Formula 1 2024

[PittsburghTiger 6,252]

I love the Silly Season. Blow it up!

[NoName 16,764]

Comical

 

[PittsburghTiger 6,252]

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/analysis-why-alpine-chose-to-release-ocon-with-one-race-left-and-give-doohan.43R12dtsUmGPCQK3jkC39o

[wood 11,637]

1 hour ago, NoName said:

Comical

 

Interesting to look at it this way too imho, by % of the team's points scored:

Sauber: ZHO 100%

RBR: VER 74%

Aston Martin: ALO 74%

Williams: ALB 71%

Haas: HUL 69%

RB: TSU 65%

Alpine: GAS 61%

Ferrari: LEC 55%

McLaren: NOR 55%

Mercedes: RUS 53%

 

[faps 815]

It makes me chuckle that RBR focused the drivability of their car 100% on Max's preferences. That shit cost them the constructors this year. I don't know enough about possible Checo replacements (Yuki, Lawson, etc) to know if they like a twitchy, front end driven car like Max. You'd think RBR would make the car at least a little bit driveable/tunable for the 2nd driver, if they cared about the WCC.

Also, George Russell is a lil bitch.

[Burt Macklin 19,149]

38 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/analysis-why-alpine-chose-to-release-ocon-with-one-race-left-and-give-doohan.43R12dtsUmGPCQK3jkC39o

[PittsburghTiger 6,252]

2 hours ago, NoName said:

Comical

 

 

26 minutes ago, wood said:

Interesting to look at it this way too imho, by % of the team's points scored:

Sauber: ZHO 100%

RBR: VER 74%

Aston Martin: ALO 74%

Williams: ALB 71%

Haas: HUL 69%

RB: TSU 65%

Alpine: GAS 61%

Ferrari: LEC 55%

McLaren: NOR 55%

Mercedes: RUS 53%

 

So right now we are sitting with this top-10:

1. Max 429

2. Lando 349

3. Charles 341

4. Oscar 291

5. Sainz 272

6. George 235

7. Lewis 211

8. Perez 152

9. Alonso 68

10. Hulk 37

 

All Perez had to do was be a bit competitive and RedBull would have won the constructor’s championship as well.

If Perez had just gotten another 100 points that has him fighting for fifth. He was awful. I don’t know if I’d blame it 100% on the car being engineered to Max. Looking at the points for Aston too I didn’t know who has been worse, Perez, or Stroll considering the difference in the teams.

I am already really looking forward to next season. The competition level this year was so much better than we have seen for so long. It’s exciting.

[wood 11,637]

1 hour ago, faps said:

It makes me chuckle that RBR focused the drivability of their car 100% on Max's preferences. That shit cost them the constructors this year. I don't know enough about possible Checo replacements (Yuki, Lawson, etc) to know if they like a twitchy, front end driven car like Max. You'd think RBR would make the car at least a little bit driveable/tunable for the 2nd driver, if they cared about the WCC.

Also, George Russell is a lil bitch.

I don't think it cost them the WCC. They were making the car as fast as they could make it - not designing a car for Max. Standard operating procedure up and down pit lane. Nobody in F1 designs a car for one driver. They design the car to be as fast as they can make it, and then try to help both drivers be as fast as they can and score as many points as they can in that car. Max could handle it. Checo couldn't. Had they backed off so that Perez could handle it too, very likely making the car slower in the process, they probably wouldn't have been quick enough to win the WDC or even P3 in the WCC imho. I think they got as much as they could have with that car and that driver pairing.

Edited yesterday at 12:34 AM by wood

[faps 815]

Should've ditched Checo sooner then if the WCC was something they were serious about. 

[Mittens 8,432]

 

[Burt Macklin 19,149]

3 hours ago, PittsburghTiger said:

I am already really looking forward to next season. The competition level this year was so much better than we have seen for so long. It’s exciting.

We need to enjoy this year and next year, because new regs hit in 2026 and the field spread will be massive and the racing will be god awful. 

[PittsburghTiger 6,252]

7 hours ago, PittsburghTiger said:

 

So right now we are sitting with this top-10:

1. Max 429

2. Lando 349

3. Charles 341

4. Oscar 291

5. Sainz 272

6. George 235

7. Lewis 211

8. Perez 152

9. Alonso 68

10. Hulk 37

 

All Perez had to do was be a bit competitive and RedBull would have won the constructor’s championship as well.

If Perez had just gotten another 100 points that has him fighting for fifth. He was awful. I don’t know if I’d blame it 100% on the car being engineered to Max. Looking at the points for Aston too I didn’t know who has been worse, Perez, or Stroll considering the difference in the teams.

I am already really looking forward to next season. The competition level this year was so much better than we have seen for so long. It’s exciting.

I think I read that Perez has led one lap this season 

3 hours ago, Burt Macklin said:

We need to enjoy this year and next year, because new regs hit in 2026 and the field spread will be massive and the racing will be god awful. 

I’m an optimist and hopeful that you are not correct but, you probably are correct.

Edited yesterday at 06:13 AM by PittsburghTiger

[aggie08 21,608]

10 hours ago, Burt Macklin said:

We need to enjoy this year and next year, because new regs hit in 2026 and the field spread will be massive and the racing will be god awful. 

Explain why for us casuals. Only need 2-3 teams to be in the ballpark of each other to make for a decent race.

[Burt Macklin 19,149]

45 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Explain why for us casuals. Only need 2-3 teams to be in the ballpark of each other to make for a decent race.

The engines are ridiculously complex yet also underpowered. Reliability is likely going to be bad, and the engines are looking to be so underpowered that they’ve had to change the aero regulations multiple times to accommodate the projections, including adding moveable aero so there’s less drag on the straights for the engines. A lot of writers and people around the paddock are expecting these new regs to go very poorly. As always, we’ll have to wait and see but the expectation is a lot of field spread and technical issues. 

[Anton Chigurh 3,325]

Also, that’s just generally how it always is at the beginning of a new regulation set, because teams figure it out at different speeds, and there’s always going to be team that figures it out before everyone else.

[Burt Macklin 19,149]

1 hour ago, Anton Chigurh said:

Also, that’s just generally how it always is at the beginning of a new regulation set, because teams figure it out at different speeds, and there’s always going to be team that figures it out before everyone else.

Agreed, but the expectation is this one will be more drastic than many others. The engines will be a 50/50 split between ICE (running on sustainable fuels with a 70 kg limit for a race which is much lower than current) with no more MGU-H, increasing the use of the electric power while taking away one of the sources for producing it. On top of that the reliance on electricity increases, but the energy storage does not, so there is concern cars will have to downshift on the straights to get more electrical power, which is also why they added the moveable aero to reduce drag on straights and avoid this, but it still may be required on long straights. They're also expecting the engine to always run at higher revs to basically burn fuel to create more electric power, even when cars are going extremely slow at hairpins or chicanes. 

Overall, these regs are pretty extreme and already seem quite messy. We'll see. The people developing the engines and cars are brilliant and they have over a year to keep figuring things out, but the outlook from people on the technical side does not seem positive right now. Definitely a lot more pessimistic than our 2022 regulation changes at this point.

Edited yesterday at 05:01 PM by Burt Macklin

[utee94 15,903]

New technical regs... ya think they're going to be missing Newey at RBR?  Nah, I doubt it...

 

Anyway, that race was a complete shiteshow.  And despite all the drama it also managed to be boring AF.  That circuit sucks.

[Burt Macklin 19,149]

28 minutes ago, utee94 said:

New technical regs... ya think they're going to be missing Newey at RBR?  Nah, I doubt it...

 

Anyway, that race was a complete shiteshow.  And despite all the drama it also managed to be boring AF.  That circuit sucks.

Yeah, that race was a clown show. Almost like firing the race director with three races left was a bad idea. The FIA is pushing out basically anyone with competency at this point, and it's becoming a huge problem for F1. Ben Sulayem is as big of a problem as people feared when he got the FIA president role. 

 

On the actual race, it was very boring. Lando fighting Max was our best shot for an exciting race.  Circuits built for Motogp don't produce great racing for F1 cars. The only silver lining is that Lando getting that ridiculously harsh penalty kept the Constructors battle alive, which should make Abu Dabhi more exciting. Ferrari need a 1-2 with McLaren getting a 4,5 or worse, or a 1-3 with McLaren getting a 5,6 or worse. If Ferrari don't win Abu Dabhi, they need to finish 2,3 and likely have one of the McLarens retire. None of that is very likely, but McLaren not qualify well could at least give it a chance and make the race interesting. Otherwise, this race will probably be pretty boring.

Edited yesterday at 05:53 PM by Burt Macklin

[Mittens 8,432]

I casually watch most races.  I have it on while drinking my coffee and making breakfast, surfing surly and twitter, checking out the day's games in the afternoon, starting the chores for the day, etc.  That is to say, I'm not glued to the tv for 90 minutes straight watching every single detail.  One of the things that makes me laugh about the broadcasts is the effort the guys put into making it sound exciting.  They'll be going on like the house is on fire for 10 minutes and when I check the tv again, it's the same Top 5 with maybe a change in the 7-10 range or one or two of the backmarkers.  Rinse, repeat, almost every single race.  

[PittsburghTiger 6,252]

I know this idea will be wildly panned but, with all the billions of dollars being spent by manufacturers in F1 it would be so awesome if they went back in time, to say the 1950s or early 1960s, and built modern versions of those cars and run them for five races each season, with a separate point system.

I remember how awesome it was back in 1995 when we were at Hockenheim to watch Schumacher that before the race they brought out three vintage Silver Arrows to run around the track.

 

59 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Agreed, but the expectation is this one will be more drastic than many others. The engines will be a 50/50 split between ICE (running on sustainable fuels with a 70 kg limit for a race which is much lower than current) with no more MGU-H, increasing the use of the electric power while taking away one of the sources for producing it. On top of that the reliance on electricity increases, but the energy storage does not, so there is concern cars will have to downshift on the straights to get more electrical power, which is also why they added the moveable aero to reduce drag on straights and avoid this, but it still may be required on long straights. They're also expecting the engine to always run at higher revs to basically burn fuel to create more electric power, even when cars are going extremely slow at hairpins or chicanes. 

Overall, these regs are pretty extreme and already seem quite messy. We'll see. The people developing the engines and cars are brilliant and they have over a year to keep figuring things out, but the outlook from people on the technical side does not seem positive right now. Definitely a lot more pessimistic than our 2022 regulation changes at this point.

 

It seems like they are just trying to be so overly complicated just for the sake of being complicated. Trying to make what happens on the track green is ridiculous considering all that is involved, behind the scenes, to get all the cars and teams, to 24 different tracks all over the world. I’m not opposed to being energy efficient and in my life I live reasonably simply and don’t waste too much.

[blacklab 12,006]

I was just thinking the other day, you know what we need to do? Make the cars way more complicated. Nothing excites me more than a car retiring because of technical issues. 

[Updawg 2,334]

I have mixed feelings. On one hand I really like the tech side of F1 and it’s a huge draw for me. On the other, this always happens when they change regulations. One team will get it right and by the time others catch up it’s time for new regulations

But I am not a fan of the new regs lately. Too much hybrid etc. just go back to v8’s

[Updawg 2,334]

The trying to be green is a joke as well as had been said above many times. Aren’t they getting rid of tire blankets to save energy? Lol

[Native Horn 3,524]

54 minutes ago, Updawg said:

The trying to be green is a joke as well as had been said above many times. Aren’t they getting rid of tire blankets to save energy? Lol

Sounds like they'll be going so slow that grip won't matter as much.

#probablyexaggeration

[Mittens 8,432]

1 hour ago, blacklab said:

Nothing excites me more than a car retiring because of technical issues. 

I kind of liked the exploding tire era of the early/mid teens. Literal tire roulette. 

[kevwun 15,963]

I can't remember the last time a top team had an engine issue this season now that I've been thinking about it.  Ferrari's blew up last year, but they got that under control.

Edited 20 hours ago by kevwun

[wood 11,637]

15 hours ago, Burt Macklin said:

The engines are ridiculously complex yet also underpowered. Reliability is likely going to be bad, and the engines are looking to be so underpowered that they’ve had to change the aero regulations multiple times to accommodate the projections, including adding moveable aero so there’s less drag on the straights for the engines. A lot of writers and people around the paddock are expecting these new regs to go very poorly. As always, we’ll have to wait and see but the expectation is a lot of field spread and technical issues. 

Yeah I dunno why they went so underpowered with this set. The current PU formula was a huge mistake for F1 imho, and now they're going to follow that with another mistake - with the added 'bonus' of it being underpowered. They're just going from one idiotic PU formula to the next.

Edited 13 hours ago by wood

[faps 815]

5 hours ago, Updawg said:

But I am not a fan of the new regs lately. Too much hybrid etc. just go back to v8’s

Agree, but V10's please.

 

[wood 11,637]

11 hours ago, PittsburghTiger said:

It seems like they are just trying to be so overly complicated just for the sake of being complicated. Trying to make what happens on the track green is ridiculous considering all that is involved, behind the scenes, to get all the cars and teams, to 24 different tracks all over the world. I’m not opposed to being energy efficient and in my life I live reasonably simply and don’t waste too much.

Yep. It makes no sense. They're going all in on alternative fuels, and despite what we were told when the current PU fomula was introduced, combustion research is not at a dead end, and combustion efficiency gains are still being made .... so why not go simpler, with a much lighter V10 on alternative fuels, and no batteries & electrical drive component at all. You wanna sell alternative fuels? Show the world how efficient they can be in simple NA engines. Of course there are multiple side benefits, like bringing back that sound, being able to make the cars much lighter and smaller, etc.

And re: making a racing series green, yeah, it's just idiotic greenwashing.

Edited 13 hours ago by wood

[wood 11,637]

3 hours ago, faps said:

Agree, but V10's please.

 

I love how all of a sudden Lewis instantly becomes that little boy kart racer all over again when he hears the siren song of that V10.

[Updawg 2,334]

End of the day the manufacturers sign up for it and new ones come

[PittsburghTiger 6,252]

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a43239225/porsche-chile-e-fuels-synthetic-gasoline/

 

They could use this with ICEs instead of the needlessly expensive crap they are heading towards.

[NoName 16,764]

 

 

[Burt Macklin 19,149]

13 hours ago, wood said:

Yeah I dunno why they went so underpowered with this set. The current PU formula was a huge mistake for F1 imho, and now they're going to follow that with another mistake - with the added 'bonus' of it being underpowered. They're just going from one idiotic PU formula to the next.

The reports are they did it because Audi wanted more emphasis on battery/electric for road relevance and they held this over  FOM before they joined.  Catering to manufacturers and greenwashing have really ruined a lot of racing in F1.  I agree with your other posts. V10s on sustainable fuels (lets FOM still claim moral high ground on green efforts) and make the cars way smaller and lighter for better racing is the route they need to go to make the actual product better, but FOM has clearly shown they're more interested in catering to manufacturers and talking about sustainability efforts unfortunately. I understand why they needed/wanted manufacturers when it was only Ferrari, MB, and Alpine with Alpine looking shaky. But now we have Ferrari, MB, RB Power trains/Ford, Honda, Audi, and Cadillac. There's really no benefit to keep adding manufacturers beyond 4; if anything, they're a hindrance because they push for rules that hurt the racing product. And what fan really cares if there are 4 or 6 engine manufacturers involved?