TBK-Light.com

I always wonder how to determine if a new feature is a legit addition to a race car improving the racing and when it should be considered as an artificial gadget.

For Example Push to Pass. I think it's a gadget and I don't like it. If your engine can do 50hp more, why not using it all the time?
On the other hand: if (instead of p2p) you can have a NOS container in your car of a defined size and can use that whenever you want, I wold be okay with that.
And I don't even know why one wopuld be better than the other.
Maybe because you could theoretically choose to use very little NOS all through the race. I really don't know.
Strangely I am also okay with using the stored energy. But not with Indycar like P2P.

DRS however is without any doubt a gadget. It horrible and it needs to go.
Fan Boost is the king of gadgets tho.

well, fuck it and automate it then! I'm sure as hell not going to change a dial before every corner or straight or whatever.
I'm willing to choose between cruising, city, highway and sport before a trip but that's it. And 99% of the drivers around the world would think the same for 99% of their drives.

If those teams want the showcase their technology do it in a way normal people would use it in their everyday car.

The reality is of course different. F1 is victim of its past decisions, and will be forever.
I'm usually talking about to the ideal "utopian" version of F1, where every teams has 5 billion dollars to spend per year, where there are 40 cars participating during the weekend, where cars are like [insert-your-favorite-time-period] and tracks are old school with no stupid limitations, yet no driver aids (?!) and Bernie and Charlie are gone. Of course this is just dreaming and has a lot of contradictions in it. But at least some of the steps could be done to make F1 better.

A total breakaway series could turn F1 upside down, but who has the money and power to make it happen?
Maybe in 2050 F1 is no more, and we watch virtual races via VR implants. As simulation is basically free and safety is no issue, you can do anything with the cars and tracks. So Max Verstappen Jr. will be the FIA online-F1 champion for Ferrari in 2050 after winning the last GP at Koopa Troopa Beach.

What about a compromise, keep the technology but let the teams make the necessary changes from the pitwall once a lap (to stop them changing things every 100 yards), take the buttons off the wheel leaving only DRS/ERS/BB, that way the drivers can concerntrate on the driving. While you're at it, scrap the fuel flow limit and just limit the amount of fuel in the tank.

Lets face it if any of this technology ever makes it to road cars, it's going to be automated, the driver him/herself won't have any more than basic control, most people on the rosd can barely manage to talk and drive at the best of times, so expecting them to control a complicated hybrid system while doing the school run is a pipe dream.

You're completely missing the point. If one of the spearpoints for those brands for being in F1 is being able to use the current technology then implement it like it will be eventually used in roadcars.
You and me aren't going to switch modes every time we're waiting for the green light or when we're in a traffic jam. So why should the driver do that?

Today's technology is far enough to automate it. Add GPS in the mix and go full out. Even with the perfect brake-mapping for each corner you still have to be on the right brake-point for it to matter.

Either do a no-arsed job or a full-arsed job but stop the current halve-arsed job.




In other news, Sauber actually paid the salaries on time this month and is said to have found new investors which will lead to new ownership according to Autosport.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ial-plight

Lets speculate who it is....
-Alfa Romeo
-Stroll family

Please be Afla!!

Oh hell no.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

I was counting on Dietrich Mateschitz and Red Bull during their engine-saga. They'd have all the ressources and the balls to do something extraordinary, and more importantly, the know how to do it properly and give the people what they want. They are the perfect marketing company, so imagine the Red Bull Racing league, with V10s and V12s and challenging tracks. Plus, you can be sure the media coverage and social media stuff would rule. I considered writing Didi a mail, but then I figured he must have already thought about it.

F1 needs to compete with other racing series, like in 80's and 90's

or just make a racing series from scratch with low cost car and engine building, racing in venues that are ok and no tv and commercial rights. if you want to see the action, you gotta be there

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

Yes. That is what F1 NEEDS to do.

that was F1 until the 60's

buiders like Chapman, McLaren and Brabham fighting for every damn split second. times that won't go back unfortunatelly

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

This is Halo 2

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... ia-793848/

Well not the game but that ridiculous "safety" device...

Why does F1 always choose the most complicated or ridiculous solution for a so called problem. Firstly there is no need for this, and then they choose the most ugly and impractical design just because Ferrari came up with it. If there needs to be some sort of headprotection, then use something like Red Bull designed. At least that looks somewhat elegant, this Halo is just the worst thing I've ever seen on an F1 car. I'd rather have the dido noses and x-wings back.

Ferrari didn't come up with Halo, Mercedes did.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

Explained for the millionth time. Ferrari have just been testing it.

They say the RB design failed to stand up to testing. Or something along that line.

From a car in controlled conditions in a garage, well that's just spiffing isn't it, let's just hope they never have to extract a driver from a car that's upside down or on fire, I'm sure having to drag a human through a hoop a foot or so higher than normal and isn!t much bigger than their body isn't going to be an issue at all (at least with a touring or WEC car they can be dragged out the door which is dam sight bigger).

Oh and we won't mention that this wouldn't have saved anybody killed in a F1 car in the last 30 years had it been in use, will we?

I agree with you on may points Scotty, and disagree with you on a few. This is one where I disagree with you.

If there were incidents happening of drivers getting banged on the noggin then I would absolutely for sure say yes this is needed. Drivers aren't. In F1 there has been only 1 instance that I can think of that a halo would have prevented in the last 30 years. Nelson Piquet, Adelaide 1989.

I totally get what you are saying and where you are coming from. But this is not the 60s where safety was abysmal. The FIA is trying to mitigate against a risk that is virtually non existent and destroying the fundamental fabric of F1 in the process.

I will say this clearly without any ambiguity...as a fan of F1 I will accept and tolerate a freak death (even my favorite driver Ricciardo) over destroying the fabric of the sport to prevent a once in a 30 year accident.

The cockpits are pretty closed up already. Go back 25 years and see how much of the driver sticks out. They're closing up already.

We've had too many freak deaths in F1 recently as it is.

Ssssshhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk