Formula 1 2020 (Will Contain Race Day Spoilers)

[Deleted member 113659]

I know some of the names for obvious reasons, but not all. Which of them wouldn't swap their seat to get back in an F1 drive.

Now if you were to put Lewis Hamilton and couple of other top F1 drivers in a Formula E, it would be worth watching. That's effectively what the TT zero race has done in recent years and it's more interesting because of that.

That’s a great point. I also doubt many (if any) F1 Drivers would swap their seats for FE (Yet). I wonder when the scales will tip in Formula E’s favor, if ever.

However, I’m not so sure that Formula E would be any better a spectacle with Hamilton & Co.

 

[artyman]

I guess the driving technique for a Formula E is quite different from F1, and doubt if Lewis were to jump in one whether he would be quicker than the present incumbents

 

[GeeJayW]

Formula E cars have nowhere near the performance of F1 cars, and they whine like a bunch of milk-floats on steroids! The cars (which are all the same) look awful, being designed to look fast, but actually aren't. They produce little downforce so their cornering speeds are much slower than F1 or WEC, they have pathetically small brakes that probably came off a Fiesta.

The racing itself with 'fan boost' and other contrivances serving to randomise the outcome to make it more 'entertaining', is disappointing and hides real driving talent. A good number of the drivers are former F1 drivers and all of them follow the corporate publicity line well, sticking to their key-messages.

The whole thing feels contrived and soul-less.

If they really want Formula E to be a racing series, they need to allow different constructors, get rid of some if the contrivances and just let the drivers race.

All just my opinion of course and FWIW....

I still watch it anyway if I remember that it's on, they do still have wheels after all!

 

[Stratman]

In addition to GeeJayW's list, which is pretty similar to mine, I'd add it looks rubbish on television because of the high fencing hemming in the track. No runoff areas, no crowd visible (if indeed there is one), no trackside paraphernalia to see.

 

[Dryce]

The whole thing feels contrived and soul-less.

Suppose F1 was a new invention and in its third or fouth season.

- DRS - contrived
- Fuel flow management - contrived
- Forced tyre changes - contrived
- Tyre characteristics - contrived
- energy recovery management

And the engine noise is just something we're used top - but like manual gearboxes in cars which are hideous things that are a historical kludge but a whole load of people think taht they are somehow a 'must have'.

Current F1 .... race strategy/setup dominated by anticipated position in qualifying, drivers won't push hard either at the front or behind to conserve tyres and fuel, overtaking is dominated by tyre change strategy ('undercut') and DRS and energy recovery boost. What we see is often a strategic nuanced procession.

It's optimised to the n'th decimal point by big budget teams.

If you take a hard look how is that not contrived and soulless - and because it is the so called pinnacle - also elitist.

 

[Dazsw]

Suppose F1 was a new invention and in its third or fouth season.

- DRS - contrived
- Fuel flow management - contrived
- Forced tyre changes - contrived
- Tyre characteristics - contrived
- energy recovery management

And the engine noise is just something we're used top - but like manual gearboxes in cars which are hideous things that are a historical kludge but a whole load of people think taht they are somehow a 'must have'.

Current F1 .... race strategy/setup dominated by anticipated position in qualifying, drivers won't push hard either at the front or behind to conserve tyres and fuel, overtaking is dominated by tyre change strategy ('undercut') and DRS and energy recovery boost. What we see is often a strategic nuanced procession.

It's optimised to the n'th decimal point by big budget teams.

If you take a hard look how is that not contrived and soulless - and because it is the so called pinnacle - also elitist.

The budget cap will help at least.

 

[Bellow]

Suppose F1 was a new invention and in its third or fouth season.

- DRS - contrived
- Fuel flow management - contrived
- Forced tyre changes - contrived
- Tyre characteristics - contrived
- energy recovery management

And the engine noise is just something we're used top - but like manual gearboxes in cars which are hideous things that are a historical kludge but a whole load of people think taht they are somehow a 'must have'.

Current F1 .... race strategy/setup dominated by anticipated position in qualifying, drivers won't push hard either at the front or behind to conserve tyres and fuel, overtaking is dominated by tyre change strategy ('undercut') and DRS and energy recovery boost. What we see is often a strategic nuanced procession.

It's optimised to the n'th decimal point by big budget teams.

If you take a hard look how is that not contrived and soulless - and because it is the so called pinnacle - also elitist.

You forgot has-been drivers from 70 year old Formula E!

Why then (and I don't disagree with your points) do I find F1 so compelling but Formula E I haven't been sufficiently drawn to watch a single race?
History (of F1), I suspect plays a part. And early introduction in childhood. Will the youngsters watching Formula E now still be watching it in adulthood?

Did anyone see Harris last week on TG driving the ultra ultra quick VW Pikes Peak challenger? For 12 miles or minutes (can't remember which - both useless away from PP brief).

 

[GeeJayW]

F1 is compelling because when you see cars driving through Copse flat-chat at 200mph or braking into a chichane at the 50-metre board and yet the car still seems to stick. It beggars belief. Watching WEC cars through the Becketts complex at Silverstone is another example where your brain finds it hard to accept what you've just seen. Formula E is not even close to this, not even close.

It's not the electrical drive that I have a problem with, though the whining noise will never sound good however much we try to grow accustomed to it. No, it's the lack of spectacular outright performance that is the disappointent. For the same reason I don't like Formula Ford (or whatever it's called these days) or touring cars. On-track, the cars are Dullsville and ordinary...

 

[tbourner]

Formula E is severely limited though, it could be a LOT faster if they allowed a manufacturer to do what they wanted - as shown by the VW ID R being bespoke to the hill climb.

 

[GeeJayW]

Formula E is severely limited though, it could be a LOT faster if they allowed a manufacturer to do what they wanted - as shown by the VW ID R being bespoke to the hill climb.

They could be epic... for 12-miles.

Battery technology needs to change massively before EVs could do a GP distance at F1 performance levels, much less complete a WEC event like LeMans. It's not the outright power per ce, batteries simply do not have the energy density of a hydrocarbon fuel. So having enough Joules onboard to do the spectacular over an extended period/distance just ain't there..

 

[Stratman]

Seven teams formally object to Ferrari ruling

Seven of the 10 Formula 1 teams have formally objected to the handling of Ferrari's engine controversy last year.

Last week, governing body the FIA said it "reached a settlement" with Ferrari after investigating their engine.

Ferrari's rivals have issued a collective response expressing their "strong objection" to the confidential deal.

They say they will "pursue full and proper disclosure" and "reserve our rights to seek legal redress".

Mercedes, Red Bull, McLaren, Renault, Racing Point, Alpha Tauri and Williams all released identical statements to that effect on Wednesday morning.

The only teams not to sign other than Ferrari are Haas and Alfa Romeo, who use Ferrari engines.

The statement from the other seven teams said they were "surprised and shocked" by the FIA's statement concluding its investigation into the Ferrari power-unit in 2019.

It added: "An international sporting regulator has the responsibility to act with the highest standards of governance, integrity and transparency.

"After months of investigations that were undertaken by the FIA only following queries raised by other teams, we strongly object to the FIA reaching a confidential settlement agreement with Ferrari to conclude this matter.

"Therefore, we hereby state publicly our shared commitment to pursue full and proper disclosure in this matter, to ensure that our sport treats all competitors fairly and equally. We do so on behalf of the fans, the participants and the stakeholders of Formula 1.

"In addition, we reserve our rights to seek legal redress, within the FIA's due process and before the competent courts."

Ferrari and the FIA were not immediately available for comment.

The teams are concerned that the FIA's attempt to draw a line under the matter does not make it clear whether Ferrari's engine was legal at all times last year or not.

More on the BBC website

 

[GeeJayW]

Was just going to post the link....

 

[Mactech]

This is beginning to look like the start of motorsport's very own 'Flowgate' scandal.
I'm just waiting to see how restricted access to Northern Italy due to COVID-19 will be used to deflect any more meaningful investigations.....

 

[whitenemesis]

Melbourne F1 under threat of cancellation or postponement due to possible Italy travel bans
Travel bans cast doubt over Grand Prix

 

[Stratman]

FIA issues a clarification that's anything but.

Formula 1 bosses were not convinced Ferrari's engine was always legal in 2019 but did not take further action because of the difficulty of proving it.

Governing body the FIA explained its stance in a statement responding to seven teams expressing their "strong objection" to a confidential settlement with Ferrari.

The FIA "decided further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case".

This was because of "the complexity of the matter and the impossibility of providing unequivocal evidence of a breach".

........................

Teams are likely to see that as an admission by the FIA that it is not capable of policing its own regulations - a highly unsatisfactory position for a competition that is based on fairness and equality of opportunity.

How is it possible to interfere with any mandatory device in any way at all? Surely it's a sealed unit and off limits to teams?

 

[GeeJayW]

FIA issues a clarification that's anything but.

Formula 1 bosses were not convinced Ferrari's engine was always legal in 2019 but did not take further action because of the difficulty of proving it.

Governing body the FIA explained its stance in a statement responding to seven teams expressing their "strong objection" to a confidential settlement with Ferrari.

The FIA "decided further action would not necessarily result in a conclusive case".

This was because of "the complexity of the matter and the impossibility of providing unequivocal evidence of a breach".

........................

Teams are likely to see that as an admission by the FIA that it is not capable of policing its own regulations - a highly unsatisfactory position for a competition that is based on fairness and equality of opportunity.

How is it possible to interfere with any mandatory device in any way at all? Surely it's a sealed unit and off limits to teams?

Maybe the output signal is vulnerable to 'misinterpretation'...?

 

[Bellow]

How is it possible to interfere with any mandatory device in any way at all? Surely it's a sealed unit and off limits to teams?

If, this is the lubricating-oil-as-fuel scenario - then a separate system was being invoked.

 

[GeeJayW]

If, this is the lubricating-oil-as-fuel scenario - then a separate system was being invoked.

I think it's the (alleged) fuel flow issue.

 

[Mactech]

FIA issues a clarification that's anything but.

How is it possible to interfere with any mandatory device in any way at all? Surely it's a sealed unit and off limits to teams?

My understanding is that the fuel flow meter was not tampered with, but a cunning method of fuel pressure 'pulsation' was alleged to have skewed the meter reading.

In the same way as any fuel injection system can track fuel used by knowing the injector flow, fuel pressure and duration. The engine ECU does some big sums and this is how we read fuel consumption on our dashboards.

I believe the FIA fuel flow meter samples the pressure every few milliseconds to gain a flow rate over a known orifice.
If however, the pressure is cleverly 'pulsed' between the phases of the sampling rate it may be possible to flow more fuel without detection. More pressure equals more fuel flow.

This is all theoretically possible using an electronic pressure relief valve already part of the engine control system, but proving this was 'beyond doubt' used to 'confuse' the FIA meter and not just give the engine injection system what it requires, is indeed, a complex area.
But, it certainly would not be the work of a moment to get it to work! Equally, it is very unlikely that there would have been a 'natural' resonance in the fuel pressure to phase align with the FIA fuel flow meter samples.

This just what I have managed to glean from talking to people closer to the 'coalface' but it may well be far more complex than my simplified overview.

 

[st13phil]

This just what I have managed to glean from talking to people closer to the 'coalface' but it may well be far more complex than my simplified overview.

The “detailed questions” submitted to the FIA by Red Bull last year that resulted in the “clarification” of the rules regarding fuel flow monitoring (and the “coincidental” decline in the Ferarri's straight line speed) would suggest that people outside Ferrari were either aware of what the red team were up to, or had themselves experimented with a proof of concept to “fool” the standard sensor system.

That the FIA consider it too difficult to prove that Ferrari were cheating is actually the bigger story, as rules that can’t be policed are worthless. They have fallen into the trap of creating an ever more prescriptive and Byzantine set of regulations that are clearly not fit for purpose.