2017 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand PrixFormula 1

[Dotini]

Like the good old days. It was great to see.They should do it at every race.

Heaven forfend that hordes of fans should actually celebrate and have fun perambulating the course after a famous Grand Prix. Those folks should more ideally be hurrying to their local dealerships to put down deposits on Fiats, Benz's and Renaults.

 

[mustafur]

If the sport re-introduced refuelling, you'd complain that the races were reduced to glorified timetrials, with the drivers aiming for a pre-determined laptime and making no attempt to pass

The way you explain this is incorrect, whilst there would be tracks this would apply that would more fit if the passing was initially hard, having refueling doesn't make passing harder that would more fit under the Aero regs and such.

Having your car heavy and running long and not trying to be involved in battles was not exactly a strong strategy, as each track and car would require something else, and that's the thing it adds near infinite strategy options that now we just don't get, that is limited to tyres and with this years tyres incredibly conservertive you can basically predict the strategy they will do from the get go.

 

[niky]

Want a better spectacle? Cut total fuel allowance for the race by another twenty percent.

Nothing creates a big speed differential like the distinct possibility of running out of fuel.

 

[Northstar]

Like the good old days. It was great to see.They should do it at every race.

I'm guessing you've never seen the video of a person meeting an F1 car at speed? I have and I'd rather never see something like that again.

 

[Liquid]

McLaren aren't even looking like Minardi or Jaguar Racing. I think I've given them enough of my interest.
I'm just about to switch to Ferrari, only for the Shell sponsorship.

At this stage McLaren are looking like Super Aguri.

And they're still making the most talented driver of his generation look silly.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Like the good old days. It was great to see.They should do it at every race.

Better idea - let them on the track before the race has finished!

(45:35)

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Like the good old days. It was great to see.They should do it at every race.

I liked it, too, and at first I thought it was a new initiative to promote fan engagement. But all it would take is one idiot to spoil it for everyone involved. Even if the cars are going slowly, they still pose a danger. And true to form, there was one moron with a Ferrari flag who got way too close to Vettel as he turned in to the pits. If only there was some way that fans could be able to access the circuit safely on the cool-down lap.

 

[ScottPuss20]

The way you explain this is incorrect, whilst there would be tracks this would apply that would more fit if the passing was initially hard, having refueling doesn't make passing harder that would more fit under the Aero regs and such.

Having your car heavy and running long and not trying to be involved in battles was not exactly a strong strategy, as each track and car would require something else, and that's the thing it adds near infinite strategy options that now we just don't get, that is limited to tyres and with this years tyres incredibly conservertive you can basically predict the strategy they will do from the get go.

You've hit the nail on the head @mustafur. The racing nowadays is far too predictable.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The racing nowadays is far too predictable.

You complained that there is far too much tyre and fuel management preventing the drivers from pushing as hard as possible throughout the race. Now you're complaining that if the drivers are given the ability to push as hard as possible throughout the race, the racing is far too predictable.

 

[ScottPuss20]

You complained that there is far too much tyre and fuel management preventing the drivers from pushing as hard as possible throughout the race. Now you're complaining that if the drivers are given the ability to push as hard as possible throughout the race, the racing is far too predictable.

No I didn't, I said to focus less on it. What @mustafur is saying is that having a large variety of strategies is... wait, did you not read his post? The variety of strategies is very low, hence making the racing boring in the process. If there's a greater variety of strategies than drivers would be more willing to fight for position. No? Alright, in that case, the racing is boring no matter what strategies are available.

I am NOT implying that pushing hard makes the racing too predictable. That's all you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If there's a greater variety of strategies than drivers would be more willing to fight for position.

So you think they're not trying to fight for position as it is?

Sorry, but you still want it both ways.

 

[ScottPuss20]

So you think they're not trying to fight for position as it is?

Sorry, but you still want it both ways.

I don't care whats put in place for christ sake, I want to see SOME ACTION. Whether that be greater variety of strategies or drivers pushing themselves more.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I want to see SOME ACTION.

Then you're watching the wrong sport. Formula One has never been about action - it's a mix of strategy, technology and on-track racing. But if it's wheel-to-wheel action that you want lap after lap, you're better off watching touring car racing.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Then you're watching the wrong sport. Formula One has never been about action - it's a mix of strategy, technology and on-track racing. But if it's wheel-to-wheel action that you want lap after lap, you're better off watching touring car racing.

I guess that's why I love V8 Supercars so much.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

The way you explain this is incorrect, whilst there would be tracks this would apply that would more fit if the passing was initially hard, having refueling doesn't make passing harder that would more fit under the Aero regs and such.

Having your car heavy and running long and not trying to be involved in battles was not exactly a strong strategy, as each track and car would require something else, and that's the thing it adds near infinite strategy options that now we just don't get, that is limited to tyres and with this years tyres incredibly conservertive you can basically predict the strategy they will do from the get go.

No I didn't, I said to focus less on it. What @mustafur is saying is that having a large variety of strategies is... wait, did you not read his post? The variety of strategies is very low, hence making the racing boring in the process. If there's a greater variety of strategies than drivers would be more willing to fight for position. No? Alright, in that case, the racing is boring no matter what strategies are available.

I am NOT implying that pushing hard makes the racing too predictable. That's all you.

I was baffled by this idea that refuelling gave us more variation in strategy - let alone "near infinite options" - so I had a quick look look at the number of pit stops that were made in past Aussie GPs, a coarse but fairly clear measure of different strategies that were playing out across the grid.

The percentage figure is the proportion of finishing drivers who did the 'popular' number of pit stops for the race - so eg. in the 2004 Aussie GP, 71% of the grid were on a 3 stop strategy. Data source here. This isn't perfect but I imagine any errors would probably even themselves out over multiple seasons.

At risk of falling to confirmation bias it doesn't surprise me that the averages for the periods either side of refuelling are similar...........that's pretty much what I remember from the races at the time. So unless the argument is that the interest and near infinite-ness was in the few-lap windows were drivers looked to overcut........1) just no, and 2) no different to tyre strategies where drivers look to undercut. And none of this is even considering the fact that since refuelling turned races into a series of pseudo-quali runs, variations in pace were also low, which helped contribute to the processions............

I can sort of understand why in 93/94 with the sport facing a crisis of confidence, in a bit of desperation refuelling was tried in the hope that anything different would spice things up...........each to his/her own and all that but I don't think I'll ever understand calls for its return a second time (not aiming that at either of you specifically).

 

[IforceV8]

 

[Jimlaad43]

No matter how hard fans want the drivers to push, the teams all know that driving lighter fuel loads, conserving the tyres and driving to times is the fastest way to the flag. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Simmpa]

I am a bit confused Red Bull are no longer using Renault Engines? I thought they renewed the contract?

 

[Peter.]

I feel like ever since the FIA made efforts to spice up the racing with rubbish tyres and DRS, efforts that for the most part have been reasonably successful, people have complained more than ever about the racing. I feel like the dominance of Vettel and Mercedes in this Pirelli-DRS era has overshadowed the marked improvement overall in the on-track action.

Even if they don't because of the lack of parity overall, and because Pirelli have struggled a bit to find the balance between tyres good enough to push without destroying and bad enough to call for varying strategies, the cars can to some extent follow and pass each other a lot easier than they once could.

Nevertheless, people complain about how ruined F1 is when it's never been, at any point in its existence, filled with on-track action.

 

[daan]

I am a bit confused Red Bull are no longer using Renault Engines? I thought they renewed the contract?

They still use Renault engines, it's just they have different badge on them.

 

[EDK]

At risk of falling to confirmation bias it doesn't surprise me that the averages for the periods either side of refuelling are similar...........that's pretty much what I remember from the races at the time. So unless the argument is that the interest and near infinite-ness was in the few-lap windows were drivers looked to overcut........1) just no, and 2) no different to tyre strategies where drivers look to undercut. And none of this is even considering the fact that since refuelling turned races into a series of pseudo-quali runs, variations in pace were also low, which helped contribute to the processions............

You have to remember that the other available strategic element was the amount of fuel they carried on the cars at the start of the race, as well as how much they loaded onto the car at each stop.

So even if 2 cars had the same number of stops, fuel adds a second variable (and really a third, considering the different tire compounds).

A car can start heavy or light, and run heavy or light in the successive stints.

I'm not advocating for re-fueling, but rather pointing out that there was more to it, since fuel is a constant in today's state, with all cars beginning the race on their respective full load.

 

[Liquid]

I am a bit confused Red Bull are no longer using Renault Engines? I thought they renewed the contract?

They have the badge of the company who "builds the engine" as opposed to the company who finances and engineers the engines.

Like when McLaren had Porsche engines in the 1980s but were listed as McLaren-TAG in the constructors table.

 

[mustafur]

I was baffled by this idea that refuelling gave us more variation in strategy - let alone "near infinite options" - so I had a quick look look at the number of pit stops that were made in past Aussie GPs, a coarse but fairly clear measure of different strategies that were playing out across the grid.

The percentage figure is the proportion of finishing drivers who did the 'popular' number of pit stops for the race - so eg. in the 2004 Aussie GP, 71% of the grid were on a 3 stop strategy. Data source here. This isn't perfect but I imagine any errors would probably even themselves out over multiple seasons.

At risk of falling to confirmation bias it doesn't surprise me that the averages for the periods either side of refuelling are similar...........that's pretty much what I remember from the races at the time. So unless the argument is that the interest and near infinite-ness was in the few-lap windows were drivers looked to overcut........1) just no, and 2) no different to tyre strategies where drivers look to undercut. And none of this is even considering the fact that since refuelling turned races into a series of pseudo-quali runs, variations in pace were also low, which helped contribute to the processions............

I can sort of understand why in 93/94 with the sport facing a crisis of confidence, in a bit of desperation refuelling was tried in the hope that anything different would spice things up...........each to his/her own and all that but I don't think I'll ever understand calls for its return a second time (not aiming that at either of you specifically).

But you also forget that not every car starts on the same fuel, for example you could have 5 cars all doing a 3 stop strategy but they are never on similar fuel loads till the last stint(some may start heavy and only top up fuel a Little so the pit stop isn't long while others might go low to keep the race pace fast) pit stop count doesn't give the full story like how the tyres do now.

So even if they are doing a Similar strategy in pit stop count they can all have variance on top of that, the level of strategy far exceeds what we are seeing now which is more limited to under and overcut on tyres and saving a bit of fuel in the race to be lighter.

Look at this example on starting fuel loads at the 2009 German GP: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/...strong-position-german-grand-prix-fuel-loads/

 

[Peter.]

The way I see it refueling added nothing to F1, but bring about a sprint race nature that led to some fast cars but awful racing in the 2000's, and a lot of pit fires.

 

[mustafur]

The way I see it refueling added nothing to F1, but bring about a sprint race nature that led to some fast cars but awful racing in the 2000's, and a lot of pit fires.

The refueling wasn't the problem as seen in 2010 when they banned it, the DRS and high wear tyres gave you that racing your talking about.

Which was proven the year after.

 

[05XR8]

The best times I've seen in F1, are when other teams have stepped up.

Damon Hill winning the DC.

Villeneuve winning the C'hip.

Hakkinen beating Schumacher to the DC.

Jordan with his Buzzin' Hornets.

Button in the Honda(I forget the year, but his race at Imola was awesome).

Brawn/Virgin winning the C'hip.

Red Bull's string of DC/WCs.

I remember reading last couple of year's F1 threads. Many posts acknowledging how good the racing was. All the passes. Wheel to wheel racing. Again, this is the first race of the year. Teams will work out bugs, tune cars, drivers will do amazing things.

If by the 5th race, drivers are still complaining. Then, yeah, something should be done.

Edit: oh, yeah, I'll also add Hulkenberg at Brazil(?) in the FI.

 

[Liquid]

The way I see it refueling added nothing to F1, but bring about a sprint race nature that led to some fast cars but awful racing in the 2000's, and a lot of pit fires.

There were some pit fires, yes, and that's obviously dangerous but out of all the fuel stops made 1994-2009 I wouldn't say that there were enough for it to be "a lot".

I can think of maybe 5 off the top of my head. And the most significant one, Verstappen's, was because Benetton knowingly removed a safety filter to make the refuel process 10% faster.

 

[Peter.]

The refueling wasn't the problem as seen in 2010 when they banned it, the DRS and high wear tyres gave you that racing your talking about.

Which was proven the year after.

I don't think 2010 was a particularly bad year for racing. It was mostly overshadowed by the Alonso-Petrov incident, and the indestructible Bridgestone tyres, but overtaking was better than prior years.

There were some pit fires, yes, and that's obviously dangerous but out of all the fuel stops made 1994-2009 I wouldn't say that there were enough for it to be "a lot".

I can think of maybe 5 off the top of my head. And the most significant one, Verstappen's, was because Benetton knowingly removed a safety filter to make the refuel process 10% faster.

Probably not 'a lot', but then there's situations where fuel rigs get torn off and mechanics get hurt in the process. Sure enough a poorly fastened tyre will be every bit as dangerous as well, but the FIA has done a solid job in ensuring the teams are properly punished and deterred from screwing that up.

 

[Dotini]

I recall a major justification of the refueling ban was for reasons of cost-savings. Surely that reason still applies.

I would like to see the following:
Steel brakes

3.5 liter n/a V-8's, V-10's and V-12's, with weight breaks accorded to the simpler engines.

Maximum weight 1350 lbs,

An aero formula that would permit nose to tail racing with no detriment to handling or tire wear. If that means wedge noses and lip spoilers, so be it.

 

[TheElbows]

And all of the changes people want won't happen because it means slower times/less efficiency, etc. It flies in the face of F1's pursuit (which is not great racing).