Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sakae

2018 F1 season - discussion

375 posts in this topic

I'd say that Bottas doesn't really cut it at the top and he should go back to somewhere like Williams, Hartley seems like a very nice chap but not one about to set the world on fire in terms of driving, Raikkonen is past his sell by date and Stroll IMHO should have been given a 3rd driver's role for his own good (he's way too immature for F1). Other than that I think that Sirotkin deserves a shot, especially considering the fact that apparently he was so much better than Kubica and what the people at Renault say about him. Oh and in pure driving terms Ericsson shouldn't be in F1 but considering that he saved Sauber I think that it's fair that he is given one more chance 

Edited by Publius Cornelius Scipio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am experiencing difficulty to recall when was it last time that (anything in) F1 was fair. F1 was always about degree of divergence which propelled the teams. Logic dictates it has to be that way, otherwise they all would end up crossing Finish line together at the end of race. Slotting one driver over another is relative judgement by team manager(s), and aspect of fairness - which is so difficult to define and agree upon - never plays even minor role. I could surely name 3 or 4 drivers I would drop off the grid today, but probably for all wrong reasons (from racing perspective).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 February 2018, 12:57 (UTC)

Quote

he Team Principal of the Alfa Romeo Sauber F1 Team is worried that should financial monitoring be introduced and a team is found to have gone over their budget, the press attention it could attract could have a negative effect on the sport as a whole, and make Formula 1 into a laughing stock.

“If we have the same money as the top teams we will close the gap,” said Vasseur to Motorsport.com. “But I don’t know if we have to do that by regulations – like with some standard parts. Then the biggest teams will be able to spend the same as now, but only for marginal gains.

“We could go with financial monitoring, but I am a bit scared about this. On paper it could work but then you have to see how we are able to monitor it during the season to avoid being in a situation that we have in the news or on websites that Ferrari or Mercedes spent 10 Euros more than is allowed.

“Something like that, for the show and the image of F1, would be a worst case scenario, because at this stage – for the fans – the bad side of F1 is that it has become a matter of budgets. And if all together we are only talking about budgets, it would be a nightmare.”

Sure thing. Preventing teams - by placing limits on work related spending - from being able to develop or improve their racing related materials spells repetition of 2014 disaster all over. If a team runs out of budget allowances in Sep, sure, that's their problem, but what it will do to the quality of product F1 is selling, namely, racing..? People will sit at the back of grid, chewing fingernails? That will wash down really "well" with fans.

 

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 February 2018, 08:05 (UTC)

Paul Hensby has a piece in print, quoting Dr. Zetsche

Quote

“We are the good cop and the bad cop,” said Zetsche to Autocar. “We beat each other like crazy on the track and try to get every tenth of a second of advantage but at the same time we are 100% aligned (with Ferrari) on our thoughts in Formula 1 and our strategic actions in Formula 1. We are good friends.

“We are there to stay in Formula 1 but of course the platform itself has to stay meaningful and develop positively.”

Always a diplomat, Dieter is using unthreatening language (in contrast to more direct Marchionne), however notwithstanding fine nuances in presentation, warning is there, writing is on the wall. "MB and Scuderia stand as one" - that's what I am getting out of it. MB is heavily investing in electrical future (re: curtailing dividends after massive profits) and return to wasting money on old technology after investing a Billion or two that were spend on current PU simply makes no sense. We live in interesting times, maybe more on off track, than on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 February 2018, 07:30 (UTC)

GP247 - WOLFF: NOT GOOD FOR F1 TO HAVE MORE THAN 20 RACES

Some fans realized that long time ago as a factor in F1 fabric (denotes DNA in modern terms). LM is obviously in different thinking zone. Lessons Learned from Packard demise hasn't sunk in, or people simply did not bothered to get acquainted with it. 

Quote

Wolff said, “I don’t think we should be going further than 21 races because it is simply diluting the exclusivity of the event. It is something we are looking ahead thinking: okay, great let’s do 21 or more but last year with 20 races and it was already very difficult for the organisation so this is what I see as the limit.

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 February 2018, 10:39 (UTC)

There is sudden silence in the F1 domain, or as the old worn out cliche states, quiet before storm? Commercial rights holder acts as a self-appointed regulator - an added power grab without mandate, and Brown - an American junior in F1 - hasn't stop talking, just as soon someone aims a camera into his face. So, what's going on? Now we have two regulators, and bucket of half-baked ideas (err trial balloons), however quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Our hope for sliver of sanity is suddenly down to a pair of individuals SM and TW as it appears, despite that all what they can do is to say farewell my lovelies.

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem like there are a lot of major unresolved issued just dangling, and there is no news on them. Maybe people are solving these things behind closed doors...instead of openly warring with each other in the press (like they have been doing non-stop since the early 1980s). The end result is that we don't have much to talk about.

Anyhow.....what is an "American junior?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 February 2018, 21:10 (UTC)

Stoffel Vandoorne must feel "good" about his management after hearing that his boss would like to hire certain MB driver for 2019 and onwards, should that one decline to resign with his current team. I am of course assuming that Stoffel would be the one shown through the door and ordered to vacant a seat at McLaren. The same Mclaren boss however has not expressed any interest in one Australian who would like to leave RBR; based on what's reported.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 February 2018, 07:53 (UTC)  If the report is accurate, it looks like Blue Force is gone, and one of major protagonists behind noises advocating return to distant past technology in F1 will have to excuse himself for 18 months, as a tax man caught up with him. Alonso will miss his friend and a mentor. A deal in 2021 will have to happen without Mr. Briatore. I have no problem with this scene.

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 February 2018, 14:31 (UTC) In less than in two weeks testing will commence, and I am still not sure if, when and how I will be able watch action on the track, be it testing, or races. So, how is it better than what BE managed?

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 February 2018, 06:34 (UTC)

Chase Carey has hit back at criticism of the changes being made to formula one.

One day I read that between what Ferrari wants and what fans want, fans - Carey was quoted - will win. Today, just a few day later I read that fans must put up with LM - implying - who knows better. Germans have a little wisdom - “Ein Kompromiß, ist die Kunst, einen Kuchen so zu teilen, daß jeder meint, er habe das größte Stück bekommen”. Right now I have impression that LM is intending to keep cake and eat it too. Maybe listening and relaying excessively on Mr. Brown counsel may need rethinking if it is best way to run F1. 

I am still puzzled how F1 media, apparently LM including, have determined that Ferrari's interest if diametrically opposite what fans want.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this halo thing is just horrible.....man! RBR had such a cool canopy style halo design

I did'nt want to watch F1 after the rear wing raise a few years ago, but persisted... but this halo thing might just drive me away

Edited by BradSpeedMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 February 2018, 15:54 (UTC) I have serious doubts, that Halo - as seen - would have changed outcome of the incident in Japan in which JB perished. Structure could possibly deflect away a broken wheel flying towards canopy and a drivers head, although the axel of a loose wheel can still penetrate Halo boundary in certain position. So, it is not totally safe, just safer. Esthetics aside, I am not sure why this frame was actually introduced, and I am hoping it was not coming down "we have to do something" should there have been need for mounting legal defense down the road. Sort off - F1 is dangerous, but we always work on more safety, and here is a proof - Halo.

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BradSpeedMan said:

Ok, this halo thing is just horrible.....man! RBR had such a cool canopy style halo design

I did'nt want to watch F1 after the rear wing raise a few years ago, but persisted... but this halo thing might just drive me away

Good, **** off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have serious doubts, that Halo - as seen - would have changed outcome of the incident in Japan in which JB perished.

Oh I think it could have made a big difference. The halo might have slowed the acceleration of Jules Bianchi's head significantly. And Button was really lucky at Monaco where a manhole cover hit the car. If it had hit him in the head that would have been very serious. In that scenario a halo might have deflected the cover. I don't think the halo is a bad choice if you want to make f1 less dangerous. But I agree with Magnussen and others that it is a pity f1 keeps getting less and less dangerous.

Edited by Robert Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Robert Rick said:

But I agree with Magnussen and others that it is a pity f1 keeps getting less and less dangerous.

First post and certainly you do not shy from voicing rather contentious opinion. Can you elaborate what you meant by the sentiment expressed? 

Existential need for Halo is another subject, and from functional perspective I am neither pro or con. Incident in Japan I would have had most likely prevented by having VC procedure (in different form over what they have now) in place several years ago, but that's a subject was discussed at length already elsewhere and there is no need to start all over again. Halo doesn't addresses secondary causes behind some of those preventable incidents. That is its main weakness as I see it.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you mean by existential need for halo. Halo is just en extra layer of protection, as I see it. 

F1 used to be something like a gladiator sport. That was a big part of it for decades. The danger was absurd in the old days and cannot be defended. But now it is turning into a slick parade of fast technology. It is a bit of the DNA of motorsport that you put yourself in danger - from go karts all the way to formula one, I think.

 

Edited by Robert Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Rick said:

It is a bit of the DNA of motorsport that you put yourself in danger - from go karts all the way to formula one

U think WRONG, why SHOULD anybody RISK their life, for a SHOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADMITTEDLY in the, good OLD DAYS
Things WERE different.
BUT, why SHOULD I risk MY life to;
PUT on a SHOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me racing is not putting on a show. And you don't have to drive 350 km/h to put on a show. I think what I am trying to say is that i have this expectation that formula one is competing on the edge of disaster. You choose the best jockeys to ride the wildest beasts- not tamed horses. 

And - my concern is not that f1 has become a lot safer than it used to be. What I don't like is the prospect that it will have to continuously become more and more safe.

Also I have this unpleasant suspicion that these new safety measures are more about protecting the commercial interests of the investors than the health of the drivers - I know that is horrible to say - but consider this: There is not a lack of drivers willing to take the risk of competing in formula one. There is rather a lack of investors willing to be associated with a commercial product/sport that produces unnecessary amounts of carbon dioxide and puts peoples lives at risk.

Edited by Robert Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, lipstick79 said:

U think WRONG, why SHOULD anybody RISK their life, for a SHOW

...but they do, which is why they are paid so handsomely. People do not want to talk about it, but it is a bottom line of racing - driving fast on F1 tracks, all factors considered, is inherently dangerous.

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Robert Rick said:

I don't know what you mean by existential need for halo. Halo is just en extra layer of protection, as I see it. 

F1 used to be something like a gladiator sport. That was a big part of it for decades. The danger was absurd in the old days and cannot be defended. But now it is turning into a slick parade of fast technology. It is a bit of the DNA of motorsport that you put yourself in danger - from go karts all the way to formula one, I think.

17 February 2018, 09:51 (UTC)  You are touching upon two distinctly different issues. Safety and competitiveness. I do accept sensible and well thought out safety improvements as given in life of F1, however lack of competitiveness is a huge problem, and I lay this situation squarely on FiA's doorsteps, Whiting's department specifically. MB and Hamilton benefitted immensely for past four years. I've written in copious amounts about my lack of respect for WDC and WCC crowns in recent years, and there is no need to start here again. Problem however I do not see in racing with hybrid PU per se, but I point my finger towards regulations which blocking competitive developments and racing (fuel restrictions per race, excessive reliability restrictions, dubious properties of tires, nonsensical imposition of parc fermé, limitations and/or complexities on aero developments, downforce, etc.) All IMHO of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 February 2018, 06:54 Just a week or so, and engines will howl again, and media geniuses will hug their crystal ball who is for real, and who is not. Life will be meaningful again, as one of my acquittances foretell once.

 

Edited by Sakae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sauber is clearly confused.

Originally jumped on board the, Honda train.
When Mclaren first convinced Honda to return to F1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0