F1 2021 Round 2: Emilia Romagna GP, Imola

Current Formula One related news, information and discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
erwin greven
Staff
Staff
Posts: 20027
Joined: 19 years ago
Real Name: Erwin Greven
Favourite Motorsport: Endurance Racing
Favourite Racing Car: Lancia Delta 038 S4 Group B
Favourite Driver: Ronnie Peterson
Favourite Circuit: Nuerburgring Nordschleife
Car(s) Currently Owned: Peugeot 206 SW Air-Line 3 2007
Location: Stadskanaal, Groningen
Contact:

#301

Post by erwin greven »

Bottom post of the previous page:

Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago 1. Verstappen - Damn near threw it off the track under the safety car. Solid win, but his main opposition was trying harder to throw the race away.
Let me turn it around: He made less errors than anyone else.
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago 2. Hamilton - Three errors: 1) fighting for the first corner (he should have backed off), 2) losing it going around traffic, 3) and then trying to turn the car in the gravel trap, losing even more time before he backed out.
Let me add another one:
4. Fucked up his start. Within a 100m Max was beside him, while Perez was blocked by him.

Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago On the other hand, his driving after the spin was truly impressive. He was absolutely on the tear and getting the most out of the car. It was good to watch (unless, of course, you are one of those rabid Hamilton-haters who seem to populate this board). If he had not gone off, then we probably would have been treated to a shoot-out for the lead. He had closed to within 3 seconds of Verstappen before he spun. A second shoot-out between them would have been interesting.
He must be very pleased that the crash of Bottas and Russell happened just after his spin. Also the FIA did not respond to his backwards driving of him at Tosa.
He got his lap back and his car could be repaired. Till his crash Max and Lewis were miles ahead of everybody else.
Brian Redman: "Mr. Fangio, how do you come so fast?" "More throttle, less brakes...."
User avatar
XcraigX
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 2742
Joined: 8 years ago
Real Name: Craig
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Racing Car: Tyrrell P34
Favourite Driver: Mario Andretti
Favourite Circuit: Spa-Francorchamps
Car(s) Currently Owned: 2014 BMW 328d

#302

Post by XcraigX »

Another perspective of 2 drivers in the same car. Bottas in P9 was getting overtaken by a Williams. Hamilton in P9 was the fastest car on track at the time. Unfortunately, this looks bad on Bottas. Where was he this weekend?
:trophy: 2019 GTP Accuracy Champion :trophy:
:trophy: 2021 GTP Accuracy Champion :trophy:
:trophy: 2022 Picks and Predictions Champion :trophy:
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#303

Post by Ruslan »

P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: 2 years ago
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
Old vs New: What stood out today was the driver's who had been with their team the previous year had a definite advantage over all the new drivers. Verstappen over Perez, Leclerc over Sainz, Norris over Ricciardo, Stroll over Vettel, Ocon over Alonso, etc.

All the rookies spun: Not just the Russian.
very interesting comment, I think that what you call "old vs new" is an issue that has been going on for some years now and IMHO it's down to the lack of testing (BTW, apparently today they are still in Imola for some testing, I'll try my luck once more hoping that this time I can get a view of the cars). The situation was made worse because the weather was not ideal (damp and the track temperature was always below 20 degrees) AND the track is an old school track where making mistakes costs you big time. As you know I think that the ban on testing is absurd.

regarding the Russian, it's true that all the rookies spun but more often than not he was 2 seconds per lap slower that his (rookie) team mate, there were times when Mick managed to keep close to the other cars, the Russian never managed that
I don’t understand why they are restricting testing now. They have a budget cap, each team should be able to choose how much they want to spend on testing vice everything else. The choice can be turned back over to the teams, it is not something that FIA needs to regulate.

As for the Russian, not terribly interested in defending him as I also don’t think he should be there. But I will give him a few more races before making a final judgment.
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#304

Post by Ruslan »

erwin greven wrote: 2 years ago
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago 1. Verstappen - Damn near threw it off the track under the safety car. Solid win, but his main opposition was trying harder to throw the race away.
Let me turn it around: He made less errors than anyone else.
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago 2. Hamilton - Three errors: 1) fighting for the first corner (he should have backed off), 2) losing it going around traffic, 3) and then trying to turn the car in the gravel trap, losing even more time before he backed out.
Let me add another one:
4. Fucked up his start. Within a 100m Max was beside him, while Perez was blocked by him.

Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago On the other hand, his driving after the spin was truly impressive. He was absolutely on the tear and getting the most out of the car. It was good to watch (unless, of course, you are one of those rabid Hamilton-haters who seem to populate this board). If he had not gone off, then we probably would have been treated to a shoot-out for the lead. He had closed to within 3 seconds of Verstappen before he spun. A second shoot-out between them would have been interesting.
He must be very pleased that the crash of Bottas and Russell happened just after his spin. Also the FIA did not respond to his backwards driving of him at Tosa.
He got his lap back and his car could be repaired. Till his crash Max and Lewis were miles ahead of everybody else.
Well, if this season stays competitive (which I am not sure will be the case) it may help answer the question as to who is the better driver. Is it 1) Hamilton, 2) Verstappen, 3) they are about equal, 4) they are close but very different. Right now it is one win vs one win.
P. Cornelius Scipio
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Driver: Gilles Villeneuve

#305

Post by P. Cornelius Scipio »

Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: 2 years ago
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
Old vs New: What stood out today was the driver's who had been with their team the previous year had a definite advantage over all the new drivers. Verstappen over Perez, Leclerc over Sainz, Norris over Ricciardo, Stroll over Vettel, Ocon over Alonso, etc.

All the rookies spun: Not just the Russian.
very interesting comment, I think that what you call "old vs new" is an issue that has been going on for some years now and IMHO it's down to the lack of testing (BTW, apparently today they are still in Imola for some testing, I'll try my luck once more hoping that this time I can get a view of the cars). The situation was made worse because the weather was not ideal (damp and the track temperature was always below 20 degrees) AND the track is an old school track where making mistakes costs you big time. As you know I think that the ban on testing is absurd.

regarding the Russian, it's true that all the rookies spun but more often than not he was 2 seconds per lap slower that his (rookie) team mate, there were times when Mick managed to keep close to the other cars, the Russian never managed that
I don’t understand why they are restricting testing now. They have a budget cap, each team should be able to choose how much they want to spend on testing vice everything else. The choice can be turned back over to the teams, it is not something that FIA needs to regulate.

As for the Russian, not terribly interested in defending him as I also don’t think he should be there. But I will give him a few more races before making a final judgment.
today Mercerdes was at Imola testing next year's tyres. If all the teams had been allowed to run today the backmarkers might have been able to close the gap a little bit without spending a fortune. It seems as if the rules are designed to prevent who is behind from closing the gap to the leaders
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#306

Post by Ruslan »

P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: 2 years ago today Mercerdes was at Imola testing next year's tyres. If all the teams had been allowed to run today the backmarkers might have been able to close the gap a little bit without spending a fortune. It seems as if the rules are designed to prevent who is behind from closing the gap to the leaders
Well, maybe a few more crashed cars will convince FIA of this.

I gather the original reason for controlling testing was cost. Now that they have a budget cap, restrictions should be removed.
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#307

Post by Ruslan »

Quote from Toto Wolff: "The incident in the first corner cost us two tenths and almost fifteen points in downforce."

See: https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/82345/me ... ident.html
P. Cornelius Scipio
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Driver: Gilles Villeneuve

#308

Post by P. Cornelius Scipio »

Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
I gather the original reason for controlling testing was cost. Now that they have a budget cap, restrictions should be removed.
call me cynical but I think that the real reason for the testing ban was that Ferrari owns 2 test tracks while the others own none.

Before someone replies that Ferrari has more money to spend I would like to point out that Ferrari's headquarters is an old and unfashionable building whereas some other teams (which I'm not naming to avoid any argument) have space-age swanky headquarters. Ferrari spent their money in Fiorano (when it was very cheap as basically it was a bit of a small farm owned by Enzo's family) and Mugello (when they bought it it was derelict and on the brink of bankruptcy and paid peanuts for it), others spent their money in building huge monuments to their ego. I'm fine with both, I just don't buy that who invested in its core business rather than in choppers, private jets or huge headquarters is evil and the others are victims
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#309

Post by Ruslan »

P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: 2 years ago
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
I gather the original reason for controlling testing was cost. Now that they have a budget cap, restrictions should be removed.
call me cynical but I think that the real reason for the testing ban was that Ferrari owns 2 test tracks while the others own none.

Before someone replies that Ferrari has more money to spend I would like to point out that Ferrari's headquarters is an old and unfashionable building whereas some other teams (which I'm not naming to avoid any argument) have space-age swanky headquarters. Ferrari spent their money in Fiorano (when it was very cheap as basically it was a bit of a small farm owned by Enzo's family) and Mugello (when they bought it it was derelict and on the brink of bankruptcy and paid peanuts for it), others spent their money in building huge monuments to their ego. I'm fine with both, I just don't buy that who invested in its core business rather than in choppers, private jets or huge headquarters is evil and the others are victims
Yea, I no longer recall when testing bans were introduced. I think 2010 with a ban on testing during the season. I believe this was done for cost reasons. Ferrari's domination ended in 2004.
P. Cornelius Scipio
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Driver: Gilles Villeneuve

#310

Post by P. Cornelius Scipio »

Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: 2 years ago
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
I gather the original reason for controlling testing was cost. Now that they have a budget cap, restrictions should be removed.
call me cynical but I think that the real reason for the testing ban was that Ferrari owns 2 test tracks while the others own none.

Before someone replies that Ferrari has more money to spend I would like to point out that Ferrari's headquarters is an old and unfashionable building whereas some other teams (which I'm not naming to avoid any argument) have space-age swanky headquarters. Ferrari spent their money in Fiorano (when it was very cheap as basically it was a bit of a small farm owned by Enzo's family) and Mugello (when they bought it it was derelict and on the brink of bankruptcy and paid peanuts for it), others spent their money in building huge monuments to their ego. I'm fine with both, I just don't buy that who invested in its core business rather than in choppers, private jets or huge headquarters is evil and the others are victims
Yea, I no longer recall when testing bans were introduced. I think 2010 with a ban on testing during the season. I believe this was done for cost reasons. Ferrari's domination ended in 2004.
in 2003, the FIA reduced the amount of in-season testing that was allowed to take place, and in return gave the teams the Friday practice sessions. Then, in 2007, annual track testing was reduced further to 30,000 kilometres and one year later, heavy restrictions were placed on the amount of CFD and wind tunnel usage.. Then again, a few years later in 2010, there was a complete ban put in place on in-season testing

Having said that as you mentioned once there is a budget cap the testing ban doesn't make much sense. Furthermore they could arrange for some testing sessions open to all the teams, for example after some race week ends, and allow the teams to test their developments on a shoestring
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#311

Post by Ruslan »

P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: 2 years ago
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: 2 years ago
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago
I gather the original reason for controlling testing was cost. Now that they have a budget cap, restrictions should be removed.
call me cynical but I think that the real reason for the testing ban was that Ferrari owns 2 test tracks while the others own none.

Before someone replies that Ferrari has more money to spend I would like to point out that Ferrari's headquarters is an old and unfashionable building whereas some other teams (which I'm not naming to avoid any argument) have space-age swanky headquarters. Ferrari spent their money in Fiorano (when it was very cheap as basically it was a bit of a small farm owned by Enzo's family) and Mugello (when they bought it it was derelict and on the brink of bankruptcy and paid peanuts for it), others spent their money in building huge monuments to their ego. I'm fine with both, I just don't buy that who invested in its core business rather than in choppers, private jets or huge headquarters is evil and the others are victims
Yea, I no longer recall when testing bans were introduced. I think 2010 with a ban on testing during the season. I believe this was done for cost reasons. Ferrari's domination ended in 2004.
in 2003, the FIA reduced the amount of in-season testing that was allowed to take place, and in return gave the teams the Friday practice sessions. Then, in 2007, annual track testing was reduced further to 30,000 kilometres and one year later, heavy restrictions were placed on the amount of CFD and wind tunnel usage.. Then again, a few years later in 2010, there was a complete ban put in place on in-season testing

Having said that as you mentioned once there is a budget cap the testing ban doesn't make much sense. Furthermore they could arrange for some testing sessions open to all the teams, for example after some race week ends, and allow the teams to test their developments on a shoestring
Yea, found the testing limited in 2003 and 2007 now that you mention it. I don't think limiting Ferrari was the primary reason for this. Now there is really no reason to restrict it. Beside, most team's facilities are located near a race track.
User avatar
Everso Biggyballies
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 48990
Joined: 18 years ago
Real Name: Chris
Favourite Motorsport: Anything that goes left and right.
Favourite Racing Car: Too Many to mention
Favourite Driver: Kimi,Niki,Jim(none called Michael)
Favourite Circuit: Nordschleife, Spa, Mt Panorama.
Car(s) Currently Owned: Audi SQ5 3.0L V6 TwinTurbo
Location: Just moved 3 klms further away so now 11 klms from Albert Park, Melbourne.

#312

Post by Everso Biggyballies »

I believe that testing has now pretty much been replaced by simulator use. Most of the teams have very sophisticated simulator set ups and all the teams now have actual simulator drivers employed . Of course not all teams have their own in house simulator. Haas for instance have use of the Ferrari simulator as part of their links, although they have said this is not satisfactory as during GP weekends Ferrari (as all the other major teams) are running their simulators back at the factory full time running race sims, evaluating set up changes, tyre options etc. Haas were I know looking at other options given the reliance on teams of simulator programmes being the modern day eqivalent of actual testing. I believe they are the only team without their own simulator.

Of course the simulator rigs the teams use are not just a glorified playstation. They are way more sophisticated than that and are more similar in function to the multi million dollar flight simulators used in pilot training for commercial aircraft. As I say not cheap, but now seen as an essential. part of F1 development. Still a lot less expensive than testing.

Obviously the simulator testing is all in conjunction with the amount of wind tunnel and computer generated programmes, dyno engine and transmission development used in the development nowadays, it all it seems is making actual testing almost obsolete.

In fact in pre season testing many of the teams did not even bring their latest updates for fear of letting others see their secrets.
Testing itself seems to have become more of a systems checking and data generating exercise than anything.

* I started life with nothing, and still have most of it left


“Good drivers have dead flies on the side windows!” (Walter Röhrl)

* I married Miss Right. Just didn't know her first name was Always
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#313

Post by Ruslan »

Still all the rookies are flying off the track and all the new drivers at each team are being beaten by the established driver. How does one explain that? Is Norris just better than Ricciardo? Is Stroll just better than Vettel?
Last edited by Ruslan 2 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
P. Cornelius Scipio
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Driver: Gilles Villeneuve

#314

Post by P. Cornelius Scipio »

Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago Still all the rookies are flying off the track and all the new drivers at each team are being beaten by the established driver. How does one explain that. Is Norris just better than Ricciardo? Is Stroll just better than Vettel?
well said. You can't replace track time, and I don't think that a sim is cheaper than testing, it's cheaper than unrestricted testing but if they allowed testing sessions open to all the teams for a couple of days after a number of races the costs would be far from astronomical. And on top of that it would create a level playing field as anyone would have access to the same amount of testing, on the same tracks, with the same conditions.

If sims were so good why don't get rid of the real cars? why not have virtual races online? I think that a sim can come relatively close and be fun, but that's it. Furthermore sims need to have data fed into them and such data needs to ba based on real action. I'd rather ban sims than testing
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#315

Post by Ruslan »

P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: 2 years ago
Ruslan wrote: 2 years ago Still all the rookies are flying off the track and all the new drivers at each team are being beaten by the established driver. How does one explain that? Is Norris just better than Ricciardo? Is Stroll just better than Vettel?
well said. You can't replace track time, and I don't think that a sim is cheaper than testing, it's cheaper than unrestricted testing but if they allowed testing sessions open to all the teams for a couple of days after a number of races the costs would be far from astronomical. And on top of that it would create a level playing field as anyone would have access to the same amount of testing, on the same tracks, with the same conditions.

If sims were so good why don't get rid of the real cars? why not have virtual races online? I think that a sim can come relatively close and be fun, but that's it. Furthermore sims need to have data fed into them and such data needs to ba based on real action. I'd rather ban sims than testing
I did watch the virtual F1 season last year. It was not without meaning. It did show just how serious and potentially good Leclerc and Russell were. Still, a sim is not the real world.
Post Reply