Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
stevey
Posts: 1616
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:31 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by stevey »

the only thing that makes overtaking difficult is not being able to follow cars closely in corners due to aero so when you get on a straight your not close enough to effect a pass or even an attempt depending on straight length.

Adding more aero is the wrong idea. They should just force a wider tyre change linked with a real racing tyre which can be pushed. Restrict all wings to a standard shape and design which does not have as much as a negative impact on air flow from the back of the car. Open up fuel flow limits and then stabalise the regs for a 5 year period. Allow teams that have mucked up the engine additional tokens in specific areas which will improve performance to a competitive level only (does not need to equal the leading engine).

Set quali back the way it was and remove the rules that force lapped cars to move out of the way and the rule that has them unlap themselves during a safety car, such a waste of time.

Gothnak
Posts: 415
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Gothnak »

stevey wrote:the only thing that makes overtaking difficult is not being able to follow cars closely in corners due to aero so when you get on a straight your not close enough to effect a pass or even an attempt depending on straight length.

Adding more aero is the wrong idea. They should just force a wider tyre change linked with a real racing tyre which can be pushed. Restrict all wings to a standard shape and design which does not have as much as a negative impact on air flow from the back of the car. Open up fuel flow limits and then stabalise the regs for a 5 year period. Allow teams that have mucked up the engine additional tokens in specific areas which will improve performance to a competitive level only (does not need to equal the leading engine).

Set quali back the way it was and remove the rules that force lapped cars to move out of the way and the rule that has them unlap themselves during a safety car, such a waste of time.
I generally agree with this. We must remove Aero grip and increase mechanical grip (Mainly though tyres, but also through moderate ground effect) and then following another car around a corner will not be a problem.

Personally, if that all got fixed, i'd also remove the blue flag, then teams would need to set up their cars to be good at overtaking which in turn, will lead to more overtaking. I'd either ban DRS or allow it for all cars at all times (It's just another driver skill rather than a fake way of allowing overtaking much like the old turbo boost button) and allow unlimited KERS.

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:...which the current ones aren't without artificial aids (DRS, whacky tyres etc). Several of the drivers at one point or another have expressed dissatisfaction with the current cars. I'm curious as to why you should think when Hamilton or Mercedes say something, then it must be truthful, while if McLaren or Alonso do, they must have ulterior motives?
Yes even with those artificial aids and cars that were designed with less down force to help with overtaking, overtaking is still a problem, Alonso has said he doesn't care how difficult it is to overtake, it should be difficult, welcome back to the Trulli train.
You still haven't explained why you feel that Red Bull and McLaren are engaging in disinformation while Mercedes is being open and honest.
I thought it was common knowledge that more down force leads to more wake and makes it harder to overtake.

Red Bull themselves are engineering themselves an advantage, their priority is winning and not the quality of the racing itself, I must admit I don't fully understand McLaren's stance on this but they do seem a team somewhat struggling and confused presently, a change of rules may lead to a change of fortune?
Depends on a number of things. The more cars are reliant on aero, the more sensitive they become to dirty air. But if they have increased mechanical grip and non-aero generated downforce, then it's my understanding - as an interested layman - that this will not make it harder to follow, which is the main gripe currently.

As to the rest, I can't believe anyone would be that naive that they wouldn't think every team would prioritise winning over the quality of the racing. Do you honestly think that Mercedes would willingly hand in their advantage if they thought it would lead to better racing for everybody? Please.

It's natural that Mercedes would be against any change, as they stand the most to lose. It's equally natural that a team like Red Bull, who don't have the advantage of a Works package, would vote for any change that reduced the advantage of the PU. Both have vested interests and therefore both will come up with arguments in favour of their position. It doesn't necessarily mean they are being disingenuous. Everyone votes for what's best for them first and the sport a distant second.
I think that Mercedes are merely stating the obvious it's very much out of the frying pan and into the fire, the remit of the new regulations is not to make the racing better but to make the cars 5 seconds a lap faster, then we will throw in more mechanical grip to pacify the naysayers that say more aero is bad then by magic the problem is solved without any scientific studies whatsoever.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote: Absolutely, and Mercedes just as much as anyone.

Agree, it's nuts.
Maybe so but I see it as Mercedes just stating the plain bl___y obvious.
Except they're not. They're describing what would happen if you added a bunch of extra aero to current cars with current tyres.

They're completely ignoring the big increase in mechanical grip being added which will*/should*/could* help balance out any increase in wake and give the driver more grip.


*Pick one depending on how much faith you have in Pirelli.
Like I said how did this work out in the past, Trulli train etc.?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that has gone into this, ask Pat Symonds.

The engineers will put forward ideas on how to make the racing better based on science but this gets taken over by political agendas.
Simplistic. The Trulli train was the result of a very specific set of regulations. You can't just say that changing one thing would revert to that
I can say that a rule change looking to make the cars faster rather than making the racing better is very much going down that route.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Wait so a team currently lagging behind is in favour of a rule change while the team that is currently dominating is against changes to the formula...

Who would've thought it?
It would be nice if teams were actually looking to improve the racing rather than their own vested interests.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote: Absolutely, and Mercedes just as much as anyone.

Agree, it's nuts.
Maybe so but I see it as Mercedes just stating the plain bl___y obvious.
Except they're not. They're describing what would happen if you added a bunch of extra aero to current cars with current tyres.

They're completely ignoring the big increase in mechanical grip being added which will*/should*/could* help balance out any increase in wake and give the driver more grip.


*Pick one depending on how much faith you have in Pirelli.
Like I said how did this work out in the past, Trulli train etc.?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that has gone into this, ask Pat Symonds.

The engineers will put forward ideas on how to make the racing better based on science but this gets taken over by political agendas.
What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:I think McLaren like Red Bull feel the new rules will favour them and are happy to give out misinformation about the quality of the racing between the cars.
Are there any teams but Mercedes that are complaining about the new rules?

Big changes to car formula usually results in the field tightening up. I hope that is what happens and then like so many seasons before Pirelli, DRS etc the racing will take care of itself.
I believe the only teams in favour are McLaren, Red Bull and STR, engineers like Pat Symonds have said that more aero makes overtaking more difficult.
Overtaking will be made more difficult. I don't think there is much doubt over that. Overtaking was really difficult in previous superb seasons though.
Yes but that's no excuse for it being forever the same.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Gothnak wrote:
stevey wrote:the only thing that makes overtaking difficult is not being able to follow cars closely in corners due to aero so when you get on a straight your not close enough to effect a pass or even an attempt depending on straight length.

Adding more aero is the wrong idea. They should just force a wider tyre change linked with a real racing tyre which can be pushed. Restrict all wings to a standard shape and design which does not have as much as a negative impact on air flow from the back of the car. Open up fuel flow limits and then stabalise the regs for a 5 year period. Allow teams that have mucked up the engine additional tokens in specific areas which will improve performance to a competitive level only (does not need to equal the leading engine).

Set quali back the way it was and remove the rules that force lapped cars to move out of the way and the rule that has them unlap themselves during a safety car, such a waste of time.
I generally agree with this. We must remove Aero grip and increase mechanical grip (Mainly though tyres, but also through moderate ground effect) and then following another car around a corner will not be a problem.

Personally, if that all got fixed, i'd also remove the blue flag, then teams would need to set up their cars to be good at overtaking which in turn, will lead to more overtaking. I'd either ban DRS or allow it for all cars at all times (It's just another driver skill rather than a fake way of allowing overtaking much like the old turbo boost button) and allow unlimited KERS.
The only thing I wouldn't remove is blue flags, that in itself could involve shenanigans, let's not forget for instance that Red Bull have 2 teams.
Last edited by pokerman on Wed May 11, 2016 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:Maybe so but I see it as Mercedes just stating the plain bl___y obvious.
Except they're not. They're describing what would happen if you added a bunch of extra aero to current cars with current tyres.

They're completely ignoring the big increase in mechanical grip being added which will*/should*/could* help balance out any increase in wake and give the driver more grip.


*Pick one depending on how much faith you have in Pirelli.
Like I said how did this work out in the past, Trulli train etc.?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that has gone into this, ask Pat Symonds.

The engineers will put forward ideas on how to make the racing better based on science but this gets taken over by political agendas.
What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
You know this for a fact?

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote: Except they're not. They're describing what would happen if you added a bunch of extra aero to current cars with current tyres.

They're completely ignoring the big increase in mechanical grip being added which will*/should*/could* help balance out any increase in wake and give the driver more grip.


*Pick one depending on how much faith you have in Pirelli.
Like I said how did this work out in the past, Trulli train etc.?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that has gone into this, ask Pat Symonds.

The engineers will put forward ideas on how to make the racing better based on science but this gets taken over by political agendas.
What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
You know this for a fact?
You need to read what Pat Symonds says on the matter, and he's not just any old F1 engineer, he leads the steering groups on these sort of matters, end decisions are made on politics and not on science.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

User avatar
Lotus49
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Lotus49 »

pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote: Maybe so but I see it as Mercedes just stating the plain bl___y obvious.
Except they're not. They're describing what would happen if you added a bunch of extra aero to current cars with current tyres.

They're completely ignoring the big increase in mechanical grip being added which will*/should*/could* help balance out any increase in wake and give the driver more grip.


*Pick one depending on how much faith you have in Pirelli.
Like I said how did this work out in the past, Trulli train etc.?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that has gone into this, ask Pat Symonds.

The engineers will put forward ideas on how to make the racing better based on science but this gets taken over by political agendas.
What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
Yes it will leave more wake but the simpler front wing and added mechanical grip could offshoot this leaving it no worse in terms of following a car or even marginally better, we just don't know yet. And it would be nice if teams didn't try to deliberately make more wake to hinder teams trying to overtake.

I don't know if it's been researched or not but cars struggle to follow because the overly complicated front wings are what generate most of the cars downforce so obviously in dirty air they lose a lot of that downforce. The idea is a simpler front wing plus way more mechanical grip is what will cancel out the extra wake. And it sounds plausible to me but i'd wager the front wings won't stay simpler for long which is why i'm more interested in how Pirelli do. I doubt it will be any worse than any period in the last 30 years though so i'm not panicking.

I'd agree, which is why it's a shame Mercedes didn't table a counter proposal containing something along those lines,unless I missed it of course. But I know why the wanted it to remain as tricky as it is now though.
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

ALESI
Posts: 2418
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by ALESI »

pokerman wrote:
Gothnak wrote:
stevey wrote:the only thing that makes overtaking difficult is not being able to follow cars closely in corners due to aero so when you get on a straight your not close enough to effect a pass or even an attempt depending on straight length.

Adding more aero is the wrong idea. They should just force a wider tyre change linked with a real racing tyre which can be pushed. Restrict all wings to a standard shape and design which does not have as much as a negative impact on air flow from the back of the car. Open up fuel flow limits and then stabalise the regs for a 5 year period. Allow teams that have mucked up the engine additional tokens in specific areas which will improve performance to a competitive level only (does not need to equal the leading engine).

Set quali back the way it was and remove the rules that force lapped cars to move out of the way and the rule that has them unlap themselves during a safety car, such a waste of time.
I generally agree with this. We must remove Aero grip and increase mechanical grip (Mainly though tyres, but also through moderate ground effect) and then following another car around a corner will not be a problem.

Personally, if that all got fixed, i'd also remove the blue flag, then teams would need to set up their cars to be good at overtaking which in turn, will lead to more overtaking. I'd either ban DRS or allow it for all cars at all times (It's just another driver skill rather than a fake way of allowing overtaking much like the old turbo boost button) and allow unlimited KERS.
The only think I wouldn't remove is blue flags, that in itself could involve shenanigans, let's not forget for instance that Red Bull have 2 teams.
This, definitely. Can you imagine what it would be like at Monaco if a B-team or indeed a customer team deliberately ruined a title contenders race?
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:Except they're not. They're describing what would happen if you added a bunch of extra aero to current cars with current tyres.

They're completely ignoring the big increase in mechanical grip being added which will*/should*/could* help balance out any increase in wake and give the driver more grip.


*Pick one depending on how much faith you have in Pirelli.
Like I said how did this work out in the past, Trulli train etc.?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that has gone into this, ask Pat Symonds.

The engineers will put forward ideas on how to make the racing better based on science but this gets taken over by political agendas.
What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
Yes it will leave more wake but the simpler front wing and added mechanical grip could offshoot this leaving it no worse in terms of following a car or even marginally better, we just don't know yet. And it would be nice if teams didn't try to deliberately make more wake to hinder teams trying to overtake.

I don't know if it's been researched or not but cars struggle to follow because the overly complicated front wings are what generate most of the cars downforce so obviously in dirty air they lose a lot of that downforce. The idea is a simpler front wing plus way more mechanical grip is what will cancel out the extra wake. And it sounds plausible to me but i'd wager the front wings won't stay simpler for long which is why i'm more interested in how Pirelli do. I doubt it will be any worse than any period in the last 30 years though so i'm not panicking.

I'd agree, which is why it's a shame Mercedes didn't table a counter proposal containing something along those lines,unless I missed it of course. But I know why the wanted it to remain as tricky as it is now though.
As the dominating team I don't think any proposals being put forward by Mercedes would be given any credence and would just lead to more accusations of them trying to manipulate the rules even more.

In comparison it looks like Red Bull have almost been given carte blanche over the new rules although they did get knocked back on the exhaust blown diffusers and the client engines which also were going to feature exhaust blown diffusers, it seems strange how a single team can be at the forefront for the designs of the new cars.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

User avatar
Lotus49
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Lotus49 »

I remember reading something years ago about the introduction of the blue flags actually encouraged teams to invest heavily in complicated front wings to increase downforce because they didn't have to worry about getting stuck behind backmarkers anymore and losing that downforce.

Whereas before the blue flag they tried to limit the amount so they could manoeuvre through traffic quicker. It was something like that anyway so that could be what the poster is referring to.
Last edited by Lotus49 on Wed May 11, 2016 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

User avatar
Lotus49
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Lotus49 »

pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote: Like I said how did this work out in the past, Trulli train etc.?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that has gone into this, ask Pat Symonds.

The engineers will put forward ideas on how to make the racing better based on science but this gets taken over by political agendas.
What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
Yes it will leave more wake but the simpler front wing and added mechanical grip could offshoot this leaving it no worse in terms of following a car or even marginally better, we just don't know yet. And it would be nice if teams didn't try to deliberately make more wake to hinder teams trying to overtake.

I don't know if it's been researched or not but cars struggle to follow because the overly complicated front wings are what generate most of the cars downforce so obviously in dirty air they lose a lot of that downforce. The idea is a simpler front wing plus way more mechanical grip is what will cancel out the extra wake. And it sounds plausible to me but i'd wager the front wings won't stay simpler for long which is why i'm more interested in how Pirelli do. I doubt it will be any worse than any period in the last 30 years though so i'm not panicking.

I'd agree, which is why it's a shame Mercedes didn't table a counter proposal containing something along those lines,unless I missed it of course. But I know why the wanted it to remain as tricky as it is now though.
As the dominating team I don't think any proposals being put forward by Mercedes would be given any credence and would just lead to more accusations of them trying to manipulate the rules even more.

In comparison it looks like Red Bull have almost been given carte blanche over the new rules although they did get knocked back on the exhaust blown diffusers and the client engines which also were going to feature exhaust blown diffusers, it seems strange how a single team can be at the forefront for the designs of the new cars.
It hasn't stopped them trying to block everything from fuel limit to aero so some counter ideas would be nice. But I know why they didn't, it would still leave the door open to someone doing a better job. Which is exactly their problem with McLaren's and why they wanted to continue as is. Even though dirty air is a problem currently too. Just being noble with the fuel limit too though I take it?.

It's Macca's proposal isn't it?.
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote: Like I said how did this work out in the past, Trulli train etc.?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that has gone into this, ask Pat Symonds.

The engineers will put forward ideas on how to make the racing better based on science but this gets taken over by political agendas.
What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
You know this for a fact?
You need to read what Pat Symonds says on the matter, and he's not just any old F1 engineer, he leads the steering groups on these sort of matters, end decisions are made on politics and not on science.
All I've found is that he says more research is needed (in his opinion), not that no research at all has been done. Agreed that decisions are made on politics, but you have to remember that Williams are firmly in the Mercedes camp so their politics will reflect that.

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Zoue »

Lotus49 wrote:It's Macca's proposal isn't it?.
yes I believe so

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
You know this for a fact?
You need to read what Pat Symonds says on the matter, and he's not just any old F1 engineer, he leads the steering groups on these sort of matters, end decisions are made on politics and not on science.
All I've found is that he says more research is needed (in his opinion), not that no research at all has been done. Agreed that decisions are made on politics, but you have to remember that Williams are firmly in the Mercedes camp so their politics will reflect that.
Semantics, they are shooting in the dark.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:What are you talking about the past for?. Are you under the impression we currently have a formula where the cars don't suffer from wake or something?.

There was never a proposal to improve the effect of aerodynamic wake as far as i'm aware. It was either leave as is or the proposal from McLaren/Red Bull.

Mercedes want as is, not improvement. And they scaremonger about next year by talking about the increase in wake, compared to last and this year. They repeatedly and quite deliberately fail to mention the extra mechanical grip which could easily help cancel out any extra wake if Pirelli deliver with their tyres.

Leaving us as is in terms of difficulty in passing.
Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
Yes it will leave more wake but the simpler front wing and added mechanical grip could offshoot this leaving it no worse in terms of following a car or even marginally better, we just don't know yet. And it would be nice if teams didn't try to deliberately make more wake to hinder teams trying to overtake.

I don't know if it's been researched or not but cars struggle to follow because the overly complicated front wings are what generate most of the cars downforce so obviously in dirty air they lose a lot of that downforce. The idea is a simpler front wing plus way more mechanical grip is what will cancel out the extra wake. And it sounds plausible to me but i'd wager the front wings won't stay simpler for long which is why i'm more interested in how Pirelli do. I doubt it will be any worse than any period in the last 30 years though so i'm not panicking.

I'd agree, which is why it's a shame Mercedes didn't table a counter proposal containing something along those lines,unless I missed it of course. But I know why the wanted it to remain as tricky as it is now though.
As the dominating team I don't think any proposals being put forward by Mercedes would be given any credence and would just lead to more accusations of them trying to manipulate the rules even more.

In comparison it looks like Red Bull have almost been given carte blanche over the new rules although they did get knocked back on the exhaust blown diffusers and the client engines which also were going to feature exhaust blown diffusers, it seems strange how a single team can be at the forefront for the designs of the new cars.
It hasn't stopped them trying to block everything from fuel limit to aero so some counter ideas would be nice. But I know why they didn't, it would still leave the door open to someone doing a better job. Which is exactly their problem with McLaren's and why they wanted to continue as is. Even though dirty air is a problem currently too. Just being noble with the fuel limit too though I take it?.

It's Macca's proposal isn't it?.
Well that just sounds like another team wanting to change the rules to suit their own needs, and Mercedes should buckle down to that?

This doesn't sound like changing the rules for the overall good of F1.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

User avatar
Lotus49
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Lotus49 »

pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote: Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
Yes it will leave more wake but the simpler front wing and added mechanical grip could offshoot this leaving it no worse in terms of following a car or even marginally better, we just don't know yet. And it would be nice if teams didn't try to deliberately make more wake to hinder teams trying to overtake.

I don't know if it's been researched or not but cars struggle to follow because the overly complicated front wings are what generate most of the cars downforce so obviously in dirty air they lose a lot of that downforce. The idea is a simpler front wing plus way more mechanical grip is what will cancel out the extra wake. And it sounds plausible to me but i'd wager the front wings won't stay simpler for long which is why i'm more interested in how Pirelli do. I doubt it will be any worse than any period in the last 30 years though so i'm not panicking.

I'd agree, which is why it's a shame Mercedes didn't table a counter proposal containing something along those lines,unless I missed it of course. But I know why the wanted it to remain as tricky as it is now though.
As the dominating team I don't think any proposals being put forward by Mercedes would be given any credence and would just lead to more accusations of them trying to manipulate the rules even more.

In comparison it looks like Red Bull have almost been given carte blanche over the new rules although they did get knocked back on the exhaust blown diffusers and the client engines which also were going to feature exhaust blown diffusers, it seems strange how a single team can be at the forefront for the designs of the new cars.
It hasn't stopped them trying to block everything from fuel limit to aero so some counter ideas would be nice. But I know why they didn't, it would still leave the door open to someone doing a better job. Which is exactly their problem with McLaren's and why they wanted to continue as is. Even though dirty air is a problem currently too. Just being noble with the fuel limit too though I take it?.

It's Macca's proposal isn't it?.
Well that just sounds like another team wanting to change the rules to suit their own needs, and Mercedes should buckle down to that?

This doesn't sound like changing the rules for the overall good of F1.
It would be a nice change from just trying to block everything they think can threaten their advantage. But I don't see a difference to be honest, they are both just looking after their own interests either way.

No, It's about introducing a way to lessen Mercedes PU advantage I would wager. But I think you know that.
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:Yes it will leave more wake but the simpler front wing and added mechanical grip could offshoot this leaving it no worse in terms of following a car or even marginally better, we just don't know yet. And it would be nice if teams didn't try to deliberately make more wake to hinder teams trying to overtake.

I don't know if it's been researched or not but cars struggle to follow because the overly complicated front wings are what generate most of the cars downforce so obviously in dirty air they lose a lot of that downforce. The idea is a simpler front wing plus way more mechanical grip is what will cancel out the extra wake. And it sounds plausible to me but i'd wager the front wings won't stay simpler for long which is why i'm more interested in how Pirelli do. I doubt it will be any worse than any period in the last 30 years though so i'm not panicking.

I'd agree, which is why it's a shame Mercedes didn't table a counter proposal containing something along those lines,unless I missed it of course. But I know why the wanted it to remain as tricky as it is now though.
As the dominating team I don't think any proposals being put forward by Mercedes would be given any credence and would just lead to more accusations of them trying to manipulate the rules even more.

In comparison it looks like Red Bull have almost been given carte blanche over the new rules although they did get knocked back on the exhaust blown diffusers and the client engines which also were going to feature exhaust blown diffusers, it seems strange how a single team can be at the forefront for the designs of the new cars.
It hasn't stopped them trying to block everything from fuel limit to aero so some counter ideas would be nice. But I know why they didn't, it would still leave the door open to someone doing a better job. Which is exactly their problem with McLaren's and why they wanted to continue as is. Even though dirty air is a problem currently too. Just being noble with the fuel limit too though I take it?.

It's Macca's proposal isn't it?.
Well that just sounds like another team wanting to change the rules to suit their own needs, and Mercedes should buckle down to that?

This doesn't sound like changing the rules for the overall good of F1.
It would be a nice change from just trying to block everything they think can threaten their advantage. But I don't see a difference to be honest, they are both just looking after their own interests either way.

No, It's about introducing a way to lessen Mercedes PU advantage I would wager. But I think you know that.
How have they blocked everything, tokens can be used in season this year, next season there is open development?

Mercedes should just bend over and concede to everything allowing the rule book to be torn up because that's the best way for the other teams to beat them?

You introduce rules and if one team does a much better job the other teams have a mutiny?
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

User avatar
Lotus49
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Lotus49 »

pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote: As the dominating team I don't think any proposals being put forward by Mercedes would be given any credence and would just lead to more accusations of them trying to manipulate the rules even more.

In comparison it looks like Red Bull have almost been given carte blanche over the new rules although they did get knocked back on the exhaust blown diffusers and the client engines which also were going to feature exhaust blown diffusers, it seems strange how a single team can be at the forefront for the designs of the new cars.
It hasn't stopped them trying to block everything from fuel limit to aero so some counter ideas would be nice. But I know why they didn't, it would still leave the door open to someone doing a better job. Which is exactly their problem with McLaren's and why they wanted to continue as is. Even though dirty air is a problem currently too. Just being noble with the fuel limit too though I take it?.

It's Macca's proposal isn't it?.
Well that just sounds like another team wanting to change the rules to suit their own needs, and Mercedes should buckle down to that?

This doesn't sound like changing the rules for the overall good of F1.
It would be a nice change from just trying to block everything they think can threaten their advantage. But I don't see a difference to be honest, they are both just looking after their own interests either way.

No, It's about introducing a way to lessen Mercedes PU advantage I would wager. But I think you know that.
How have they blocked everything, tokens can be used in season this year, next season there is open development?

Mercedes should just bend over and concede to everything allowing the rule book to be torn up because that's the best way for the other teams to beat them?

You introduce rules and if one team does a much better job the other teams have a mutiny?
I didn't say they blocked everything.

Of course not,nobody else would so why should they?.

That's usually what happens as far as I can tell.
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote: Yes even this year's cars suffer with wake that affects the racing, so what shall we do for next year, have cars that have even more wake?

To offset this the car's will be given more mechanical grip and despite there being no research into this hey presto it will offset the extra wake of the cars but even then we are back to cars struggling to pass one another because of the wake.

Just a thought, if we had cars with less aero and more mechanical that might just make the racing itself better?
You know this for a fact?
You need to read what Pat Symonds says on the matter, and he's not just any old F1 engineer, he leads the steering groups on these sort of matters, end decisions are made on politics and not on science.
All I've found is that he says more research is needed (in his opinion), not that no research at all has been done. Agreed that decisions are made on politics, but you have to remember that Williams are firmly in the Mercedes camp so their politics will reflect that.
Semantics, they are shooting in the dark.
It's not semantics at all. Wanting more research is completely different to claiming they've done absolutely nothing. Maybe Pat feels they haven't done enough but others feel they have. F1 engineers can't agree shocker.

You're trying to paint a much more dramatic picture than it is and there's no evidence they are shooting in the dark. They are not doing what Mercedes want, of course, but that's a different story.

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:As the dominating team I don't think any proposals being put forward by Mercedes would be given any credence and would just lead to more accusations of them trying to manipulate the rules even more.

In comparison it looks like Red Bull have almost been given carte blanche over the new rules although they did get knocked back on the exhaust blown diffusers and the client engines which also were going to feature exhaust blown diffusers, it seems strange how a single team can be at the forefront for the designs of the new cars.
It hasn't stopped them trying to block everything from fuel limit to aero so some counter ideas would be nice. But I know why they didn't, it would still leave the door open to someone doing a better job. Which is exactly their problem with McLaren's and why they wanted to continue as is. Even though dirty air is a problem currently too. Just being noble with the fuel limit too though I take it?.

It's Macca's proposal isn't it?.
Well that just sounds like another team wanting to change the rules to suit their own needs, and Mercedes should buckle down to that?

This doesn't sound like changing the rules for the overall good of F1.
It would be a nice change from just trying to block everything they think can threaten their advantage. But I don't see a difference to be honest, they are both just looking after their own interests either way.

No, It's about introducing a way to lessen Mercedes PU advantage I would wager. But I think you know that.
How have they blocked everything, tokens can be used in season this year, next season there is open development?

Mercedes should just bend over and concede to everything allowing the rule book to be torn up because that's the best way for the other teams to beat them?

You introduce rules and if one team does a much better job the other teams have a mutiny?
I think you have selective memory. Wolff was against changing the token system. Mercedes have been quite vocally against any change. It's only natural, given that the status quo benefits them more than anything else, but you can bet if it didn't they'd also be arguing for change, just like everyone else

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:You know this for a fact?
You need to read what Pat Symonds says on the matter, and he's not just any old F1 engineer, he leads the steering groups on these sort of matters, end decisions are made on politics and not on science.
All I've found is that he says more research is needed (in his opinion), not that no research at all has been done. Agreed that decisions are made on politics, but you have to remember that Williams are firmly in the Mercedes camp so their politics will reflect that.
Semantics, they are shooting in the dark.
It's not semantics at all. Wanting more research is completely different to claiming they've done absolutely nothing. Maybe Pat feels they haven't done enough but others feel they have. F1 engineers can't agree shocker.

You're trying to paint a much more dramatic picture than it is and there's no evidence they are shooting in the dark. They are not doing what Mercedes want, of course, but that's a different story.
I think something that has not been researched properly is very much hoping for the best.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote: You need to read what Pat Symonds says on the matter, and he's not just any old F1 engineer, he leads the steering groups on these sort of matters, end decisions are made on politics and not on science.
All I've found is that he says more research is needed (in his opinion), not that no research at all has been done. Agreed that decisions are made on politics, but you have to remember that Williams are firmly in the Mercedes camp so their politics will reflect that.
Semantics, they are shooting in the dark.
It's not semantics at all. Wanting more research is completely different to claiming they've done absolutely nothing. Maybe Pat feels they haven't done enough but others feel they have. F1 engineers can't agree shocker.

You're trying to paint a much more dramatic picture than it is and there's no evidence they are shooting in the dark. They are not doing what Mercedes want, of course, but that's a different story.
I think something that has not been researched properly is very much hoping for the best.
Because one engineer wants more time does not mean that it has not been researched properly. Again, you're jumping on this because it supports your own position, not because of objective evidence.

There is no evidence to indicate that no research has been done nor that anyone is simply hoping for the best. It's just not true

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:It hasn't stopped them trying to block everything from fuel limit to aero so some counter ideas would be nice. But I know why they didn't, it would still leave the door open to someone doing a better job. Which is exactly their problem with McLaren's and why they wanted to continue as is. Even though dirty air is a problem currently too. Just being noble with the fuel limit too though I take it?.

It's Macca's proposal isn't it?.
Well that just sounds like another team wanting to change the rules to suit their own needs, and Mercedes should buckle down to that?

This doesn't sound like changing the rules for the overall good of F1.
It would be a nice change from just trying to block everything they think can threaten their advantage. But I don't see a difference to be honest, they are both just looking after their own interests either way.

No, It's about introducing a way to lessen Mercedes PU advantage I would wager. But I think you know that.
How have they blocked everything, tokens can be used in season this year, next season there is open development?

Mercedes should just bend over and concede to everything allowing the rule book to be torn up because that's the best way for the other teams to beat them?

You introduce rules and if one team does a much better job the other teams have a mutiny?
I think you have selective memory. Wolff was against changing the token system. Mercedes have been quite vocally against any change. It's only natural, given that the status quo benefits them more than anything else, but you can bet if it didn't they'd also be arguing for change, just like everyone else
I think if you are giving a set of rules and you do the best job then you naturally want to gain sufficient benefit before allowing those rules to be changed, what is the point in laying down rules set for a certain time limit if these can be simple torn up at any point?

The fact is that the rules laid out for the engines have been changed and this with the blessing of Mercedes who after having won 4 titles have said ok we have had our success and we won't be too greedy so we are happy to loosen up the regs.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

pokerman
Posts: 36355
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:All I've found is that he says more research is needed (in his opinion), not that no research at all has been done. Agreed that decisions are made on politics, but you have to remember that Williams are firmly in the Mercedes camp so their politics will reflect that.
Semantics, they are shooting in the dark.
It's not semantics at all. Wanting more research is completely different to claiming they've done absolutely nothing. Maybe Pat feels they haven't done enough but others feel they have. F1 engineers can't agree shocker.

You're trying to paint a much more dramatic picture than it is and there's no evidence they are shooting in the dark. They are not doing what Mercedes want, of course, but that's a different story.
I think something that has not been researched properly is very much hoping for the best.
Because one engineer wants more time does not mean that it has not been researched properly. Again, you're jumping on this because it supports your own position, not because of objective evidence.

There is no evidence to indicate that no research has been done nor that anyone is simply hoping for the best. It's just not true
Pat Symonds was part of the group set up to formulate the new rules, maybe you should read all the things he has to say.

Regarding my position I don't really you know what my position is, it's certainly not based on short term objectives.
Lewis Hamilton #44

World Drivers Titles: 7 (1st)
Grand Prix Wins: 95 (1st)
Pole Positions: 98 (1st)
Podiums: 165 (1st)


PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2014: Champion

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote: Well that just sounds like another team wanting to change the rules to suit their own needs, and Mercedes should buckle down to that?

This doesn't sound like changing the rules for the overall good of F1.
It would be a nice change from just trying to block everything they think can threaten their advantage. But I don't see a difference to be honest, they are both just looking after their own interests either way.

No, It's about introducing a way to lessen Mercedes PU advantage I would wager. But I think you know that.
How have they blocked everything, tokens can be used in season this year, next season there is open development?

Mercedes should just bend over and concede to everything allowing the rule book to be torn up because that's the best way for the other teams to beat them?

You introduce rules and if one team does a much better job the other teams have a mutiny?
I think you have selective memory. Wolff was against changing the token system. Mercedes have been quite vocally against any change. It's only natural, given that the status quo benefits them more than anything else, but you can bet if it didn't they'd also be arguing for change, just like everyone else
I think if you are giving a set of rules and you do the best job then you naturally want to gain sufficient benefit before allowing those rules to be changed, what is the point in laying down rules set for a certain time limit if these can be simple torn up at any point?

The fact is that the rules laid out for the engines have been changed and this with the blessing of Mercedes who after having won 4 titles have said ok we have had our success and we won't be too greedy so we are happy to loosen up the regs.
Blessing? Nice way to put spin on it :lol:

Mercedes have eventually agreed to back down and remove the restrictions. Any altruistic motive you put on that is in your own mind I'm fraid

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Bit confused on different 2017 opinions

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:Semantics, they are shooting in the dark.
It's not semantics at all. Wanting more research is completely different to claiming they've done absolutely nothing. Maybe Pat feels they haven't done enough but others feel they have. F1 engineers can't agree shocker.

You're trying to paint a much more dramatic picture than it is and there's no evidence they are shooting in the dark. They are not doing what Mercedes want, of course, but that's a different story.
I think something that has not been researched properly is very much hoping for the best.
Because one engineer wants more time does not mean that it has not been researched properly. Again, you're jumping on this because it supports your own position, not because of objective evidence.

There is no evidence to indicate that no research has been done nor that anyone is simply hoping for the best. It's just not true
Pat Symonds was part of the group set up to formulate the new rules, maybe you should read all the things he has to say.

Regarding my position I don't really you know what my position is, it's certainly not based on short term objectives.
Based on previous posting evidence I'd say your position is against anything that would in any way reduce or remove Mercedes' advantage.

I have read what Pat has to say, which is why I didn't understand you saying there had been no research at all, because I can't find anything where he says that. I don't dispute he's against the changes, but I don't think that just because he says it it must be true. Others obviously have a different view as otherwise it wouldn't be voted in.

I don't know which camp is correct but I've followed F1 long enough to know that pretty much every technical prediction ever given has turned out to be wrong. One positive I'm taking from this is the claim the tyres will have a different construction and not degrade so much. I firmly believe that one of the biggest issues currently is not so much lack of overtaking but restricted opportunities to do so. I don't care if a race has 50 overtakes if they all happen at the end of the straight when a DRS car has breezed past. I would rather have a car harrying and hassling another for several laps before forcing a mistake and pulling off a ballsy move: this is far more likely to happen if the tyres didn't self-destruct whenever drivers attempt to follow another too closely, so I'm pleased that this might be addressed with the new regs. I'm not particularly optimistic that it will, but at least there's a chance which doesn't exist with the existing regulations. So in that respect change is positive

Post Reply