Strategy

[lipstick79 0]

What if like a Renault, for example - Or maybe NOT Renault specifically, with the midfield/Mclaren battle.
At this stage of the season, generally there is nothing left to loose. 
Instead of going LONG.  Doin LOTS of pit stops for optimization, instead of 2/3 stops. 
Going OUTRIGHT 4 the undercut, 3/4 stops.  
Lots of airtime 4 sponsors !!

[Ruslan 0]

You want airtime....hit a Mercedes or a Ferrari !!!

[Sakae 0]

One tire capable lasting a race is my choice (more if a driver wants it). This "winning races in pits" is really bad habit F1 should try to shake off.  The race should last 2 hours of racing. I hope it's not too much to ask.

Mercedes, Renault, Honda and RBR are yet to confirm that they will continue... (I am not sure about Ferrari, but I guess it's the same with them). I would not blame anyone should they decide to quit.

[Ruslan 0]

Well, pretty certain everyone is planning to continue.

As for tire strategies, I think it should be set up so that no pit stop is a valid strategy as often as not. This would require changing the rules forcing you to make a pit stop. The teams should always have the option not to make one.

Unfortunately, this is one of the several ways they have changed the rules to try to create drama....because the series did not have enough drama or passing.

 

 

[Sakae 0]

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/700021/Vettel_Formula_1_needs_to_be_simplified/

Seb got it right.

[lipstick79 0]

On 29/10/2019 at 9:51 PM, Sakae said:

Mercedes, Renault, Honda and RBR are yet to confirm that they will continue...

Strange list.
RBR IS Honda - effectively because of, Toro Rosso - or whatever it IS called now

[Sakae 0]

1 minute ago, lipstick79 said:

Strange list.
RBR IS Honda - effectively because of, Toro Rosso - or whatever it IS called now

RBR and Honda may continue together, just as they may go their separate way., inside F1, or exiting. Nothing much strange about it. 

[lipstick79 0]

4 hours ago, Sakae said:

RBR and Honda may continue together, just as they may go their separate way.

At this time, there is NO chance of RBR going in a DIFFERENT direction to Honda
RBR is ABOUT world exposure for a fizzy drink
Mclaren brought Honda BACK into F1, after Honda SOLD out - to get out of F1 
Honda sold to Brawn GP. 
Ron Dennis chased Honda and brought them BACK into F1 WITH Mclaren 
Alonso soon realised that Honda supply GP2 engines, and Mclaren quickly divorced
from Honda - in turn Alonso 
Toro Rosso picked up Mclaren`s left overs, and became Honda works for the sister team
Red Bull Racing.  Which has enabled a fizzy drink to gain world wide marketing.
The reason the fizzy drink IS in F1 - WORLD exposure
Putting the Red Bull name up there, with Coke & Pepsi - Visible throughout the world 

[Ruslan 0]

1 hour ago, lipstick79 said:

Putting the Red Bull name up there, with Coke & Pepsi - Visible throughout the world 

Yes, if it only tasted as good as a coke or pepsi.

 

[Sakae 0]

12 hours ago, lipstick79 said:

At this time, there is NO chance of RBR going in a DIFFERENT direction to Honda
RBR is ABOUT world exposure for a fizzy drink
Mclaren brought Honda BACK into F1, after Honda SOLD out - to get out of F1 
Honda sold to Brawn GP. 
Ron Dennis chased Honda and brought them BACK into F1 WITH Mclaren 
Alonso soon realised that Honda supply GP2 engines, and Mclaren quickly divorced
from Honda - in turn Alonso 
Toro Rosso picked up Mclaren`s left overs, and became Honda works for the sister team
Red Bull Racing.  Which has enabled a fizzy drink to gain world wide marketing.
The reason the fizzy drink IS in F1 - WORLD exposure
Putting the Red Bull name up there, with Coke & Pepsi - Visible throughout the world 

Tell me you are kidding. In you account you may have forgotten spiritual (or parasitic?) attachment by Ashton Martin to the team. Honda pumped in and left so much on the table when they left (Brawn, Alonso), to talk about "sold out" is strange divorce from reality and pattern of facts.

Honda is not an inept company making GP2 engines. Inept are regulations holding them back from day one, that's my opinion. Honda made a mistake returning back under current set of circumstances when system seems to be rigged (may I used that word?) in favor of one team. It should not escape your attention, that no other reputable automobile company has desire to commit suicide, and you may wonder why it is so? 

 

Sounds like proposed budget cap at the moment doesn't covers cost of engines.

 

[lipstick79 0]

5 hours ago, Sakae said:

Honda is not an inept company making GP2 engines

Indeed U R correct.  They manufacture very good lawnmowers

[lipstick79 0]

5 hours ago, Sakae said:

Inept are regulations holding them back from day one

But Honda were FULLY aware of those, regulations BEFORE they commit-ed to re -enter F1, then with Mclaren 
Those regs R fundamentally CONSISTENT

[lipstick79 0]

On 29/10/2019 at 10:04 PM, Ruslan said:

(pit stop)

Unfortunately, this is one of the several ways they have changed the rules to try to create drama....because the series did not have enough drama or passing.

It has also been a FAILED attempt to introduce competition.  
Because pit stops R mandatory, it would HAVE allowed Tyre manufacturers to enter. 
THAT would have been exciting other than Mitchellin no other manufactures have attempted to challenge 
For 2007, Bridgestone became the sole tyre supplier in Formula One with the withdrawal of Michelin.
Bridgestone left and in came Pirelli
Pirelli's new 2020 Formula 1 tyres could be abandoned after drivers were critical of them following tests in United States Grand Prix practice.

[Sakae 0]

3 hours ago, lipstick79 said:

Indeed U R correct.  They manufacture very good lawnmowers

...of course, among many other useful appliances, as most of us know, so why state the obvious? It is very versatile company.

[Sakae 0]

3 hours ago, lipstick79 said:

But Honda were FULLY aware of those, regulations BEFORE they commit-ed to re -enter F1, then with Mclaren 
Those regs R fundamentally CONSISTENT

Honda -- as I think about it -- underestimated the task in hand, and committed some initial design mistakes. Problem was then, more so than now, that restrictive environment prevented them to launch full scope of required countermeasures. In addition, they had some internal issues, such as mis-calibrated dyno, which was discovered very late in game, because rules deprive them of track time, and they therefore used races to compensate for it (as many other teams).  It was all what they could do, and optics were really bad. Regulations have definitely changed. (Token system and some other changes.)

 

BTW, with regulations in offing, it is going top get much worse in new agreement. More races, less testing, and paying fans will watch testing on track, instead a race, and that is at full cost of the ticket. 

[lipstick79 0]

15 hours ago, Ruslan said:

Yes, if it only tasted as good as a coke or pepsi.

 

Red Bull is a DIFFERENT type of fizzy drink to, Coke and Pepsi.
So can NOT compare the taste.

Coke and Pepsi R cola drinks.
Red Bull IS an energy drink

[Sakae 0]

On subject of tires, I like only one supplier, thus rubber is the same for them all. I just wish they would make them less prominent in outcome of the race. I want to discuss driver's skills, as opposed to quality or properties (hot cold, etc.) of tires. In last race, as an example, I am not privy to information what happened to Ferrari's power plant, however what was obvious, their tires were dead cold. That's what I terming as too much of influence on race result.

[Ruslan 0]

I like multiple tire manufacturers. If we have multiple engine manufacturers and multiple chassis manufacturers, why restrict the tires? If the goal is "driver's skills" then F1 should be a spec series.

[Sakae 0]

Lessons Learnt from the past clarified for us, that it doesn't takes too much, and half of the field gets impotent in terms of chances to win races, and that's only, because either a tire supplier got it wrong for some track characteristics, or one tire supplier gifted full season advantage their clients, whereas rest of the filed is just there for head count on the grid stalls before lights go off. Thanks, but no thanks. One shambolic era was enough for me.

Best fights of Prost v. Hill v. Schumacher v. Häkkinen were on the same rubber.

[Ruslan 0]

Oh no.....I remember the days of the Goodyear/Michelin wars, where some teams would be more competitive at some tracks and other teams would be more competitive at others, depending on the tires. It gave lots of people a chance to shine. Good stuff.

Of course, the argument you give could also be made for engines....or for chassis....or for aerodynamic improvements. Sounds like an argument for a spec series.

[Sakae 0]

In your argument you are skating on thin ice, Ruslan. All sounds fine and dandy, if design meets planned targets, however all hel! breaks loose, if outcome is significantly off.

Vehicle body parts and normally aspirated engines under normal competitive conditions can be improved, and situation is manageable. Problem is, we don't have "normal competetive" conditions, and from what we hear from Liberty representatives, it is going to get even worse. Current power plant research is expensive, and requires time and extensive track testing to verify lab data and assumptions with real results, Neither is however available. Teams who got it wrong can go for years to make it work. In the case of Renault, brilliant maker of engines which powered Williams's cars to victory in the past, seems today at the end of the road. Technology is too complex for them, and there is no time, there are no rules which would permit them to recover. I am not sure what is true situation with Honda, but I hope they are better off.

Problem with tires is not comparable to other vehicle subsystems. If tire is underperforming in comparison to its rival, first of all, since there is only limited testing, we learn about true situation only in season. Rules do not however permit introduction of a new tire during a racing season. Tires need approval before racing starts. It takes several months to make a new and "corrected or improved" tire anyway, yet where do you verify how it performs if you cannot test it? How many more lost races you sacrifice? You need a suitable car with a driver, road, time and money...

Engineering is more complex than fans sometimes understand, but don't blame fans. As someone said the other day (I am not sure if it was Wolff or Dr. Marko), hardly any of F1 so called glorified "journalists" know what they are talking about. I can only add, blabbing senselessly affects fan-voices and mood on sidelines, yet character of some articles give me impression that stated assertion is not too far from the truth.

[lipstick79 0]

On 05/11/2019 at 3:58 PM, Sakae said:

It is very versatile company.

There IS an idiom for that, 
                Jack of all trades
                Master of none

[lipstick79 0]

On 05/11/2019 at 8:39 PM, Sakae said:

Best fights of Prost v. Hill v. Schumacher v. Häkkinen were on the same rubber.

In a DIFFERENT era.
That WAS the V8 era, so can NOT compare - it is NOT like 4 like
Next U WILL B sayin that 4 apples R better than 3 oranges

[Sakae 0]

6 hours ago, lipstick79 said:

There IS an idiom for that, 
                Jack of all trades
                Master of none

Hard to argue this one, but personally I would not accuse Honda for being "Master of none."

 

[Sakae 0]

13 hours ago, lipstick79 said:

In a DIFFERENT era.
That WAS the V8 era, so can NOT compare - it is NOT like 4 like
Next U WILL B sayin that 4 apples R better than 3 oranges

I am not sure about fruit salad, however point was, whether two (or more) tire suppliers add to the racing show. I am one supplier proponent, because turning interesting competitiveness variety could induce into racing, the same can turn into uncompetitive disaster rather quickly due to flawed tire design. Risk is just too big, and therefore IMHO not worth trying to repeat past mistakes. 

When Michelin fought Bridgestone, there was more misery in all kind of disputes department, than racing, as old timers may remember, whereas when Good Year was a sole supplier, biggest suspense for me was waiting whether stretching useful life cycle of a tire will succeed, or turn into one big blow up in dying race laps. (And Murray W. so brilliantly commented on.)

What happened to Ferrari just recently, as an example, is hard to let pass without anger, if you are a fan of racing general. Skating ring? Cold tires..? Give me a break.

Obviously there is more to tires than number of suppliers, and it all got unnecessarily (IMHO) too complicated, thanks to Whitmarsh, his side-kick Hembery and alike, getting into business of "fixing" something which was perfectly good situation, just needing minor tuning. Gimmicks to compensate for problems in other areas is of course not resolving root causes.