Seems like OWG made it right! Overtakings at Melbourne!

[DaveKillens]

Part of the disagreement in this thread is different people's philosophies as to what Formula One is. Some desire purist racing conditions, where variables are reduced, and the race is between good drivers on good tracks, in optimal conditions. Others, such as myself, embrace the variables. Be it struggling with difficult tires, rain, or anything else that comes along to challenge the drivers, I consider it part and parcel of the racing experience. So for me, it was fun to see all the different cars out there, many on different setups and running different times.
I want to see the teams and drivers challenged by surprises. To me, it's the driver that can cope with the obstacles and still prevail, that I like to see succeed.
For the race, there was lots of passing. Some cars at the back worked their way to the front, while others had good battles. I saw a lot more overtaking attempts than usual, which to me is a positive thing.

[Belatti]

I like Daves view of the sport. Without variables, the competitors refine everything and the ones with the most or better resources end up like Ferrari and Schumacher did. I think that things should be hard for them. I like to see the driver with the better struggling and a driver with a mediocre car winning because he was clever.

[virtuso13]

Dude that was real fun , really enjoyed and am looking forward to Malaysia .
Its good to see Ferrari , McLaren and Renault struggling . Clever ideas at work .

But we should not make the mistake of ruling them out .

[Kester]

I think the drivers and the strategies were partly to blame for the tyres falling off.

I didn't notice either of the Brawn GP drivers struggling anywhere near as much as the some of the other drivers/teams.

[nae]

even contrived variables will be refined to minimise the impact

the FIA should use variable variable's ( mad stewards rulings of
previous years perhaps)

like say drop random elephants on the track

that will sure spice up the racing

if i wanted silly things added to spice up the racing i would still
be watching 'its a knock-out'

[alelanza]

I suspect that the tyres are going (should) to be deemed too dangerous for competition,

Why?

I didn't notice either of the Brawn GP drivers struggling anywhere near as much as the some of the other drivers/teams.

Well, supposedly Kubica would have been able to catch Jenson had he not had that accident. Also it seems like the Brawn drivers are able to treat their tyres much better than most others, I never saw them making mid corner corrections as much as the other drivers. Very smooth car to drive it seems.

Regarding tyres, i was critical of the compound gap as i saw it as no more than an artificial banana peel, a hollywood stunt if you will that would take away from a more pure racing experience as Dave said.
However, once you consider that they have a set amount of tyres of each compound that must last them throughout the weekend, and as someone else said one happens to be a very good qualifying lap tyre, then you are effectively giving the teams a rather limited resource and forcing them to make the best of it. This adds a strategical dimension that works very well, and as a fan if you add knowing everyone's fuel load i feel it does make for an interesting experience.
That being said i do understand that for the racing purist at heart this a foolish thing to do.

[Pingguest]

Part of the disagreement in this thread is different people's philosophies as to what Formula One is. Some desire purist racing conditions, where variables are reduced, and the race is between good drivers on good tracks, in optimal conditions. Others, such as myself, embrace the variables. Be it struggling with difficult tires, rain, or anything else that comes along to challenge the drivers, I consider it part and parcel of the racing experience. So for me, it was fun to see all the different cars out there, many on different setups and running different times.
I want to see the teams and drivers challenged by surprises. To me, it's the driver that can cope with the obstacles and still prevail, that I like to see succeed.
For the race, there was lots of passing. Some cars at the back worked their way to the front, while others had good battles. I saw a lot more overtaking attempts than usual, which to me is a positive thing.

I'm of the purists and that's why I'm against reducing varaibles by the rules. All natural variables are replaced by artificial ones. That's why Formula 1 is no longer a real racing series but a show only.

Instead of having the artificial variables (regulated engine life span, post-qualifying parc fermé, mandatory compound change, Safety Car, etc.) Formula 1 should have natural variables (different aeroynamics, free engine and tyre development, elimination of driver aids, ban on pitstops, etc.).

[Pingguest]

New rules make overtaking harder - Glock

According to Timo Glock, F1's 2009 regulations have made it even harder to overtake some cars.

One of the main objectives of the new rules, including the introduction of KERS boost buttons and the radical shape of the bodywork, is to make passing less of a rarity.

But after last Sunday's season opener in Australia, Toyota driver Glock said he had rarely found following a rival car as difficult as at Albert Park.

"It's unbelievable how much downforce I lost behind him (Fernando Alonso)," the German told GP Week, when speaking about his battle with the Renault.

"Behind Kimi and the Ferraris it was a bit easier but with Fernando I had no chance and every time I was close enough I lost the downforce overall," Glock added.

The voluntary deployment of KERS technology, meanwhile, means that some cars this season are equipped with a power boost-button, while others - like the Toyota - are not.

27-year-old Glock revealed: "Every time I was behind a car it was a KERS car and I just lost the downforce, and when I was close enough they just pressed the (KERS) button and I had no chance."

Source: GMM
© CAPSIS International

[vall]

"It's unbelievable how much downforce I lost behind him (Fernando Alonso)," the German told GP Week, when speaking about his battle with the Renault.

"Behind Kimi and the Ferraris it was a bit easier but with Fernando I had no chance and every time I was close enough I lost the downforce overall," Glock added.

27-year-old Glock revealed: "Every time I was behind a car it was a KERS car and I just lost the downforce, and when I was close enough they just pressed the (KERS) button and I had no chance."

That's rubbish, isn't it? Renault an Ferrari are both with KERS

he claim he lost DF after Alonoso but not after Kimi, but then goes on and says:

"Every time I was behind a car it was a KERS car and I just lost the downforce, and when I was close enough they just pressed the (KERS) button and I had no chance."

This is inconsistent, isn't it?

[Belatti]

I'm of the purists and that's why I'm against reducing varaibles by the rules. All natural variables are replaced by artificial ones. That's why Formula 1 is no longer a real racing series but a show only.

Instead of having the artificial variables (regulated engine life span, post-qualifying parc fermé, mandatory compound change, Safety Car, etc.) Formula 1 should have natural variables (different aeroynamics, free engine and tyre development, elimination of driver aids, ban on pitstops, etc.).

OK, what you say its nice, too, but its not possible with manufacturers in the sport. Then the budget caps come in and everything gets more ruin than already is.

So, to resume:
- If F1 is about privateers I would pick Pingguest solution
- If F1 is about manufacturers I would pick DaveKillens solution

[Pingguest]

I'm of the purists and that's why I'm against reducing varaibles by the rules. All natural variables are replaced by artificial ones. That's why Formula 1 is no longer a real racing series but a show only.

Instead of having the artificial variables (regulated engine life span, post-qualifying parc fermé, mandatory compound change, Safety Car, etc.) Formula 1 should have natural variables (different aeroynamics, free engine and tyre development, elimination of driver aids, ban on pitstops, etc.).

OK, what you say its nice, too, but its not possible with manufacturers in the sport. Then the budget caps come in and everything gets more ruin than already is.

So, to resume:
- If F1 is about privateers I would pick Pingguest solution
- If F1 is about manufacturers I would pick DaveKillens solution

I don't see why my solution would only work without the manufactures. With a proper set of rules you don't need to be a large manufacture to win races.

To give smaller teams sort of an advantage, I think we should allow customer chassis and rule stability. That would enable smaller teams to close the gap to bigger teams.

Any way, for the manufactures I'd like to see the introduction of a Group C-like series.

[mx_tifoso]

To give smaller teams sort of an advantage, I think we should allow customer chassis and rule stability. That would enable smaller teams to close the gap to bigger teams.

But at the same time placing restrictions on amount of chassis teams could provide to outside teams. Although much tighter than the customer engine regulations, where the FIA and other teams could allow more than the 2(?) engine customers per manufacturer.

[WhiteBlue]

My impression is that the rules changes are positive although the previous FIA proposal of limiting downforce to a physical level would have been much better. Now we have this diffusor controversy which isn't helpfull at all. Surely the shake up has shown that new rules give more chances to good engineers and denie the fat cats the use of their superior engineering resources. Over the season the fat cats usually catch up or pull ahead because only they can afford to run 2 or 3 engineering teams.

The suggestion of going to a grooved tyre within the season is a non starter in my view. The resource consumtion to manufacture new tyres from new molds and ship them to races is just unimaginable. Teams could not test them and cannot adjust design of finished cars to exploit different tyre behavior. On top existing tyre rules mandate much longer notification periods for such things. They could not be introduced on safety grounds as there have been no failures at all. So the idea is a bit of red herring.

[Pingguest]

To give smaller teams sort of an advantage, I think we should allow customer chassis and rule stability. That would enable smaller teams to close the gap to bigger teams.

But at the same time placing restrictions on amount of chassis teams could provide to outside teams. Although much tighter than the customer engine regulations, where the FIA and other teams could allow more than the 2(?) engine customers per manufacturer.

Let the market do most of the job. To make sure the smaller constructors won't disappear, the FIA could decide not to give teams with customer chassis anything of the TV-revenues.

[nae]

the FIA could save a fortune and just draw this years champions out of a hat
each team could design its own style of hat for the draw to be made from to ensure fairness

no lawyers where harmed in the making of this idea (subject to legal approval)