Forum Replies Created
27th August 2014, 12:12 at 12:12 pm #272417
Despite being an Alonso fan, I think rounding Pérez in Rivage was made a lot easier by the different aero configurations of the two car. Alonso’s high downforce kit enabled a lot more cornering speed than Pérez’s medium downforce aero package, just enough for Alonso to nullify the disadvantage the outside line meant.
Now one can say ‘blah, that’s not quite easy, just look at what Magnussen did to him’, but in the context of the Magnussen-Alonso battle we have to take into account the almost unbeatable traction of the MP4/29 out of low-speed corners. It’s not the first time this helped them preserve their positions (Malaysia against Massa, Barcelona against Massa and Silverstone against Alonso comes to mind).
…So I’d also go for Rosberg on Bottas. It was unnervingly difficult: being on the debris on the inside and being on the inside alone necessitated a much tighter line into Blanchimont and it required some skill – and bravery most of all – to complete the pass by not lifting at all.27th August 2014, 0:19 at 12:19 am #272379
Haha, I literally laughed out loud. :)20th August 2014, 11:25 at 11:25 am #270809
He did choose Fernando in the end. :)5th August 2014, 23:08 at 11:08 pm #269574
Which brings us to a very peculiar problem with these cars. F1 is the fastest autosport category in the world, but its discipline might not inherently be the fastest as an open-wheeler has a disadvantage compared to higher endurance classes (e. g. LMP1) per se…5th August 2014, 18:43 at 6:43 pm #269546
Yeah, I agree with the latter. It would require Jedi-like reaction times and skills to pass.2nd August 2014, 22:31 at 10:31 pm #269392
Yeah, I kind of knew about Newey’s X1, X2014, etc. designs, but I would not go that far in theory – I’d open up only a few elements of the rules regarding car dimension, certainly not all, so no closed wheels, cockpit, etc. So what I’m speculating on is specifically how the front wings and the sidepods would look like if only the dimension rules of those two parts would change.
In short, I’d think the IndyCar and Formula E solutions are the way to go, but I’m curious what the forum members think about it – if they have other ideas, or not.18th July 2014, 11:13 at 11:13 am #266915
I remember I began to pay attention to the engineering side of F1 in that year, because of how often I heard that the significantly longer wheelbase of the F2007 was giving it an advantage on tracks with mainly high-speed corners like Magny-Cours, Silverstone, Spa, etc. (all of which they won AFAIR).
On the other hand, McLaren just washed the Scuderia away on stop-and-go tracks like Monaco and Indy.
It was very interesting.18th July 2014, 11:10 at 11:10 am #266914
Dunno, but I remember Lewis and Jenson doing a PR day of physical and mental exercises for Vodafone (?) back in their teammate days and they had this reaction time game where they had to hit a series of flashing lights on a board. I don’t remember which of the two won though. Look it up on YouTube it’s a very interesting piece on the mental and physical capabilities of F1 drivers.
Also, there might have been a video about STR drivers playing the same game, but I’m not sure.14th July 2014, 15:38 at 3:38 pm #266511
It’s strange that while Alonso had a lot of on-track duel with both Hamilton and Vettel, we are yet to witness Hamilton and Vettel go wheel to wheel a lot of times in F1.13th July 2014, 10:18 at 10:18 am #266472
I don’t agree with it, but I found an extremely liberal approach to this.
According to the dictionary definition, racing in itself could be a gimmick.
I’ll explain. As soon as someone creates a racing event or championship to ‘attract publicity or trade’ and not to enjoy himself, it could be considered as such (e. g. USCR). Obviously, one has to have a healthy business model to sustain a series in a capitalist economic system, so an element of this definition of gimmickry will always be there. An entirely gimmick-free racing would be realizable (is there such a word!?) only if one pays literally no attention to the economic side of it and makes all the decisions about the event rules based on other factors.
As such scenario is unimaginable, I consider gimmick in motorsport to be ‘a trick or device, which provides unfair advantage to certain participants.’ Such as DRS. And double points.9th July 2014, 14:19 at 2:19 pm #266238
@OP: On the contrary, I love these recovery drives that succeed, they bring more dynamism to the racing, whereas if the fast cars would become stuck at the back, there’d be just a lot of frustration around.
Edit: I simplified it a bit. I also think that it was not too easy for either Bottas or Alonso. Just think of how close it was sometimes pulling off the moves (Bottas on Button, ALonso on Kvyat and Ricciardo, Button holding up Alonso on traction), and how Bottas got it all wrong in a similar situation with a slightly too wide exit at T9 in Melbourne.
On the other hand, I do like your idea of limited amount of DRS uses (if it’s here to stay and we have to deal with it after all, then I’d certainly tweak it this way).14th June 2014, 15:07 at 3:07 pm #263094
Yeah, I found it now, no problem.14th June 2014, 13:54 at 1:54 pm #263091
Won’t there be an F1 Fanatic Live session for the 24hrs?8th June 2014, 12:50 at 12:50 pm #262714
Since I wrote that enthusiastic reply late last night, I also became skeptical about how they would enforce the cars engage the speed limiter by the ‘slow down’ tables.
My idea would be to install pre-defined zones on the circuit with sensors built into or next to the asphalt. (They may have already done that in which case I haven’t paid enough attention. That’d not be unsurprising as as a non-native English speaker, I tried to phrase this post last night as well, but I was so tired that I couldn’t manage it. :P)8th June 2014, 1:23 at 1:23 am #262688
I thought of this idea for F1 when we’ve had that Safety Car debacle in Valencia a few years ago.
Edit: I’m glad to see it being realized.