End of the V6t/Narrow Car Era.

[roon]

Do you want lap times or racing? I wonder sometimes which it is modern fans want.

That would depend on what is considered racing. Some consider close proximity, side by side cars to be racing. But hillclimb, time attack, Formula Student, rallying, and others, do without it. Should circuit racing be excluded from this list?

Personally I'm less interested in driver competition and prefer to see engineering competition. Not that they are mutually exclusive, and they both entail team dynamics. I might say that the more competitive & professionalized the driving side has become in the modern era has actually made the driving side even less interesting. There is a less diverse range of people getting behind the wheel because you need to be a Olympian to compete now. There are no builder-drivers in the big-leagues anymore, let alone renaissance men or genuine weirdos. I suppose Kimi is F1's last bastion of older eras.

In the context of F1, what can be said to be more or less authentic? In its earlier eras there was less camera coverage, more emphasis on live viewing, and as such passes would rarely be seen on track if and when they happened. I should think that would have meant lap times, position changes (not necessarily through passing), and the sight & sound spectactle would have been the more important factors.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I highly doubt that any car will ever run with 105kg in the tanks next season, actually a smart team could get an advantage by continuing to run the same size tank as this year and most teams are already underfilling for a majority of 2016 races.

If I'm the FIA I get the boffins to work out what the maximum usage is by the thirstiest car and add 5Kg to that and have that as a MINIMUM. They need to stop the fuel saving BS that keeps going on.

Why is it so difficult for so many F1 watchers to understand that they do not save fuel because they have to, they save fuel because that is the fastest way to run the race, especially with the pirelli tires that can not handle full on 10/10ths driving without losing most grip after a lap or two.

They have always conserved fuel and they always will, GET OVER IT.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Pirelli would make better tires if they were allowed to.
Bridgestone made long lasting tires because the regs demanded that.

I remember when the narrow era was introduced and Mclaren unveiled a very nice orange mp4-13, too bad it was just for show.

Nobody asked pirelli to make the garbage they have provided F1 over the years.

Nobody asked for tires with thermal deg, or that self destructed or exploded or delaminated.

The FIA, FOM & Teams asked for a tire which would require the teams to make 2 or 3 pitstops per race(with the 2010 Canadian GP as the example), it was Pirelli that CHOSE to do so by way of thermal deg, and now after some years(and many tire failures) anyone with a modicum of deductive reasoning understands why they chose to do so. Pirelli tires are structurally WEAK(specifically where the carcass meets the sidewall). They can not withstand FULL F1 forces for a prolonged period of time, so they built into the tires "thermal deg", where if you pushed them too hard for too long(more than a couple laps) they would lose massive grip, so therefore loads put into the tires would have to be reduced to get a reasonable amount of life & grip. They basically put a "fuse" into their tires. They chose, for obvious reasons, to limit the performance of the tire by way of "thermal deg" rather than to let the teams push them as hard as possible and suffer even more spectacular high speed tire failures.

Now onto Bridgestone tires, in 2005 when tires were required to last the entire race distance BS won a grand total of 1 race, it was the 2005 USGP. Do you remember that one? BS did not make long lasting tires because the regs demanded it, because the regs only demanded it for 1 year(in which they failed miserably). BS became the de facto sole tire supplier in 2007 until Pirelli came in for 2011, so no BS never needed to make long lasting tires, but unlike pirelli BS chose to make BETTER tires.

[Restomaniac]

I highly doubt that any car will ever run with 105kg in the tanks next season, actually a smart team could get an advantage by continuing to run the same size tank as this year and most teams are already underfilling for a majority of 2016 races.

If I'm the FIA I get the boffins to work out what the maximum usage is by the thirstiest car and add 5Kg to that and have that as a MINIMUM. They need to stop the fuel saving BS that keeps going on.

Why is it so difficult for so many F1 watchers to understand that they do not save fuel because they have to, they save fuel because that is the fastest way to run the race, especially with the pirelli tires that can not handle full on 10/10ths driving without losing most grip after a lap or two.

They have always conserved fuel and they always will, GET OVER IT.

Sorry but I'm pretty certain that on numerous occasions in 2016 there have been radio messages mentioning them having to do exactly that.
I guess I'm hearing things.

The Honda in particular seems a thirsty little Donkey.

[sosic2121]

If I'm the FIA I get the boffins to work out what the maximum usage is by the thirstiest car and add 5Kg to that and have that as a MINIMUM. They need to stop the fuel saving BS that keeps going on.

Why is it so difficult for so many F1 watchers to understand that they do not save fuel because they have to, they save fuel because that is the fastest way to run the race, especially with the pirelli tires that can not handle full on 10/10ths driving without losing most grip after a lap or two.

They have always conserved fuel and they always will, GET OVER IT.

Sorry but I'm pretty certain that on numerous occasions in 2016 there have been radio messages mentioning them having to do exactly that.
I guess I'm hearing things.

The Honda in particular seems a hungry little Donkey.

You're missing the point.
Even if they needed 100kg to go flat out entire race, they would start with less because that is quicker over race distance. IMO they start the race with "max power" and turn the engine down as the race go on.
No matter what FIA does, teams will always save fuel.

[Restomaniac]

Why is it so difficult for so many F1 watchers to understand that they do not save fuel because they have to, they save fuel because that is the fastest way to run the race, especially with the pirelli tires that can not handle full on 10/10ths driving without losing most grip after a lap or two.

They have always conserved fuel and they always will, GET OVER IT.

Sorry but I'm pretty certain that on numerous occasions in 2016 there have been radio messages mentioning them having to do exactly that.
I guess I'm hearing things.

The Honda in particular seems a hungry little Donkey.

You're missing the point.
Even if they needed 100kg to go flat out entire race, they would start with less because that is quicker over race distance. IMO they start the race with "max power" and turn the engine down as the race go on.
No matter what FIA does, teams will always save fuel.

I said they would need to carry a MINIMUM not a maximum. A MINIMUM which would be more than the thirstiest engine would need.

If the thirstiest engine (Which seems to be the Honda) needs 120Kg over the course of the race then they ALL have to carry 125Kg.

They then won't be fuel saving at all, in fact they will be turned up to 11 most of the time.

[sosic2121]

Sorry but I'm pretty certain that on numerous occasions in 2016 there have been radio messages mentioning them having to do exactly that.
I guess I'm hearing things.

The Honda in particular seems a hungry little Donkey.

You're missing the point.
Even if they needed 100kg to go flat out entire race, they would start with less because that is quicker over race distance. IMO they start the race with "max power" and turn the engine down as the race go on.
No matter what FIA does, teams will always save fuel.

I said they would need to carry a MINIMUM not a maximum. A MINIMUM which would be more than the thirstiest engine would need.

If the thirstiest engine (Which seems to be the Honda) needs 120Kg over the course of the race then they ALL have to carry 125Kg.

They then won't be fuel saving at all, in fact they will be turned up to 11 most of the time.

Aaa, sorry.
I haven't seen your earlier post.
Maybe that would work or teams would find the way to dump excess fuel. lol
If only FIA could find some type of engine that doesn't allow for big fuel savings. Maybe N/A V10?

[ENGINE TUNER]

I said they would need to carry a MINIMUM not a maximum. A MINIMUM which would be more than the thirstiest engine would need.

If the thirstiest engine (Which seems to be the Honda) needs 120Kg over the course of the race then they ALL have to carry 125Kg.

They then won't be fuel saving at all, in fact they will be turned up to 11 most of the time.

Again you are wrong, they would fuel dump on recon laps and the formation lap until they are underfueled and then save fuel during the race. All you are doing is finding new ways for them to find how to waste fuel. It(fuel saving) is a part of racing, get over it.

And again, they mostly fuel save these days because the tires do not allow them to push harder during the race, so instead of pushing already marginal tires they take it easy on the tires by fuel saving.

Also how silly would it be to penalize the more efficient PU's on the grid by making them add extra fuel when the whole world is looking to increase efficiency in every way?

[wesley123]

They then won't be fuel saving at all, in fact they will be turned up to 11 most of the time.

Of course, except the engine has to last more than one session.

[Pierce89]

Pirelli would make better tires if they were allowed to.
Bridgestone made long lasting tires because the regs demanded that.

I remember when the narrow era was introduced and Mclaren unveiled a very nice orange mp4-13, too bad it was just for show.

Nobody asked pirelli to make the garbage they have provided F1 over the years.

Nobody asked for tires with thermal deg, or that self destructed or exploded or delaminated.

The FIA, FOM & Teams asked for a tire which would require the teams to make 2 or 3 pitstops per race(with the 2010 Canadian GP as the example), it was Pirelli that CHOSE to do so by way of thermal deg, and now after some years(and many tire failures) anyone with a modicum of deductive reasoning understands why they chose to do so. Pirelli tires are structurally WEAK(specifically where the carcass meets the sidewall). They can not withstand FULL F1 forces for a prolonged period of time, so they built into the tires "thermal deg", where if you pushed them too hard for too long(more than a couple laps) they would lose massive grip, so therefore loads put into the tires would have to be reduced to get a reasonable amount of life & grip. They basically put a "fuse" into their tires. They chose, for obvious reasons, to limit the performance of the tire by way of "thermal deg" rather than to let the teams push them as hard as possible and suffer even more spectacular high speed tire failures.

Now onto Bridgestone tires, in 2005 when tires were required to last the entire race distance BS won a grand total of 1 race, it was the 2005 USGP. Do you remember that one? BS did not make long lasting tires because the regs demanded it, because the regs only demanded it for 1 year(in which they failed miserably). BS became the de facto sole tire supplier in 2007 until Pirelli came in for 2011, so no BS never needed to make long lasting tires, but unlike pirelli BS chose to make BETTER tires.

Any major tire manufacturer can build tires to withstand f1 cars. The hard part is combining that with pace in a tire that still forces 2 pitstops. I assure you Pirelli has an ABUNDANCE of engineering resources to build any tire you can imagine. They turn over hundreds of millions each year. You act like we're talking about some small low budget firm.

Edit: I am in no way implying Pirelli is as good as Michelin or Bridgestone, only that they are a huge and competent tire manufacturer whose World Superbike tire just beat Michelins motogp tires while the Superbike spec wise is much slower.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Any major tire manufacturer can build tires to withstand f1 cars. The hard part is combining that with pace in a tire that still forces 2 pitstops. I assure you Pirelli has an ABUNDANCE of engineering resources to build any tire you can imagine. They turn over hundreds of millions each year. You act like we're talking about some small low budget firm.

Edit: I am in no way implying Pirelli is as good as Michelin or Bridgestone, only that they are a huge and competent tire manufacturer whose World Superbike tire just beat Michelins motogp tires while the Superbike spec wise is much slower.

Is that why we have seen so many tire failures during the Pirelli era? Is that why there is a gag order imposed on the drivers?

I'll just leave this right here.

A leading driver who did not want to be identified confirmed they had agreed to keep talking to Pirelli about whether to change the design and behaviour of the tyres.

However, he said there was skepticism about whether Pirelli was technically capable of designing a tyre on which the drivers could push flat out throughout a race stint even if it was asked to do so.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/34171917

I will also mention this. Among the tire providers that have participated in F1 tire "wars" Pirelli has the LOWEST win percentage.

[Gridlock]

Any major tire manufacturer can build tires to withstand f1 cars. The hard part is combining that with pace in a tire that still forces 2 pitstops. I assure you Pirelli has an ABUNDANCE of engineering resources to build any tire you can imagine.

They should have said no. That's always been my complaint, and every exploded carcass since hasn't helped dissuade me.

They couldn't even say no to the teams running the tyres fitted backwards ffs.

[Juzh]

Edit: I am in no way implying Pirelli is as good as Michelin or Bridgestone, only that they are a huge and competent tire manufacturer whose World Superbike tire just beat Michelins motogp tires while the Superbike spec wise is much slower.

Erm.. Except they didn't. Also, it's michelins first year back in motogp and they've already broken some bridgestone records despite the limit on electronics and TC (quite a big deal on a 280 bhp bike). Back in 2007 or 2008 they had quali tires in motogp (similar to what they have in superbike) and once they scrapped them, bikes needed 5 years to be able to run the same pace in quali. Even SBK riders admitted their one lap pace is purely down to quali tire, and their race pace is miles off motogp.

[f1316]

"New [2017] F1 tyres have very low degradation"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... egradation

The returning to window part is key, I think. I'd like to hope that they have low but linear degradation, so that there is still benefit of coming in and changing the tyres, so that you can gain position; if degradation is too low, you might as well not stop at all.

[mclaren111]

"New [2017] F1 tyres have very low degradation"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... egradation

The returning to window part is key, I think. I'd like to hope that they have low but linear degradation, so that there is still benefit of coming in and changing the tyres, so that you can gain position; if degradation is too low, you might as well not stop at all.

Fortunately they have to run the Perelli nominated tyre at some point in the race