|
the haas is now white
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Jolyon Palmer will outscore Kevin Magnussen
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:McLaren are poo poo. supposed to be bold
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
christ those are boring results from mclaren. this is the team that's supposedly running a new engine spec and new aero for the very first time and they can't even have a spectacular failure of some sort?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
track day bro! posted:Wait, so are McLaren not poo poo? idk but alonso and button seemed genuinely pleased
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
ukle posted:Key is the speed trap figures. McLaren were posting speed trap figures only a couple of kph off Hamilton's which given even in the last test week they were still 15+ kph off shows they have not just made massive improvement, but they could seriously be fighting for the top of F1 Category 2 (everyone but Merc). Still at least 1 second off joining Category 1 though, but then again so is every other team - especially given how strong Hamilton was in the practice sessions; this season does have already signs of being even more 1 sided than the previous 2. it doesn't necessarily show they've made any improvement. the speed trap gaps from testing were worse than what they saw last season. it's much more likely they turned the engine down for reliability purposes so they could actually run laps in testing and make sure their deployment fixes worked. i don't think they gained like 80bhp in a month.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
El Hefe posted:Yeah hammy should stay quiet considering he's not even part of the drivers association thingy you knew he was unbearable before anyone else noticed it. good job.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
jacques villeneuve is the worst ever world champion
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
i fell asleep and missed qualifying, can someone succinctly explain why the sky is falling
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
who was hurt the most by this new format? the teams who is responsible for blocking meaningful changes to the technical regulations that will allow for closer racing? the teams and besides, wasn't the entire point of this new format to force teams into making mistakes...which they did? the only problem is that mercedes didn't gently caress up. so it just goes back to the real problem, which is that everyone is worse than mercedes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:Meeting environmental and hybrid requirements in the highest spec of engineering and racing is dumb imo. Bring back the V12. cool idea bro that would end the sport
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Wicka - Niki Lauda took an enormous amount of pleasure in throwing Toto, the other team principles and Bernie under the bus over this on Sky after quali. They decided on it and voted for it without discussing it with any of their teams and were then all surprised when their respective team managers went absolutely mental at them and said it would not work. lol that's amazing, thanks. and they did it because it's the ILLUSION of effort. and because they knew if it failed, the teams woudn't take the blame, the FIA and bernie would. and yet the root of the problem is that the teams won't agree to make real changes, and bernie is left to suggest outlandish things like reversed grids in the hope that it will spur the teams to agree to SOMETHING, because that's really the only power he has left. i blame ferrari more than most because they're the ones with an actual veto, whereas mercedes just whips their four teams into a single voting bloc and takes advantage of the fact that the other teams/manufacturers won't work together against them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
it's like diet crack said, F1 is the highest spec of engineering and racing. living up to that standard requires a lot of money. in the past, that was easy: tobacco companies. when they were banned, F1 had to fill the void, and for now they've filled it with car manufacturers. but the advertising world as a whole has changed, and very few companies are willing to shell out millions of dollars simply to be on a rolling billboard. the biggest sponsors now are companies that work hand-in-hand with F1 teams to develop their products. for the most part, this is great. e.g. SAP pays mclaren quite a lot more money than you'd expect because they get ROI not by being a decal on their car, but by developing their data analytics products behind the scenes in a super high pressure environment. the only real downside of all of this is those loving car manufacturers. they are not content with supplying any old engine. they want something that is relevant to the next-gen road car engines they're building...which means not naturally aspirated V12 racing engines, but high-efficiency turbo hybrids. and it should by obvious why an expensive and complex engine formula leads to an engine-dominated series with large performance differentials and an inability to attract new engine suppliers. so what's the solution to that? you can go back to non-road-relevant engines and still have super fast cars, but who's going to fund that? i doubt the manufacturers would stick around. from my perspective, the only thing we can really do is keep the regulations stable, abandon the token system and actually allow people to catch up to mercedes (which we've already done), and hope we reach some level of parity that would encourage new manufacturers to come in and inject money into teams other than the four current works outfits.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
a premier league-esque division of TV money would go some way toward helping things
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Triple A posted:Honestly, F1 should have a relaxed rule-set so people can do clever poo poo and make cars go as fast as the rules and ingenuity allows them to be. gently caress cost savings, gently caress road car relevance, gently caress mid-season rule fuckery and especially gently caress greenwashing. well yeah, that's can-am's philosophy and they stuck around for the long-term and are a very stable racing series
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
can-am spent their way to death and the wide-open rules led to a single car/team dominating every year, so if that's your idea of improving F1 then lmao
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
equally distribution of funds pretty much needs to happen, it's the only way to stabilize the midfield teams, but a cost cap is just impossible to enforce and would only create more problems
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
darth cookie posted:No doubt. But ensuring SOME limitations (particularly on the most expensive component - the power unit) at least ensures that there's at least some money left over for the teams to develop and pay their staff and whatnot. Sure some teams are going to have more money from other sources, or factory support, or better sponsors, or richer backers, or whatever. They'll have more money and they'll still win, but the idea is to try to keep grids a little fuller, and perhaps with enough wiggle room in their left over money after the power unit is paid for to develop other things that might move them up (or possibly down) the grid. there is a cap on customer engines, it's £12m
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Triple A posted:engine homologation would be legit great for the sport i literally just explained to you, in detail, why taking engines out of equation means losing manufacturer funding. how are you going to replace the funding, unless you're content with F1 being overtaken as the supposed pinnacle of motorsport?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Triple A posted:we'll only lose manufacturers who aren't in for the sport no one is in it for the sport except ferrari
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
darth cookie posted:Really? I have to admit I'm not up to date on engine costs and I'm getting progressively more drunk. I do recall that for coming in 10th place or something in the championship it was worth like $10 million bucks which doesn't even cover the cost of the engines and if you got lower than that, you got nothing. sauber made the least prize money in 2015, just under $47m, or £32m.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Nice of everyone who wasn't around for all the endless debates about this in the off season to join us. you guys remember the aaron carter song about him beating shaq in a game of one-on-one, then he wakes up and it turns out it was all a dream, but if it was a dream, and this wasn't real, how'd he get that jersey with the name o'neal? that's what learnincurve is going to feel like when she wakes up tomorrow and reads this goodpost
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:Even just the last 10 years, F1 went from having manufacturers all up and down the grid, to having almost no manufacturers up and down the grid (post-recession), to having it be manufacturer-dominated again. This is not ancient history going back to the Cosworth DFV vs. Ferrari, this is the last decade. The sport does not depend on manufacturers. The current structure of the sport does, but Formula One, as a concept, does not. It won't die if they leave, it will just be different. which ignores the fact that Things Change
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
F1 does not depend on manufacturers, it depends on money, and right now i see no way to provide the amount of money F1 needs to be F1 than car manufacturers. if you have an idea, out with it, otherwise don't pretend that every era of F1 magically operated with the same external pressures
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:This is exactly my point. poo poo changes so often that it is complete foolishness to declare that this time when the bubble pops and the big money car makers leave the sport that it will be the death of Formula One. no that's totally not the point dude
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
manufacturer influence has ebbed and flowed many times, that's true. in the past, we've always had tobacco money to fall back on. now we don't. in the past, the market has not cared so much about fuel and efficiency and environmentalism that it's suicide to back a series built on gas-guzzling V12s. now that's something we have to worry about. alain post, you keep looking at the effects and not the causes. the causes today are very, very different than they have in the past. this is not the same poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Triple A posted:the F1 audience sees right thru the greenwashing and think their "eco" bullshit is boring this is like saying the premier league needs to market to professional footballers. the "F1 audience" you describe is comically small, they will always watch no matter how much they whine or pretend they don't watch, and the real bulk of the sport's viewership is made of people who aren't cynical children who propose, honestly, the worst loving ideas i've ever heard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
also, is viewership actually declining? in markets that matter? i'd ask the same question about races that matter. last i heard viewership was still growing in the UK and it's certainly growing in the US. my honest opinion is that the sport is in no danger whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
and if TV ratings genuinely are falling...aren't TV ratings pretty much falling for everything everywhere across the board? people don't watch TV the same way they used to. it's an outdated metric.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Alain Post posted:Pretty much everything except live sports. Go ask UFC if ratings are always falling. not a real relevant comparison, though, is it? it's an entirely different sport with a different broadcast structure. the question i would ask is this: how many of us here are watching these races in ways that would be measured by traditional ratings systems?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Vando posted:I watched pretty much every single race between 1989 and 2010, after which I started to tail off. Think I've seen maybe two in the last two seasons? It's really bad. then the gently caress are you posting in an F1 thread for if you supposedly don't watch or care about the sport
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
honestly i don't think the real audience is falling, i think the measured audience is falling because F1 is in the exact same boat as literally everything that's been disrupted by the internet, only the inherent corruption in FOM has meant they've kept making their money through traditional broadcast means just a bit longer than most. you can't say viewership is falling when you don't make the race available to those who want to watch digitally and don't measure the audience that's pirating the race. what motivation does FOM have to increase viewership when they can lose viewers and still make more TV money each year?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
also, please shut the gently caress up about "greenwashing," it's not a loving show, these are a real-life hybrid technologies being used and developed
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
mercedes domination is still far more entertaining than red bull domination or early 00s ferrari domination because they actually let their drivers race. i can't for the life of me figure out why this is what will supposedly kill F1, and not the like eight loving seasons in the last 20 years that were a million times worse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:mercedes domination is still far more entertaining than red bull domination or early 00s ferrari domination because they actually let their drivers race. i can't for the life of me figure out why this is what will supposedly kill F1, and not the like eight loving seasons in the last 20 years that were a million times worse. actually, it's probably because we didn't have the misleading narrative of declining viewership during the ferrari and red bull eras
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
can we get this from a source other than "thejudge13" please?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
there is no one to blame but FOM
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Riso posted:If you had bothered to click you would have known that they translated http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/probleme-bei-f1-motoren-reform-billig-motor-eine-mogelpackung-10594747.html yeah i don't trust anything about that site, even the translations, sooooo
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
daslog posted:Line them up in reverse order of championship points. 5 laps, how they finish determines the starting grid. anything that involves a reverse grid of any kind is A Bad Idea
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
daslog posted:You just hate everything. the only thing i hate is the idea of a competition involving the drivers and teams who perform best being artificially handicapped. that defeats the point of a competition and is indefensibly stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 18:12
|
|