2012 Random F1 Discussion

Lucasjeha · PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:49 pm

Well, as good as Mugello may be, I would'n want to have a race over there, getting F1 to Mugello would mean, tracks changes, tarmac runoff areas, kerb changes to make it easy for the drivers to take them and much much more, like fake grass and all tha stuff, I prefer the circuit like it is, without F1, F1 killed a lot of tracks in the last years.

Of course a race in such great track would be fantastic, I think we could see some very decent racing action, but while FIA keeps the same recipe for the F1 tracks we won't see tracks like this in F1. It's a hard balance to find, I remember Jackie Stewart talking about that, for what I've read, he said that safety is very important and that what FIA achieved in matters of safety is fantastic, but at the same time, when FIA overreacts about safety, its not healthy too, a driver today can make as many mistakes as they want, cause they can allways get back, and it shouldn't be that way, if you spin, if you make a huge mistake you must pay, stuck in the gravel, or crashing. That's what Stewart said! A man who fought for safety in the 70's, when people didn't paid attention to that and started this great work that now save a lot of lifes in the racing tracks.

Now, I think he's right in some points, today F1 cars are very safe, so there is no big risks if you crash, it would need an absolutelly insane crash to cause serious injuries to a driver, so the changes to the tracks are just too much, if you have cars safe enough to avoid fatal crashes and serious injuries, you don't need to keep changing the tracks for the same reason, when you have such safe cars, you can worry about making the tracks challenging and proper for good racing action.

This discussion is something that repeats, year by year, and after all, if we wanna see good racing in "classic" and challenging tracks, we have to follow some other series, as F1 propably will never change its view about circuits safety, actually it will only gets worse with time.

RtN · PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 9:31 pm

Is that the same Jackie Stewart who was leading the kneejerk chorus after Vegas last October?

That's all these tarmac run-offs etc. are. An overreaction to Imola 1994 that persists to this day.

It's still going on. There was a piece in today's Autosport about how the FIA are now turning their attention back towards preventing cockpit intrusion.

Neil · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:02 am

Actually, tarmac runoff came about after a spate of accidents in 1999 and 2000 where cars either skipped clean over the gravel or were pitched into rolls when they dug in.

Notable crashes were Schumacher at Silverstone in 1999 (skipped across, broke legs), both BARs at Spa (dug in and rolled) and Zonta at Silverstone in 2000 (jumped when hit gravel, hit tire wall and went over the fence). I'm sure there were more that I can't remember though.

But yes, I agree with the sentiment that there was an over reaction, albeit understandable, after 1994. Hell, at least the chicane at the bottom of Eau Rouge and the back straight at Barcelona only lasted a year.

Woodski · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:11 am

RtN wrote:

Mugello would be utter shit for F1 racing. The cars are too powerful and too wide.

End of discussion.

lol, no.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:19 am

nea wrote:

Actually, tarmac runoff came about after a spate of accidents in 1999 and 2000 where cars either skipped clean over the gravel or were pitched into rolls when they dug in.

Notable crashes were Schumacher at Silverstone in 1999 (skipped across, broke legs), both BARs at Spa (dug in and rolled) and Zonta at Silverstone in 2000 (jumped when hit gravel, hit tire wall and went over the fence). I'm sure there were more that I can't remember though.

But yes, I agree with the sentiment that there was an over reaction, albeit understandable, after 1994. Hell, at least the chicane at the bottom of Eau Rouge and the back straight at Barcelona only lasted a year.

I don't think either BAR at Spa dug into the gravel; Villeneuve rolled off the tyre wall and Zonta sort of blew over.

But point taken.

Woodski wrote:

RtN wrote:

Mugello would be utter shit for F1 racing. The cars are too powerful and too wide.

End of discussion.

lol, no.

You can barely fit two F1 cars side by side. It would be like Monaco, except that the barriers are just far enough away to make sure that all but the biggest errors are gotten away with.

There would be trains of cars everywhere unless they all found themselves in race pace order at the end of qualifying.

Woodski · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:29 am

again, no.

v8 superstars put on fantastic races there, and the cars are wider than contemporary f1 machines.

if they can go side by side(sometimes 3 wide) and not manage to fuck it all up, the F1 boys should be able to as well.

hell, it'd about the same width around as spa. mugello is 9,6-14m wide, while spa is 10-14m wide.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:35 am

They are also slower cars with much less downforce. F1 cars stick to the track so well that the record one-lap average speed is 150mph.

The length of the main straight might allow for some passing into turn 1. That's if they can follow one another through the rest of the lap.

Woodski · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:36 am

RtN wrote:

They are also slower cars with much less downforce. F1 cars stick to the track so well that the record one-lap average speed is 150mph.

The length of the main straight might allow for some passing into turn 1. That's if they can follow one another through the rest of the lap.

the rest of the track is the same width as spa, and they seem to do just fine there.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:40 am

Really?

I remember Fisichella being stuck behind Raikkonen for lap after lap despite having the much faster car. I remember Button holding up 3 or 4 cars in 2010 before he was torpedoed by Vettel.

I am sure that Mugello is a fun circuit to drive, I am sure that it would look nice on the TV, but I am not at all convinced that cars would be able to pass unless they were multiple seconds per lap faster.

Woodski · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:41 am

i wouldnt say its the tracks fault if a driver cannot get around another one "despite having a much faster car."

if it truely was that much faster than he could have found a way by if he really wanted to.

hell, people manage to pass at monaco in a few different places other than the chicane if they really want to.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:44 am

I never said the problem was with the track. It is a great racetrack for the right series, which are most of them.

I have seen many great bike races put on at Mugello. I have heard of many smaller car series doing the same. F1 is a different series which needs more than a simply exciting track to engender good racing.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:57 am

Valencia is shite too, and it's going to get canned within a couple of years. There's virtually no money behind it anymore.

Abu Dhabi probably won't be going anywhere. Needs a redesign. The owners could afford it if they wanted.

codename_47 · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 3:30 am

nea wrote:

Actually, tarmac runoff came about after a spate of accidents in 1999 and 2000 where cars either skipped clean over the gravel or were pitched into rolls when they dug in.

Notable crashes were Schumacher at Silverstone in 1999 (skipped across, broke legs), both BARs at Spa (dug in and rolled) and Zonta at Silverstone in 2000 (jumped when hit gravel, hit tire wall and went over the fence). I'm sure there were more that I can't remember though.

As has been said the Spa ones weren't really gravel trap related and I did read somewhere the gravel slowed MS down by about 100mph for his Silverstone crash (and baring in mind it was a goddamn break failure it'd be interesting to learn exactly what the FIA think Tarmac run off would have done in its place).
I'm think I read it was something more in the tyre wall area of things that separated when it shouldn't have and allowed the chasis to impact the barrier that led to his leg breaking.
Something like that anyway.

J.Morelli · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 3:51 am

I have the opinion Mugello is great for F1....have you ever drove it on rFactor? If you haven't, get your steering wheel and go do some testing, it's really cool.

I believe it would provide some overtakes and exciting moments...it's much better than many tracks on the current schedule, much superior than South Korea, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and etc.

kals · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Woodski wrote:

i wouldnt say its the tracks fault if a driver cannot get around another one "despite having a much faster car."

if it truely was that much faster than he could have found a way by if he really wanted to.

hell, people manage to pass at monaco in a few different places other than the chicane if they really want to.

Yes. If overtaking is so easy in F1 then why was DRS introduced?

gd49 · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:19 pm

Woodski wrote:

i wouldnt say its the tracks fault if a driver cannot get around another one "despite having a much faster car."

if it truely was that much faster than he could have found a way by if he really wanted to.

hell, people manage to pass at monaco in a few different places other than the chicane if they really want to.

Imola was a pretty good example of a track where overtaking was pretty much impossible - see Schumacher and Alonso in 2005 and 2006

Gabriel · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 9:54 pm

Again: Blame the cars, not the tracks.

Metzo · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 10:11 pm

Gabriel wrote:

Again: Blame the cars, not the tracks.

ya

codename_47 · PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 11:16 pm

Unless it's Abu Dhabi when it was definitely the tracks fault.

Peter · PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 9:03 am

If you can't overtake at Abu Dhabi, if you can't overtake when you have over 1 km straight and a tight braking point following, it is hard to blame the track.

TBK-Light.com

2012 Random F1 Discussion

Who is online