Purist vs Spectacle?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Speedster
Speedster
0
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 16:39

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

Cam wrote:Yeah, it's interesting. I know how I would approach it if I was a team owner. Your gut tells you you want the fastest guy and we'll build a machine to encapsulate that, but the 2012 reality is the more balanced driver probably has a better shot at the title. From a Purist vs Spectacle view, choosing drivers that would work better in a strategic environment who simply run the car to the right numbers and accrue points, again, doesn't seem right.

Drivers will now have to train to be 0.1s perfect over a large number of laps. It could actually open up the driver pool and promote drivers to ignore winning by being 'fast' in order to show a CV designed to impress F1 2012 regs.
I'm happy that at least we have a nice qualifying Saturday at the moment, although I wouldn't oppose one of the previous systems in which everyone does one flying lap (in which I can see problems as well though, with changing weather conditions and track evolution). On Saturday, the fast guys can show what they have as, barring a few, most drivers seem to be able to get the tyres in the operating range reasonably well, so they can push to the limit.

Personally, I'm a bit surprised at the debate subject, unpredictability vs consistency. For me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with unpredictability. I love it when I don't know beforehand who is going to end up where. Unpredictability can be teams leapfrogging each other in technology, setup, racecraft, strategy or whatever. I don't need to see a driver disappear in the distance to be feeling a purist, even though I can enjoy that occasionally (the problem is that for me, it becomes boring to watch over a season, despite the team deserving compliments).

The current unpredictability is based on changing weather conditions, it seems a small drop or rise in temperature has a massive impact on both speed and durability of the tyres, meaning at 20 degrees a different team will be quickest than at 25, which doesn't really make sense to me, especially because it is artificial. I don't know if unpredictability is also a lot of overtaking, but I don't really mind if there is a lot of overtaking or not. DRS and worn-out tyre overtaking is just driving past, not overtaking.

I like the long-distance battles with both action on the track and on the pit wall. Sadly, the tyres are not able to give us that, as most of the time the front runner has such an advantage that the driver behind has only very limited options, due to the tyres dropping off in dirty air. It leads to the paradox that, statistically, there is more overtaking than ever, but in my feeling, there are a lot less close-fought battles that last and those are the ones that are satisfying, whether the front runner manages to stay in front or not.

feni_remmen
feni_remmen
3
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 15:43

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

This is an interesting dilemma.
It's great that formula 1 is finally back to being endurance racing, as it once was, rather than the absurd spectacle of grand prix drivers, driving flat out with no regard to conserving the tyres or the cars. This is the way grand prix racing is meant to be. It's great that it's back! Strategies that work themselves out on the run. Finally purists have it the way it should be.

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

Cam wrote:
PH: "It is not the tyre – it is the interaction between car and tyre to get the tyre in to the window that maximises the performance. I am not trying to shift responsibility: but it is that."
LOL - that's the tyre mate.
It's not. There's a key difference. He's saying everyone knows what the tyre needs to give its best - just that not everyone understands how to get there. It's like taking a video game - say you're facing a monster, who can only be killed by using a specific combo. Everyone knows that you have to use a specific combo to kill the monster - but they don't know what the combo is, and that's what they're trying to find out. The monster (tyre, in this analogy) is not different per team.

Having said all that - I've sort of found a frame which eases my quest for a return to a "purist" nature. Generally - 2012 is much the same as previous years in that it has a consistent pecking order - just that it's 5 teams at the top rather than 3. The pecking order if you notice really hasn't fluctuated as much recently - or perhaps ever. The Lotus, Williams, McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull cars have consistently been just about the top 5 cars - with the occasional midfielder (such as a Sauber or Force India) usurping the pack.

Even since Bridgestone days - and more relevantly, the 2009 and 2010 Bridgestones - temperatures have been a key that some teams couldn't unlock. Who here remembers the 2009 Brawn weaving its arse off along the Hangar Straight in the British GP and the Chinese back straight? I do. Or how the 2010 Ferrari would have 2 or 3 outlaps where it was consistently locking front tyres because it couldn't heat them up? I know I do again. These temperature issues can be worth up to 3 tenths IMO - more at times. 3 tenths is a lot this year - it's been, generally, the gap between P1 and P11 in Q2. In the sense that a pecking order is out, I am appeased.

But I stand by my own self that I actually prefer a smaller "top pack" - with only 3 or a maximum of 4 fighting it out consistently for victories. There can be red herring victories where an underdog wins, but not consistently. At least that's my personal view anyways.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

raymondu999 wrote:
Cam wrote:
PH: "It is not the tyre – it is the interaction between car and tyre to get the tyre in to the window that maximises the performance. I am not trying to shift responsibility: but it is that."
LOL - that's the tyre mate.
It's not. There's a key difference. He's saying everyone knows what the tyre needs to give its best - just that not everyone understands how to get there. It's like taking a video game - say you're facing a monster, who can only be killed by using a specific combo. Everyone knows that you have to use a specific combo to kill the monster - but they don't know what the combo is, and that's what they're trying to find out. The monster (tyre, in this analogy) is not different per team.
Yep, I think we all realize this, just as the teams have had to figure out since day dot. Difference is, these tyres can't be figured out. The best brains in automotive engineering (not just one or two - all of them) can't get a firm grip (excuse the pun) on what the relationship is. So it is the tyre. For all we now there might be deviations in the supply. I've personally experienced seeing a batch of goods vary from the same supplier (precision material from a huge named company). After mentioning it, the supplier swore black and blue that it was 'impossible' due to the QA involved. After finally convincing him to get off his ar$e and come have a look, sure enough the batches varied. "I didn't know this could happen' was the reply. Eventually traced it back to a temperature increase while it sat in a container in Singapore for a couple of days. Point is, things like this happen and until I see paperwork showing the same temps, humidity, composition etc from a range of batches covering the whole spectrum from ingredients to incineration - my gut tells me somethings not right. Occam's razor. Might be completely wrong - just my opinion.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

Terry Blount, NASCAR columnist for ESPN.com wrote:DOVER, Del. -- If you want the racing to change, you have to change the cars.

That's the answer folks. It's no secret. And I'm going to tell you how to do it: Make the cars harder to drive.

"I'm not against it," Jimmie Johnson said Friday. "It would make us test pilots out here for all this, but I'd kind of like that."

More on that later, but let's discuss what isn't working.

The biggest female celebrity in racing -- love or hate Danica Patrick -- isn't enough. Dale Earnhardt Jr. racing in the top 10 almost every week also isn't enough, not until he wins again.

NASCAR desperately needs a jolt of excitement, some high drama at high speeds, to change the current chatter that races just aren't so hot to watch these days.

Can the dangerous 1-mile oval at Dover provide it? It's often been called Bristol on steroids, a high-banked, concrete track twice the size of Bristol.

Even Bristol needed an injection of something for its race in March that was so uneventful, track owner Bruton Smith later said he would spend millions to try to change the track back to its former sheet-metal-eating self.

Fairly or unfairly, the perception for many fans, reporters, broadcasters and bloggers is NASCAR lacks something this season.

I did three radio shows based in different parts of the country last week , but all three hit me with the same question: "Why are the races so boring?"

True or false, that's what people believe. Thrills are few. Cautions are rare. Wrecks are even rarer.

Most fans like to see wrecks. Anyone who denies that is kidding themselves. No one wants to see any driver get hurt, but they do want to see cars bumping, banging and sometimes crashing.

It's part of NASCAR's identity, but those things aren't happening much. Drivers are racing as if they have a sign in the rear window that reads, "Baby on Board."

Long green-flag runs are the norm, which wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing if cars were running next to each other and making passes.

Two of Rick Hendrick's drivers have been in victory lane as we head to Dover. Plus, more on Matt Kenseth, Richard Petty, Rusty Wallace and Darrell Waltrip.

NASCAR officials say competition is better than ever. It's certainly better than 40 years ago, when Richard Petty and others often won the race as the only car on the lead lap.

But as we all know, statistics can be misleading. The number of lead changes includes all the changes during green-flag stops, which aren't really passes for the lead. This season has been lap after lap without much actually happening on the track.

So what to do? Simple. Change the car. It's just too easy to drive and negates the talent of the better drivers.

"The cars still are difficult to drive," Matt Kenseth said Friday. "But they are more forgiving and easier to catch when you get sideways because they have so much side force. So we aren't wrecking as much."

So make the cars less forgiving and the more talented drivers will shine through, while others will struggle, and probably wreck.

"A looser race car plays into my driving style, so I'm all for that," Johnson said. "Everything on the cars has been the same for so long that it's tough to find something different. And we're pretty good at doing that."

And it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar, or even a brilliant mechanical engineer, to fix it. Give the cars less downforce. Here's how:

xxxxReduce the size of the rear spoiler. Or remove it.
xxxxReduce the size of the front splitter. Or take it off entirely.
xxxxRaise the side panels (a small change was made two weeks ago) higher off the ground. In fact, raise the entire car higher off the ground.

"I've always been in favor of less rear downforce to make the cars less aero dependent," Kenseth said. "I liked it better when the cars were tougher to drive, with smaller spoilers, and didn't just squash into the racetrack."

Now before some of you scream, "Danger, Will Robinson" (yes, I'm old, I remember "Lost in Space"), I get it. I am talking about major changes that would make the racing much more dangerous.

Driving the cars under these specs would be like trying to wrestle a gorilla in an airplane bathroom.

The danger element would increase dramatically. Safety would be somewhat compromised. Nothing's perfect folks. I believe it's worth the risk.

The cars and the track have gone through a safety renaissance over the past decade -- head and neck restraints, SAFER barriers, larger greenhouses around the drivers, crush panels, etc.

The advancements greatly exceed the additional risk that would come from making the cars more difficult to drive, which would mean additional mistakes on the track by some drivers.

However, Johnson said one big problem wouldn't change much.

"The truth is the lead car has a huge advantage no matter what we do to the cars," he said. "They didn't know about aero push back in the 1980s. You can't take back the knowledge we have. But if we can do something to close the gap between first and 15th, then we'll have a better show."

NASCAR officials hope that will happen naturally next year when Sprint Cup goes old school with new cars that look more like actual production models.

So making significant changes now would be a temporary solution until everyone sees how the new cars perform in race conditions. However, the new car is the same "Car of Tomorrow" chassis and will have similar downforce characteristics.

The car isn't the only issue in the eyes of some drivers. They say conservative points racing has increased with the new system that gives only one point for last place.

"Guys have always points raced," Earnhardt said Friday. "But the percentage lost for a bad finish is a lot worse than the old system.

"The bigger issue is the lack of rides and how hard they are to come by. Foolishness and ignorance on the racetrack isn't tolerated. You have to keep your ride in one piece or you're out of a job in a hurry."

That becomes more difficult to achieve under my plan, not that I want to cost anyone a job. But I do want to see the perception of boring races come to an end.

A car that's hard to drive and easy to wreck is a race that's fun to watch.
If NASCAR* thinks it's a good idea...

I rest my case.



* I'm not against NASCAR per se, nor do I look down upon it. But, no one will ever, or should ever, confuse it for F1.

User avatar
SeijaKessen
4
Joined: 08 Jan 2012, 21:34
Location: USA

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

Great post bhall.

I keep hoping F1 might get back to the days of when cars used to actually slide around the tracks. The aero aspect is so far overboard now IMO. They limited the wrong thing...the engine specs never should have been locked...aero specs should have been locked. It makes for by far more interesting racing when the cars are no longer so easy to drive because at least we start to see how good some of the drivers really are.

myurr
myurr
9
Joined: 20 Mar 2008, 21:58

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

SeijaKessen wrote:Great post bhall.

I keep hoping F1 might get back to the days of when cars used to actually slide around the tracks. The aero aspect is so far overboard now IMO. They limited the wrong thing...the engine specs never should have been locked...aero specs should have been locked. It makes for by far more interesting racing when the cars are no longer so easy to drive because at least we start to see how good some of the drivers really are.
Strangely the 2014 engine specs aim to open up the aero side of things by imposing their own limit on downforce. By limiting fuel flow and total amount of fuel you need a certain level of efficiency, something you cannot have if you also have unlimited downforce. So teams will be balancing downforce / drag against the amount of fuel their engines will burn in order to maximise the performance of the cars.

By reducing the amount of fuel / fuel flow available to the teams the FIA can in turn limit the aerodynamic downforce the cars achieve.

@CAM - one thing your long post ignores is the fact that Red Bull and Ferrari have shown good race pace in pretty much every race and are leading the championships because of it. If the tyres are impossible to understand and performance is down to random luck, then how have those teams managed to be so consistent?

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

Actually, Seija, I probably should have given that article a touch of context. For some reason, I have this odd notion that people can see inside my head and know what I mean without me having to say what I mean.

I posted that article as an indictment of the Play-Doh tires. I've been saying the element they add to racing is unusually artificial. Pirelli was asked to provide difficult to tires in order to spice up the game, and now NASCAR observers are calling for similar measures. I can't think of a better juxtaposition of values that demonstrates just exactly how artificial F1 has become.

Speedster
Speedster
0
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 16:39

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

bhallg2k wrote:Actually, Seija, I probably should have given that article a touch of context. For some reason, I have this odd notion that people can see inside my head and know what I mean without me having to say what I mean.

I posted that article as an indictment of the Play-Doh tires. I've been saying the element they add to racing is unusually artificial. Pirelli was asked to provide difficult to tires in order to spice up the game, and now NASCAR observers are calling for similar measures. I can't think of a better juxtaposition of values that demonstrates just exactly how artificial F1 has become.
To an extent, everything is artificial. Personally I don't see the problem in making NASCAR cars less stable or less forgiving or whatever, if the racing gets better as a result (even though I never watch NASCAR).

The problem F1 has is that the cars are faster than the tires. Give them regulations that cut aero or add engine power or whatever, and the rules will still be artificial (without regulations the cars will be faster), but the teams will try to extract the maximum possible within the limits, as will the drivers. It will be artificial, but boundary pushing. Now it's artificial and, in races, way within the limits of the car, and the tyres (the tyres can go faster, but not for long).

User avatar
SeijaKessen
4
Joined: 08 Jan 2012, 21:34
Location: USA

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

bhallg2k wrote:Actually, Seija, I probably should have given that article a touch of context. For some reason, I have this odd notion that people can see inside my head and know what I mean without me having to say what I mean.

I posted that article as an indictment of the Play-Doh tires. I've been saying the element they add to racing is unusually artificial. Pirelli was asked to provide difficult to tires in order to spice up the game, and now NASCAR observers are calling for similar measures. I can't think of a better juxtaposition of values that demonstrates just exactly how artificial F1 has become.
Well, I do agree on the artificiality of racing. I guess the issue is that one could view every attempt to change something in racing as adding to the artificiality. But that aside, things such as the 2012 Pirelli Lottery Sweepstakes, DRS, KERS, etc. is all artificial.

I suspect some of us --myself included-- wouldn't be fully happy unless for all intents and purposes, F1 rolled the specs back to 1978-1979.

When I am around I do turn on NASCAR races, and from the little I have seen this season, it hasn't struck me as boring. It's a spec race, it is what it is. I'll always have a problem with F1 being reduced to a near spec race level.

I've always surmised the real reason you don't see F1/FOM --as well as trying to yank down every video on YouTube-- releasing previous race seasons on DVD/Blu-ray is because they are afraid people beyond the old foggies might actually enjoy what they see...or remember what F1 was about for many years.

"Wait, what is this? No DRS zones or KERS systems? Drivers battling it out wheel to wheel? Tires that don't seem to negate driver ability? V12's, V8's, V10s, flat 12's? Manual gear boxes? Cars sliding around turns? Drivers actually just driving? Why...why...this is actually enjoyable. What is this product they are trying to pass off on us fools now?"

There'd probably be a bit of money to be made off such a thing, and as seeing there has been no cash grab forthcoming --which seems to go against the instinctive nature of certain individuals in F1-- I can't help but feel something is amiss in the sunny paradise of F1.

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

Until FIA protocol requires that all drivers, save for the winner, be summarily executed at the conclusion of each event, racing will always be artificial. (Imagine that podium ceremony.) So, perhaps that word should be tossed aside in favor of something a bit more accurate.

Gimmicky? Convoluted? Moribund?

User avatar
SeijaKessen
4
Joined: 08 Jan 2012, 21:34
Location: USA

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

bhallg2k wrote:Until FIA protocol requires that all drivers, save for the winner, be summarily executed at the conclusion of each event, racing will always be artificial. (Imagine that podium ceremony.) So, perhaps that word should be tossed aside in favor of something a bit more accurate.

Gimmicky? Convoluted? Moribund?
Gimmicky is how I tend to view the current formula.

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

SeijaKessen wrote:Gimmicky is how I tend to view the current formula.
Agreed. That's probably the best word for it. F1 is now a gimmick where the emphasis is on pleasing the masses for a cash grab rather than staying true to itself and having the audience enjoy it for what it is (was).

So long as every (basically) technical development is banned to prevent domination and constant controls are brought in to 'close up the pack', F1 will be another circus sideshow.

I see no difference now between GP2, INDY and F1. Basically a bunch of stock cars. So to be clear, that's fine if F1 wants to go down that route, however can someone else please start a true 'prototype' series that rewards innovation.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.

User avatar
SeijaKessen
4
Joined: 08 Jan 2012, 21:34
Location: USA

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

Cam wrote:
SeijaKessen wrote:Gimmicky is how I tend to view the current formula.
Agreed. That's probably the best word for it. F1 is now a gimmick where the emphasis is on pleasing the masses for a cash grab rather than staying true to itself and having the audience enjoy it for what it is (was).

So long as every (basically) technical development is banned to prevent domination and constant controls are brought in to 'close up the pack', F1 will be another circus sideshow.

I see no difference now between GP2, INDY and F1. Basically a bunch of stock cars. So to be clear, that's fine if F1 wants to go down that route, however can someone else please start a true 'prototype' series that rewards innovation.
Well said.

I wonder if someone did start a new prototype series outside of FIA sanctioning, how receptive would the current teams be to making the jump? Or would we get to go back to the days of privateers doing their thing?

User avatar
Cam
45
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 08:38

Re: Purist vs Spectacle?

Post

SeijaKessen wrote:I wonder if someone did start a new prototype series outside of FIA sanctioning, how receptive would the current teams be to making the jump? Or would we get to go back to the days of privateers doing their thing?
Well, that was the whole point of F1 wasn't it. A manufacturer could come along and build a car and go racing. If they got results, people would want that. If Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, VW, Citroen, Subaru, Porsche etc all got together, told the FIA and the rest of them to 'shove it' and they all start their own category to a) show off their wares, b) push technology forward and c) put on a great show, I think they would dominate the racing audience. People will watch and people will buy on Monday.

F1 is no longer about the cars. It's about a couple of people making huge $$$$. It's also completely transparent.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
― Socrates
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Ignorant describes a person in the state of being unaware
who deliberately ignores or disregards important information or facts. © all rights reserved.