Looking at the Formula1blog (F1B) this morning I came across this little gem - a twitter chat on the topics set out below:
http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/03/07/f1chat-preview-the-rain-in-spain-also-falls-in-bahrain-%e2%80%a6-what/
I'm not a tweeter - unfortunately in this case - but I thought I'd comment on the questions on the F1B site. I was so pleased with my answers that I copied them back here. (Italics are F1B quotes)
Here are the hot topics for this week:
Is F1 on the edge of ruin?
1. F1 is not on the edge of ruin It just gets better and better - other than Bahrain last year (obviously)
To you, what needs to be changed? Or are you happy with the evolution of the sport?
2. A level of continuity is needed to ensure that aero design and mechanical packages reach their optimum potential - Continuity leads to closer racing as it allows the less well funded teams to close the gap over the course of 4-5 years. The drivers are then the main difference and we get the best drivers fighting for position in relatively equal packages.
Would you welcome artificial rain?
3. Yes - on an irregular basis at boring tracks like Bahrain/Valencia etc. certainly not at every race but the option of having a wet race once every 3/4/5 years at very boring circuits would bring a certain excitement to those tracks - You could even throw Barcelona in there given that it's such a technical track which does not encourage overtaking (and the teams have so much data from testing).
Do you anticipate 2011 to be as close and exciting as 2010? Or will we see more one- or two-team dominance? Weighted advantages? Several teams literally left in the dust?
4. 2011 will probably have two dominant teams in terms of speed and handling given that it's the first year with some continuity. It seems to take 3 or 4 years to give other teams a chance to catch up. The exciting thing about this year would appear to be the level of tyre degradation being experienced. I think this year may well favour the smoother drivers who might be able to wring enough extra laps to make one less pitstop! (Here's hoping)
What about 2013?
5. As above, if the continuity is there and there are no massive rule changes it may well be that 2013 is a classic season - 2012 should see a closing up of the field with maybe two other teams joining the two dominant teams from 2011. It'd be great if one of those was Williams - more likely to be Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, and Mercedes (as long as they keep Ross B.)
And finally, I’ll claim the hot seat for the week and ask: am I right about NASCAR?
6. Nascar - I'll bow to your expertise on that one - I've never found it massively exciting myself.
Join us (http://www.formula1blog.com/) for the conversation on Twitter Monday (7th March) at 4 p.m. Eastern US, 9 p.m. UK. Follow @F1Chat for updates throughout the day and questions during the chat, and use the hashtag #F1Chat to follow and participate in the conversation.
I'm rather pleased with my answers but I'm always happy to be embarrassingly wrong should anyone feel any differently. If you get the chance and are a tweeter join in the above chat - no doubt, being in live time, there'll be all kinds of differences of opinion - do we call that "healthy debate", "handbags at dawn", or "too many cooks"? Not knowing the ins and outs of twitter I'll reserve comment.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Pique'd
I know this is a relatively old story but with not much happening in F1 today I thought I'd throw in my own opinion on it - that's what this Blog is all about after all.
It makes me laugh to see that Nelsinho has said he won't drive in F1 again. His performance was never great on the track and the way he handled the "crashgate" saga didn't show any particular strength of character.
What I found most interesting about that scandal was the way in which it all came out. No-one knew anything about it until Nelsinho was dropped by Renault in mid season 2009 at which point the story spilled out over the papers.
Now - I know he was very young at the time and that Flav put him under serious pressure to perform the dastardly deed (in conjunction with Pat Symonds for whom I had great respect and hope that he was also put under pressure by Flav), but, the fact is that he kept it secret while he had the drive. When this is considered alongside his poor performance behind the wheel it is enough to preclude him from the sport for his lifetime. He simply is not a good enough driver for teams to overlook his past history.
If he had come out straight away and told the truth, or better yet had refused to consider crashing in the first instance, then his slate would be clean and other teams might have considered him. The fact is that he kept it quiet while it suited him. Should relationships between team and driver sour (as they tend to do) the last thing the team wants is an ex-driver with a history of trying to get back at the boss.
Alonso and Schumi have had their brushes with the dark side in the past (spygate, 1997) but both drivers have enough talent for their flaws to be overlooked when it comes to hiring drivers: Piquet does not.
It makes me laugh to see that Nelsinho has said he won't drive in F1 again. His performance was never great on the track and the way he handled the "crashgate" saga didn't show any particular strength of character.
What I found most interesting about that scandal was the way in which it all came out. No-one knew anything about it until Nelsinho was dropped by Renault in mid season 2009 at which point the story spilled out over the papers.
Now - I know he was very young at the time and that Flav put him under serious pressure to perform the dastardly deed (in conjunction with Pat Symonds for whom I had great respect and hope that he was also put under pressure by Flav), but, the fact is that he kept it secret while he had the drive. When this is considered alongside his poor performance behind the wheel it is enough to preclude him from the sport for his lifetime. He simply is not a good enough driver for teams to overlook his past history.
If he had come out straight away and told the truth, or better yet had refused to consider crashing in the first instance, then his slate would be clean and other teams might have considered him. The fact is that he kept it quiet while it suited him. Should relationships between team and driver sour (as they tend to do) the last thing the team wants is an ex-driver with a history of trying to get back at the boss.
Alonso and Schumi have had their brushes with the dark side in the past (spygate, 1997) but both drivers have enough talent for their flaws to be overlooked when it comes to hiring drivers: Piquet does not.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Indycar's Lottery Grid Idea for F1
There's been a lot of comment in respect of how to improve F1 over the years and I include the matters referred to recently in respect of "Wet" races along with the Kers system, rear wings, etc. The F1 boards have been full of this Indycar idea for a lottery grid - most of them ridiculing the idea, a position which I would also adopt.
Having said that (and correct me if I'm wrong) an idea was launched a few years ago which I thought wasn't too bad, but nothing came from it. If I remember correctly the idea was that each driver on the grid would get to drive for each team on the grid throughout the season - effectively we'd be talking about a pool of F1 drivers each getting to drive each constructor's car twice in the season.
The upshot would, on the current grid, see Vettel driving a HRT, Webbo in a Force India, Alonso in a Virgin, Karthikeyan in a McLaren, d’Ambrosio in a Red Bull, and Kobayashi in a Ferrari. I like the idea as a spectacle - the best constructor should still win through at the end of the season, while all the drivers would be racing on a relatively equal platform (relatively speaking because of the suitability of different cars to different tracks). What do you think - is the idea idiotic or does it have some merit?
Having said that (and correct me if I'm wrong) an idea was launched a few years ago which I thought wasn't too bad, but nothing came from it. If I remember correctly the idea was that each driver on the grid would get to drive for each team on the grid throughout the season - effectively we'd be talking about a pool of F1 drivers each getting to drive each constructor's car twice in the season.
The upshot would, on the current grid, see Vettel driving a HRT, Webbo in a Force India, Alonso in a Virgin, Karthikeyan in a McLaren, d’Ambrosio in a Red Bull, and Kobayashi in a Ferrari. I like the idea as a spectacle - the best constructor should still win through at the end of the season, while all the drivers would be racing on a relatively equal platform (relatively speaking because of the suitability of different cars to different tracks). What do you think - is the idea idiotic or does it have some merit?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Jackie Stewart in hospital
The news is that Jackie Stewart has been taken to hospital after falling ill on a flight today. I just want to wish him a speedy recovery.
Rain on the F1 Parade
I see Bernie has been talking about providing wet tracks on demand during races. I like the idea. I remember when Circuit Paul Ricard was given its facelift a few years ago. One of the upgrades, I believe, was the ability to wet the track for the purpose of testing.
When I saw what they'd done there I was amazed that there was no discussion at that time about bringing F1 testing and Maybe even a race to the circuit.
I thought that the ability to wet the track at will might be incorporated into some of the other race tracks.
The idea of giving teams a two minute notice seems a bit daft. What I'd suggest is that it be done without warning but that it would begin offline at the start finish straight and work its way around the track from that point.
Gradual wetting or deluge would be a matter for the track officials in discussion with Charlie Whiting.
Actually, Scrap that idea. We have enough tracks which are susceptible to rain: perhaps we should only bring this kind of idea to tracks which have a history of being boring - like Bahrain or Valencia - Modern Tilke designs (just 'cos this criticism is doing the rounds!).
When I saw what they'd done there I was amazed that there was no discussion at that time about bringing F1 testing and Maybe even a race to the circuit.
I thought that the ability to wet the track at will might be incorporated into some of the other race tracks.
The idea of giving teams a two minute notice seems a bit daft. What I'd suggest is that it be done without warning but that it would begin offline at the start finish straight and work its way around the track from that point.
Gradual wetting or deluge would be a matter for the track officials in discussion with Charlie Whiting.
Actually, Scrap that idea. We have enough tracks which are susceptible to rain: perhaps we should only bring this kind of idea to tracks which have a history of being boring - like Bahrain or Valencia - Modern Tilke designs (just 'cos this criticism is doing the rounds!).
Tyred of hearing about Pirelli performance
Pirelli are providing tyres to all teams this year - FACT.
No team has gained an advantage by being part of Pirelli's tyre development process - FACT.
All teams are therefore on a level playing field - FACT
Why are all the drivers griping about them? Pirelli have provided a number of different compounds from Super-Soft to Hard and will be bringing the most appropriate two compounds to each race. From the sounds of things the drivers appear to be whinging that they degrade very fast and will lead to an increase in the number of pit-stops.
It is interesting that I haven't heard much from Jenson Button on the topic; the driver who everyone considers is easiest on tyres.
The likes of Lewis whose driving style is very hard on tyres may have to adapt or struggle while those like Button may be able to wring some crucial extra laps out of their cars.
Should the Pirelli compounds prove to be a particular problem we could see driving style emerging over sheer speed. It may make no difference in qualifying, but the top eight race positions may be determined on the number of pit-stops which each driver needs.
It is worth mentioning that Pirelli have stated that they were requested to provide a tyre that degraded more rapidly than in previous seasons.
On that basis it might be worth revoking the rule with regard to each car using both compounds during the race and leave it up to the teams to work out their own pit-stop strategies.
No team has gained an advantage by being part of Pirelli's tyre development process - FACT.
All teams are therefore on a level playing field - FACT
Why are all the drivers griping about them? Pirelli have provided a number of different compounds from Super-Soft to Hard and will be bringing the most appropriate two compounds to each race. From the sounds of things the drivers appear to be whinging that they degrade very fast and will lead to an increase in the number of pit-stops.
It is interesting that I haven't heard much from Jenson Button on the topic; the driver who everyone considers is easiest on tyres.
The likes of Lewis whose driving style is very hard on tyres may have to adapt or struggle while those like Button may be able to wring some crucial extra laps out of their cars.
Should the Pirelli compounds prove to be a particular problem we could see driving style emerging over sheer speed. It may make no difference in qualifying, but the top eight race positions may be determined on the number of pit-stops which each driver needs.
It is worth mentioning that Pirelli have stated that they were requested to provide a tyre that degraded more rapidly than in previous seasons.
On that basis it might be worth revoking the rule with regard to each car using both compounds during the race and leave it up to the teams to work out their own pit-stop strategies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)