Forum Replies Created
25th January 2014, 21:48 at 9:48 pm #248255
I think most of the cars from the 70’s and early 80’s were pretty horrid.
But since ’85, I don’t really recall seeing something nearly as bad as this.
Well yes, there were always the occasional ugly duckling, but that is one or two vehicles. This time, it’s across the board. Every single one so far is bad, and there is no reason to believe that any of the others will not be.
Picking the best looking is like picking your favourite STD.
Although 1996 weren’t so great either, with the raised side protection. It looked awkward. Still nothing in comparison to this year.11th January 2014, 11:39 at 11:39 am #248039
I think it is the future for road cars, but I wouldn’t like it on the racing cars.
Basically it would mean that the teams will run maximum downforce EVERYWHERE without loosing out on top speed, as well as it would make the slipstream less effective.
Basically having more downforce then the others would be a ‘free’ advantage in the sense that there would be virtually no drawback.
Not like today where teams running more downforce are usually slower on the straights. I like that sort of balancing act between downforce and top speed. I think it makes the racing more interesting.5th December 2013, 19:30 at 7:30 pm #245879
Introducing traction control wouldn’t reduce Red Bull’s traction advantage.
Traction is a measure for the amount of force you can put through the tyres at any given time.
Say Red Bull can put down 1000Nm at 80km/h (completely made up numbers!) but Mercedes are only able to put down 950Nm at 80km/h. Using traction control will allow the driver to on average come a little closer to those numbers then they normally do, but if we say that Vettel and Hamilton are equally good at applying their right foot, then the TC advantage will mean that Lewis can come closer to 950, and Vettel can come closer to 1000. Making no difference.
If a driver however has a bad right foot and while the car is able to put down 1000Nm, and he only applies 950, or 1050 (causing slip) then he will be no faster then a good driver with less traction.
Introducing traction control will allow the worse driver to get equally close to his cars maximum traction, as a better driver.
Meaning it is now a lot more about the car, then the driver.13th November 2013, 19:02 at 7:02 pm #239166
I am right now trying to persuade my girlfriend into watching F1 again from next year.
How am I going to do that if the cars looks like that? It is absolutely horrifyingly ugly!
Why can’t we just get back to 2008 proportions, but with the clean bodywork of the current cars? That would look incredibly sweet.
I really think that looks of the cars are important.
I want something I can use as my wall paper on my laptop, or that maybe one day accompany the picture of the Ferrari 156/85 on my wall.11th November 2013, 18:25 at 6:25 pm #244933
It depends on what McLaren are looking for. Another stable, Button’esque driver? Then Perez might be able to do it with a few years of experience. But I doubt that is what they are looking for. McLaren all ready have Button, so why would they look for another pretty good driver?
They need a hot-shot who can take the fight to even the best of them.
Will Magnussen be that guy? Who knows. But it is almost guaranteed that Perez will not. He has quite a lot of experience, and he is still not capable of beating Button in qualifying. Which is JB’s biggest weakness.1st November 2013, 20:02 at 8:02 pm #244454
I don’t think this is the way forward.
I often miss a rear facing camera on the cars, but this camera is simply too slow to rotate. And even if it was as fast as light, the guy controlling it, would not. So the only useful thing for this would be when a car overtakes another down a straight to view the car being overtaken all the way… but then when that car jumps to the other side and dives down the inside under breaking, this camera will be pointing everywhere but where the action is.
I think fixed cameras are better.1st November 2013, 17:05 at 5:05 pm #243802
Now you mention it, I do remember their flywheel KERS system being used in some Porsche racing cars for instance. But I don’t imagine that Williams makes quite as much money from the things they do, as McLaren. Whether that is just because every time someone at McLaren farts, we all have to hear about it, I don’t know.1st November 2013, 15:51 at 3:51 pm #243800
One of the problems for a team like Williams is also that, they are funded by their own success. One bad year, means less money for next year and so on. With the huge costs these days, and not a lot of technical freedom it is hard to bounce back in that situation.
McLaren has a pretty healthy side business going on. Not only selling loads of cars, but also supplying parts for racing cars all over the world. Their drive line up however, is a cause for concern. I doubt either of them has what it takes to win a championship.
But a Williams like situation? No.31st October 2013, 17:44 at 5:44 pm #244440
As long as the content is provided to you for free, you have no right to complain.
There is only 24 hours in a day, and Keith, like the rest of us, can’t work all 24 of those.
I would rather get the content late*, then not get it at all.
Be a little thankful for what is actually provided to you here. Keith and his co-writers does an amazing job of providing lots of regular and balanced content. Fantastic articles and a well maintained forum which hasn’t been infested with fanboys and biased mods, unlike most other F1 forums.
*I don’t think it’s late.31st October 2013, 17:13 at 5:13 pm #243547
I don’t think F1 should stay in Europe. The problem is simply that the new race tracks build around the world are always located as conveniently for the local fans as North Korean nuclear weapon test facilities.
And they are all come out of the same mold. Same length, same number of corners, same type of corners etc.
Old European tracks are usually different to each other. Monza and Monaco being the two extremes. And they usually bring a lot of spectators, have lots of grass and nature around. They are just lovely. Characterful.
But it’s not only in Europe. Suzuka is a magnificent track. And so is Albert Park. Both, far, far away from Europe.
The new tracks simply need to be more different from each other and less sterile. And of cause located so that fans can actually get to the circuit with reasonable ease.31st October 2013, 16:55 at 4:55 pm #243546
Paul Richard has an FIA grade 1T licence, which basically means that the only thing needed for the full fat grade 1 licence is to build some proper grandstands and that sort of stuff.
Not the most expensive job in the world. Relatively..30th October 2013, 17:27 at 5:27 pm #244161
While I am not entirely sure, I think it all started because Mercedes asked for Pirelli to make wider rear tyres. Some interpreted it like, it was because they made a lot more power then the others. Speculations started, someone pulled a figure of 100hp more then anyone else out his sleeve, and that has been going on for months now.
I think the only safe conclusion we can draw is that we have no idea what is going on with the engines.27th October 2013, 15:37 at 3:37 pm #244038
I haven’t found a torrent for it so far, but tomorrow there should be plenty of copies up on the nice interweb for free and probably pretty illegal download.27th October 2013, 13:39 at 1:39 pm #244002
Looks good. It would be fun if that was going to be their actual livery.
It is normal for the teams to launch the car with that camouflage foil wrap? I don’t remember having seen that before.26th October 2013, 15:22 at 3:22 pm #239272
I think it’s a sad to see the best drivers in the world invent their own track like that. They have been allowed to, so I don’t blame them, but I just cannot buy into the argument that it isn’t an advantage, or some places is even a disadvantage. If that was the case, then the drivers wouldn’t do it, would they? Maybe here and there, sure. But practically everyone, consistently did it.