, we loose 3 cars. Let alone if 2 teams fall. What then? 4 car teams? Or if one team utterly dominates the rest the podium will be extremely boring.

I really don't see anything wrong with customer cars. It was fine in the 50's, 60's and 70's. I cannot believe Frank Williams voted against it years back. His team wouldn't be here if it wasn't for customer cars back then.

If Bernie would stop hogging most of the money and gave a bigger share to the people who generate it (teams and tracks) things would look better financially for them.
And stop with the old fashion idea of having 2 cars looking the same. Sell sponsorship per car. Who cares if they look different within the team.
The real fans will recognize it and the casual viewer couldn't care less.
It even could potentially put a stop to team orders to a certain degree. The bigger sponsors wouldn't want their driver/car to move over to let his teammate pass. They pay good money to be on that car. In the current situation they don't care. Either car 1 or car 2 wins, both sport their name on it.



BrainPain wrote:
I don't understand the merge rumour at all. What is the gain for Williams and Lotus if they buy the bottom end teams?


Think it's a last resort for Lotus as I expect them to be in more financial dept than Caterham tbh.
Author:  James B [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
It's not just about being close in pace - it's about having a variation of pace across different rounds. 2008's a good example of this. The Ferrari was the fastest car at some circuits, but the McLaren was faster at others. Then Renault improved at the end and Toro Rosso also made a big step forward from Valencia which allowed Vettel to get into the mix, while the BMW Sauber was consistently 2nd/3rd fastest in all of them, and the most of the other teams weren't a million miles off

Plus you also had the rules restricting pit stops under safety cars which jumbled the order at several races. The race at Hockenheim was pretty dull until Glock crashed, and then suddenly you ended up with Nelson Piquet Jr leading a race and Lewis was forced to fight his way through the field to win the race, which was exciting. The safety car rules F1 has at the moment might be "better", but they're not as much fun

As for customer cars, I'm not against them but to put a cap on 5 constructors as Bernie wants would be incredibly dangerous
Author:  phil1993 [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
I think it'd be cool if a team could run a third car [not eligible for WCC points] at selected events if they wish. Say if Force India could give Calado a chance at Silverstone or whatever. Dream land there though.
Author:  micha [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
James B wrote:
As for customer cars, I'm not against them but to put a cap on 5 constructors as Bernie wants would be incredibly dangerous


Cap the amount of teams you can supply on 2 and it has to be last years car with, if needed, slight chances to fit the current season ruling.

Kill of the team limit cap. Allow 1 car teams, Teams must attend certain % of the races. Let's say 85% so on a 20 race season they must at least attend 17.(big teams will show up anyways and the smaller one's could save a buck or 2) Allow different paintjobs on the cars within teams. Max 26 starters, anyone else can go home.

F1 needs to stop being so elite. Stop the whole "we're the pinnacle of racing, we only must have the best of the best of the best". it's driving the price up and fans away. Go back to the basics.
Author:  James B [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
I liked the whole idea of sticking Rossi (V) in a Ferrari for a one-off, and Loeb in a Toro Rosso. And this isn't a new thing either
Author:  codename_47 [ Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
aerogi wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
I can't believe the nostalgia for 2004. It was a terrible season.



i'm with you on this. If I would have to pick one season as being the worst since I am watching F1 in 1986, this is the one to pick!


Yep. Technically I think 2002 might have been a worse season but I watched the majority of that via F1 Digital+ on Sky so it seemed a lot better in comparison.
Author:  Artur Craft [ Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
micha wrote:
If Bernie would stop hogging most of the money and gave a bigger share to the people who generate it (teams and tracks) things would look better financially for them.


Next year it will be better. Teams only got 55% untill now but for 2014 they will get 68%

The problem is how it is spread among them. RBR and Ferrari gets A LOT more than anybody else.

Ferrari, just for being on the show, get's $100m. More than WCC champion, which get's 90.

Changing the subject a bit, I love JV and his never ending trolling abilities:
http://www.f1zone.net/news/alonso-would ... uve/21273/

In other words, JV is basically saying: Alonso is gonna spank, trash, kick Kimi's ass

I'm sure Tobias, NVirkulla, JJ..... completely agrees with this :D
Author:  Speedworx [ Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2013 Random F1 Discussion
phil1993 wrote:
I think it'd be cool if a team could run a third car [not eligible for WCC points] at selected events if they wish. Say if Force India could give Calado a chance at Silverstone or whatever. Dream land there though.


It works in bike racing. Wildcards for a local rider at an event. Makes sense to have it in F1.
Page 291 of 335 All times are UTC+01:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/