Cam wrote:beelsebob wrote:And yet on lap 33, mark webber set a 1:49.8, about 2 seconds slower than the lap record, on the longest track on the entire calendar, demonstrating that the difference in race time is down to differences in rules re how tyre changes/tyre degradation/fuel etc works, rather than how quick the cars are.
I agree with you. But the cars are still slower, not faster. Each year we should be seeing faster times as the cars improve. Watching Spa this year knowing that lap record is getting smashed is all but a dream - and this is the result of the finest category of motorsport? It's daft to not be harder, better, faster, stronger.
But that's utterly unsustainable. Both from a human pilot point of view through to it reducing the opportunity for racing.
There has been a certain amount of slowing the cars for safety reasons but there is an overlooked secondary reason. If the cars are too quick then usually this will mean that they are impossible to race. Aero becomes too dominant and hopefully we all know about the dirty air problems for racing when the aerodynamics of the cars plays too much of a role in the performance of the cars.
Then you have the other aspect which is a combination of braking distance and turn in speed reducing the opportunity for out braking another driver into a corner. If the braking distance is too short and / or the turn in speed to the corner too high then it becomes impossible for there to be any overtaking into a corner. This will lead to there only ever being DRS overtakes, especially if you want to remove the variability of the tyres.
How do you reconcile the banning of traction control? The purist must want the teams to be allowed to use traction control, as it's a performance related innovation, but it takes away from the skill of the drivers and makes the cars easier to drive. What about then adding ABS, active suspension, and ultimately even replacing the driver entirely with a computer? From an engineering point of view getting rid of the driver would allow for faster cars and would be more 'pure' as it's the pursuit of the best possible solution technically.
I also find it amusing how you're happy for a team to come up with an aero innovation that leads to a dominant car but hate the possibility of a suspension or other innovation, coupled with a better understanding of the tyres, leading to a dominant car because they can work with the Pirelli's better than anyone else. Both require engineers doing a better job than their contemporaries. It was also a key differentiator in Red Bull's favour last year, and one of the contributing reasons as to why Vettel was so dominant even over his own team mate and yet few complained then.
My own view is that having the best tech around is great an' all, but if the drivers are unable to race against each other then you may as well not bother. If this means the cars need to be slowed to make it physically possible for there to be a race then, as much as it's a shame, so be it.
