Discussion:
Wrong direction
Add Reply
Bigbird
2017-02-06 12:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Max Mosley:
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."

What a lot of people are thinking.

We get what we get. Fingers crossed; it seems the way decisions are
made in F1 nowadays.
Sir Tim
2017-02-06 18:19:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
Yep, I fear we are in for a rather dull season (and no doubt it will all
be blamed on Liberty).
--
Sir Tim

“Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional”
Edmund
2017-02-11 12:54:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
Yep, I fear we are in for a rather dull season (and no doubt it will all
be blamed on Liberty).
Predicting is difficult, especially the future.
More downforce/bigger wings IMO will be an equalizer in respect to top
speed and DRS ( still there right? ) will be more effective.
So lets wait and see how in things go. As usual, having 200 horses more
then another will help.......... a lot.

Edmund
Bigbird
2017-02-11 13:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction,
I >> would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
What a lot of people are thinking.
Yep, I fear we are in for a rather dull season (and no doubt it
will all be blamed on Liberty).
Predicting is difficult, especially the future.
:)
Bobster
2017-02-13 16:29:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
Yep, I fear we are in for a rather dull season (and no doubt it will all
be blamed on Liberty).
Predicting is difficult, especially the future.
This is, actually. Mosley, although a bit rusty, is an engineer. Patrick Head knows a thing or two about racing cars. So does Ross Brawn. So does Pat Symonds. They've all expressed doubts about the way that these rule changes are aimed.

The prime mover behind these changes was Red Bull. They are one of the few teams in a realistic shot at toppling Merc if a thing or two goes their way.

And they have not thought about F1 and what the fans have to watch, they have looked for a way to tilt things their way a bit more. They can't do anything about the PUs, they can do something about aero - an area they are usually strong in.

More generally, teams wanted a rule change because they wanted to shake things up so that they might be able to climb up the field a bit and maybe put Merc off their stride. None of them were thinking about the sport, they were all thinking about their own prospects.

FOM wanted the show improved. Red Bull believe they might take the fight to Merc if they can do more with Aero. Williams and McLaren have nothing to lose by the rules changes. There's already half the votes you need to get this through the strategy group. Apart from Red Bull they don't care about what the change is, as long as there's a change. If there's a change then maybe somebody makes a better job of it than Mercedes.

I think it's a bad move
a) because if you want to have more overtaking without the artificiality of DRS then you need to REDUCE the influence of aero
b) because usually if you leave rules alone, the gap starts to narrow anyway as the engineers chip away at what is possible within that particular set of constraints.

Of course, the real solution is the one that the rich teams protest about - a budget cap. Because ultimately the resource is money. That is why Patrick Head is saying that there won't be a shake up, because the rich teams will be able to afford resources such that they could start designing early for 2017 - with better computers, better modelling - and still put sufficient resources into developing the 2016 car. And they would have been able to start earlier, get the designs on the simulator earlier (and actually have a simulator).

Put a cap on the money that can be spent on the car, and then a bit of clever thinking might actually make a difference.
Post by Edmund
More downforce/bigger wings IMO will be an equalizer in respect to top
speed and DRS ( still there right? ) will be more effective.
More downforce will shorten the braking zones. The cars go flat out in a straight line for longer. How does that promote overtaking?
Post by Edmund
So lets wait and see how in things go. As usual, having 200 horses more
then another will help.......... a lot.
Or maybe the aero will compensate - if your aero is good. That's what is being hoped for here. But the hope is no for better entertainment for the spectators, but at rising up the WCC ladder.
Bigbird
2017-02-10 21:52:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
We get what we get. Fingers crossed; it seems the way decisions are
made in F1 nowadays.
Patrick Head:
"If they wanted a formula that allowed for more overtaking without
using artificial aids like DRS then they needed to go for a formula
that reduced downforce levels but they have gone in the opposite
direction,"
Sir Tim
2017-02-13 14:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
We get what we get. Fingers crossed; it seems the way decisions are
made in F1 nowadays.
"If they wanted a formula that allowed for more overtaking without
using artificial aids like DRS then they needed to go for a formula
that reduced downforce levels but they have gone in the opposite
direction,"
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Edmund
2017-02-13 16:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
We get what we get. Fingers crossed; it seems the way decisions are
made in F1 nowadays.
"If they wanted a formula that allowed for more overtaking without
using artificial aids like DRS then they needed to go for a formula
that reduced downforce levels but they have gone in the opposite
direction,"
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Is the DRS gone then?

Edmund
Bobster
2017-02-13 16:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
We get what we get. Fingers crossed; it seems the way decisions are
made in F1 nowadays.
"If they wanted a formula that allowed for more overtaking without
using artificial aids like DRS then they needed to go for a formula
that reduced downforce levels but they have gone in the opposite
direction,"
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Is the DRS gone then?
HAve none of the multiple sources that you follow but can't remember dealt with that?

DRS remains. But there are doubts about whether it will be as effective. Though FIA may be able to compensate by adjusting the DRS zones.
Edmund
2017-02-13 18:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Edmund
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction,
I would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
We get what we get. Fingers crossed; it seems the way decisions are
made in F1 nowadays.
"If they wanted a formula that allowed for more overtaking without
using artificial aids like DRS then they needed to go for a formula
that reduced downforce levels but they have gone in the opposite
direction,"
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Is the DRS gone then?
HAve none of the multiple sources that you follow but can't remember dealt with that?
I don't spent much time with regulations shit but I thought it remains.
Post by Bobster
DRS remains. But there are doubts about whether it will be as effective.
Well with more wings/drag, it could be more effective then before but
that of course depends heavily on how much wings will be "opened" during
DRS.
Post by Bobster
Though FIA may be able to compensate by adjusting the DRS zones.
Edmund
~misfit~
2017-02-14 00:51:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
"My personal view is that it may have gone in the wrong direction, I
would have gone for less aero and perhaps more mechanical grip."
What a lot of people are thinking.
We get what we get. Fingers crossed; it seems the way decisions are
made in F1 nowadays.
"If they wanted a formula that allowed for more overtaking without
using artificial aids like DRS then they needed to go for a formula
that reduced downforce levels but they have gone in the opposite
direction,"
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Interesting (confirms my suspicions of too much aero in new formula) and
thought provoking (US ownership and possible changes), thanks.

(Though it is part of F1 journo circle-jerk, quoting an Italian blog but not
providing a link to it. I don't know how the ethics of this type of
journalism works.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Bobster
2017-02-14 06:03:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Sir Tim
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Interesting (confirms my suspicions of too much aero in new formula) and
thought provoking (US ownership and possible changes), thanks.
(Though it is part of F1 journo circle-jerk, quoting an Italian blog but not
providing a link to it. I don't know how the ethics of this type of
journalism works.)
They bought that article from a bureau. A common practice in all fields of journalism. The trouble is the particular bureau they bought from, and that they are reduced to the cheaper option of buying from a bureau.

It's not unethical - they declare the source. However, any time any paper runs an article that was not generated in house they are running an article that they cannot verify.

It costs time and money to run media sites. If we keep on insisting on free stuff with no advertising, we will drive up the price for those that do pay and/or make things unsustainable for the providers.

Not all F1 journalism is operating on this basis at the moment, but the amount of reliable reporting is shrinking. Soon we will each have a choice of paying for something reliable or free rumours.
Sir Tim
2017-02-14 11:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Sir Tim
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Interesting (confirms my suspicions of too much aero in new formula) and
thought provoking (US ownership and possible changes), thanks.
(Though it is part of F1 journo circle-jerk, quoting an Italian blog but not
providing a link to it. I don't know how the ethics of this type of
journalism works.)
They bought that article from a bureau. A common practice in all fields of journalism. The trouble is the particular bureau they bought from, and that they are reduced to the cheaper option of buying from a bureau.
It's not unethical - they declare the source. However, any time any paper runs an article that was not generated in house they are running an article that they cannot verify.
It costs time and money to run media sites. If we keep on insisting on free stuff with no advertising, we will drive up the price for those that do pay and/or make things unsustainable for the providers.
Not all F1 journalism is operating on this basis at the moment, but the amount of reliable reporting is shrinking. Soon we will each have a choice of paying for something reliable or free rumours.
Joe Saward often gets po-faced about this - understandably, as he is a
professional journalist who himself attends every race.

I find it interesting that many people, myself included, who would never
have expected to get a newspaper for free are very reluctant to pay for
online news.

This is partly the fault of the press itself which, like the music and
publishing businesses before it, has been resistant to the idea of
digital media and has sought to hamper it rather than exploit its
advantages.

I read the Sunday Times and am happy to pay 2.50 UKP for it. When in
Nevada, where it is not available, I used to download the digital
version (which was excellent incidentally) and was happy to pay for it.
Indeed I used to download *2* copies so that Lady Tim and I could read
it independently on our iPads. On my last visit however I found that the
only way I could get the ST was by taking a fortnight's subscription to
the (daily) Times and, to add insult to injury, then pay extra for the
Sunday version on top. Needless to say I was able to forego my usual
Sunday morning enjoyment for a few weeks!

I suspect that F1 will face similar problems over streaming. I am
fortunate in having a subscription to SkyF1, which came as part of an
incentive to go over to HD and remains in force. The coverage is
brilliant but I doubt I would continue with it if, as I think is now the
case, I had to take the full Sky sports package.

There must be plenty of people who are prepared to part with, say, ten
quid for the occasional weekend's F1 viewing but are not prepared to
commit to the full Sky package.

No doubt Liberty will be addressing this issue although I suspect that
its hands are tied for the time being.
--
Sir Tim

“Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional”
Bobster
2017-02-14 18:34:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Sir Tim
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Interesting (confirms my suspicions of too much aero in new formula) and
thought provoking (US ownership and possible changes), thanks.
(Though it is part of F1 journo circle-jerk, quoting an Italian blog but not
providing a link to it. I don't know how the ethics of this type of
journalism works.)
They bought that article from a bureau. A common practice in all fields of journalism. The trouble is the particular bureau they bought from, and that they are reduced to the cheaper option of buying from a bureau.
It's not unethical - they declare the source. However, any time any paper runs an article that was not generated in house they are running an article that they cannot verify.
It costs time and money to run media sites. If we keep on insisting on free stuff with no advertising, we will drive up the price for those that do pay and/or make things unsustainable for the providers.
Not all F1 journalism is operating on this basis at the moment, but the amount of reliable reporting is shrinking. Soon we will each have a choice of paying for something reliable or free rumours.
Joe Saward often gets po-faced about this - understandably, as he is a
professional journalist who himself attends every race.
Yes, he's got it in for GMM, but there's a bit more to it than his own finances. GMM is not a reliable source, and that's not good for anybody. Except for GMM.
Post by Sir Tim
I find it interesting that many people, myself included, who would never
have expected to get a newspaper for free are very reluctant to pay for
online news.
This is partly the fault of the press itself which, like the music and
publishing businesses before it, has been resistant to the idea of
digital media and has sought to hamper it rather than exploit its
advantages.
I think the traditional media are not doing well. Newer organisations with a different history and a different business model may do better. There are some sites doing well and doing a good job. The ESPN stable provides a good service and provide jobs for good journalists - especially the Cricinfo site. This is the potential counter to my negative vision.

Cricinfo shows what can be done - near real time, ball by ball live scores for all international matches. Their statistical database is so good they provide services to some of the radio and TV teams.

But for every Cricinfo there's a small team who thought that it must be easy and cheap. Which it can be, but being easy and cheap and worth while is another matter.

Wilson and Alroy's Record Reviews provided a very good service, but they didn't make any money, and the site is just an archive now with very occasional updates.
Post by Sir Tim
I read the Sunday Times and am happy to pay 2.50 UKP for it. When in
Nevada, where it is not available, I used to download the digital
version (which was excellent incidentally) and was happy to pay for it.
Indeed I used to download *2* copies so that Lady Tim and I could read
it independently on our iPads. On my last visit however I found that the
only way I could get the ST was by taking a fortnight's subscription to
the (daily) Times and, to add insult to injury, then pay extra for the
Sunday version on top. Needless to say I was able to forego my usual
Sunday morning enjoyment for a few weeks!
I suspect that F1 will face similar problems over streaming. I am
fortunate in having a subscription to SkyF1, which came as part of an
incentive to go over to HD and remains in force. The coverage is
brilliant but I doubt I would continue with it if, as I think is now the
case, I had to take the full Sky sports package.
Where I live, you get F1 as part of the higher level packages. Some folks, notably Ferrari fans, go down to sports cafes to watch the races. But it's nowhere near as big a deal as soccer, rugby or cricket. Or, probably, horse racing.

Indeed, I wonder if F1 is the biggest or second biggest sport in any territory that it operates in.
Post by Sir Tim
There must be plenty of people who are prepared to part with, say, ten
quid for the occasional weekend's F1 viewing but are not prepared to
commit to the full Sky package.
Maybe. I think there must be a way to get more viewers with a streamed service that requires a specialised app for watching the broadcast. If you control the app, you can sell some advertising space on that too. Make that pay per view.
Post by Sir Tim
No doubt Liberty will be addressing this issue although I suspect that
its hands are tied for the time being.
As regards TV, I'd think so. But if Bernie was smart he'd have retained the digital rights, even if he didn't know what to do with them. In fact FOM have done trials with a high speed HD speed from tracks at various locations to their offices in London.

I think they have to play a long game, and they have to find a way of killing pirate feeds.
Sir Tim
2017-02-14 10:04:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Sir Tim
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns35749.html
Interesting (confirms my suspicions of too much aero in new formula) and
thought provoking (US ownership and possible changes), thanks.
(Though it is part of F1 journo circle-jerk, quoting an Italian blog but not
providing a link to it. I don't know how the ethics of this type of
journalism works.)
I'm not sure that grandprix.com is the most reliable of sites, although
it's been around for a long time, but it has a touch of sensationalism
which I rather like. After all, F1 is really only a very expensive soap
opera :-)
--
Sir Tim
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional"
Loading...