You can't compare seasons by the points totals anyway. In seasons past we had top 6 with 9 points for the win, dropped scores, 11 race seasons, 16 race seasons, 19 race seasons. Better reliability also inflates the scores of the modern front runner.
I do prefer lower points totals though. NASCAR, for which drivers rack up thousands of points (and then have them reset) and even IRL with 50 for the win is too much. The more points on offer the more meaningless it looks on the table.
I don't get F1 sometimes, they put incintives to try make the cars more reliable but then they want to change the rules so that it favours drivers that wern't consistent but got lots of wins.
I'd bet those cars on any decent tyre would be able to produce cornering forces far beyond what any human being can cope with. There HAS to be restrictions to slow the cars down.
Newey and Sam Michaels brought up 10 days ago that circuits had a lot to do with overtaking and it was maybe time to have a look that way instead of changing the cars yet again. I'm pretty sure they weren't talking about shortcuts though...
"Here comes Lewis Hamilton, going into the second last corner.......OH WAITTT!!! Timo Glock who is almost invisible throughout the race found a blue shell and launched it just to screw someone up!!!! OH NOESSSS!!!! LEWIS HAMILTON ATE A SHELL RIGHT ON HIS HEAD!!!"
Sweet, like a rally cross joker lap. (but it should be longer)
The largest problem (with the non overtaking) is the aero, its impossible to overtake if you cant stay close to the car infront while turning. I saw a IRL race and they could actually drive close (maybe 'cos they
drive so slow) If Brawn was still Honda last year, diffuser would have been banned and we could have had alot less dirty air (check a rerun of some early 2009 races and measure car distance)
/rambling in the wrong thread
I don't think speed has anything to do with it. After all, DTM is much slower and the racing is about as crap (if not crappier) than F1. Plus IRL cars don't generate as much downforce I imagine (although they do generate enough to run upside down at 120 mph)
IRL cars do have that push to pass button and mechanically they are more suited to banks, roughs (see long beach LOL) so they don't get out of shape as easily as F1 (which is amazing cause they have quite a bit of horsepower and a higher top speed). Plus IRL cars are closer together than the F1 grid.
Not to mention the oval chassis design makes it much more feasible for draft battles to occur as stategic drafting is what makes ovals they way they are instead of a single file fest on every oval
Different design, tighter field. Speed has not much to do with it. I've seen some pretty boring races at low speed before (DTM, WTCC, KONI)
No, that im not that kind of guy who wants overtakes all the time, i want somekind fights what you can watch after many years. Short-cuts would ruind those situation, big no to short-cuts
I think they might as well have each car in its own lane with cross overs halfway round each lap. And perhaps a groove to pick up electrical energy from, which powers the motor, which drives the wheels. Maybe some kind of hand operated throttle........
The problem there is... it's an awesome idea giant scalextrix... and actually is probably more relevant to future travel technologies. (apart from crossovers )
The problem is that the fastest guy starts at the front, so who's he going to overtake. We had slightly mixed up qualifying before with the super pole, but it made qualifying boring to watch.
They've played and played with the qualifying format, but they've never been willing to give a really audacious system a go. The grid needs to either start in reverse championship order, or a mixed up equivellent that ensures the cars aren't in a truly competetive order on the grid.
There are lots of ways to do this, but F1 has never had the guts to try - instead they're suggested a solution which will meen there is even less overtaking.
It's the same problem that resulted in the Indi GP fiasco with the Michelin tires, too many people have too much power - and they (FOTA) got it because the old iron fists where just of their trollies. F1 needs strong management again - but this one not from crusty old has beens without any ideas.
People make way too much of Bernies comment. It's not like he would seriously consider it himself. It's just a way to make the headlines and get people to talk about it.
Any rule that results in having slow car's in front of fast ones (without earning it) ruins the true competition (imho). That's why I hate reverse grids, weight penalties and class balancing.
Yeah, thats Bernie, the attention seeking moron.
The thing that gets me is that even though this is most likely just Bernie looking for some new newspaper cuttings for his scrapbooking, it wouldnt make an ounce of difference if it was implemented anyway.
If your 13th on a 26 car grid, and you believe your faster than a load of those people ahead of you, the obvious thing to do is take a shortcut ASAP, you get ahead of them and start pulling away. Fantastic.
However, isnt that the optimum solution for pretty much everyone? Pole, second, third.....
Whoever doesnt shortcut at the earliest opportunity, potentially finds themself behind a slower car, potentially killing your chances of a decent result.
End result being that all 26 cars take the shortcut at the earliest opportunity the rules allow it, to avoid allowing someone else to jump them and slow them down.
About the only person who'd benefit is someone at the very back who'd have an empty track to themself to do clean laps and use their shortcut later on.
I think the new points are completely irrelevent personally. Its nice that more people get rewarded for their efforts, rather than just 6 drivers like it used to be, but apparently these significant increases in points are whats needed to make drivers go for the win rather than settling for what they've got.
Rubbish!
10pts for 1st, 8pts for 2nd place, 0pts for crashing out
25pts for 1st, 18pts for 2nd place, 0pts for crashing out
They can stretch that gap as much as they like, but no driver is going to SETTLE for a position they believe they can get (special circumstances omitting, such as only needing 4th or higher to win WDC or technical problems) because just like before, the cost of settling for 2nd place is far greater than the cost of getting a DNF.
I just cant believe that there are drivers who would believe they could safely pass someone for the race victory, taking the glory of the win as well as pulling off a race winning pass, because 2pts wasnt enough of an incentive for them to do it, however now theres a 7pts gain its worth it.
Theres a far bigger gain, and potentially a FAR greater loss if it goes wrong, thats is what stops drivers from pushing themselves for the win.
Ask Hamilton after Monza, having spun and DNF'd on the last lap in the persuit of 2nd place when 3rd was a certainty. Drivers make risks based on what they believe they can pull off, he wasnt pushing as hard as he could because there was an extra 2pts on offer, but because he believed he could do it even on the last lap and thats as simple as it gets.
Yup, racing used to be about the combination of best driver, car & team.
Apparently thats boring, and it needs messing with to make it entertaining for the viewers... just like it did the first 30 years when everyone called the sport boring, and now fondly recall the last 15 years as the best F1's ever known....
06-09 have been entertaining seasons IMO, but not because of silly qualifying rules, and not specificly because the racing has been far more entertaining, its just been competitive in the standings rather than having a dominant team and the WDC won by round 14.
F1 is more about the entertainment value over the last 10-15 or so years, because entertainment pays better than straight up honest results, honest competition comes further down the list .
.