It'd be better if it were for first though.
That wouldn't be allowed nowadays anyway.
That wouldn't be allowed nowadays anyway.
I think it would be allowed. But it'd never happen because modern drivers block following drivers. Watch them both - they never come 'off line' on the start finish straight to cover the inside.
I do it myself, because it's allowed (one move rule), but it's one of the least sporting things you can do.
I do it myself, because it's allowed (one move rule), but it's one of the least sporting things you can do.
By today's standards both could have been disqualified (or, more likely, one would be picked seemingly randomly for the blame) for 'unecessary contact' when they were wheel-to-wheel on the last lap.
Bullocks this seasonis boring. I hope the new diffuser rules mix things up a bit. At least Ferrari is finally on pace to win though.
Bullocks this seasonis boring. I hope the new diffuser rules mix things up a bit. At least Ferrari is finally on pace to win though.
I think Ferrari and McLaren are experiencing the exact same thing as last year. Sometimes one is faster than the other, and on occasion can challenge RedBull. One key point being that it's always RedBull that they have to compete against. The championship, as with many, was one when they unveiled the cars for the first time. As soon as the RBR hit the floor everyone at the testing described it was in another league, and even with the blown diffuser changes they are too far ahead.
There's nothing unsporting in a fair defensive move, in fact (imo) trying to stay in front, and trying to get past someone that is trying hard to stay in front epitomises what motor racing is actually all about. I would hate it if all racing adopted that very boring no-defensive-move rule. Even just as a viewer, the way the race can change when a car is forced, or chooses, to go defensive, and the resulting phases of the "duel" which only occur because a car sacrificed outright speed to maintain a position, are the most entertaining part.
Well, I think the "F1 is boring and doesn't have any overtaking" claims really started when people started defensive blocking. No wonder there isn't (wasn't) much overtaking when the lead car blocked the overtake from happening. Maybe there would have been more overtaking if driving standards (in terms of defending) had remaining like in the 50s, 60s, 70s and even most of the 80s.
F1 has more often than not produced dull races ever since it's inception. People think races used to be mega exciting, but they weren't. It's nothing to do with 'defensive' moves.
I think the main problem problem with today's F1 is that the races are so much predictable. First of all because of the excellent reliability of the cars(no DNF at the latest race at Valencia). Then because the cars are so even in all conditions, with nowadays' very strict technical regulations(in the past some cars used to be better than others on special conditions, like higher/lower fuel loads, etc, but you don't see that anymore). At last but no least, the cars used to be a lot harder to drive, and the tracks were not as ridiculously forgiving as today, which usually meant that some drivers would crash out of the race.
Result, nowadays the top positions are probably as close as they've ever been... But you still end up with dull races because everyone has a very consistant pace from start to the finish, and there's almost no more human/technical issues.
In the past races would still be thrilling with a very spread out field, because you'd be wondering which ones amongst the top guys would see the finish, and which one would have the extra pace to catch the leaders back at the end.
Tristan has an interresting point of course. But does "blocking" has such a huge influence in races? Even if it was disallowed, people would still have to place themselves close enough to the car in front to pull a safe move, and that's always damn difficult to do because of dirty air. Just look at IndyCar, which has a no "blocking" rule nowadays: it barely has any influence to the racing on road courses, all it does is bring a bit of controversy whenever someone moves to the inside line a bit more than allowed(ie, Viso getting a DT at Sao Paolo, while he actually was trying to catch some standing water, as the track was drying).
Result, nowadays the top positions are probably as close as they've ever been... But you still end up with dull races because everyone has a very consistant pace from start to the finish, and there's almost no more human/technical issues.
In the past races would still be thrilling with a very spread out field, because you'd be wondering which ones amongst the top guys would see the finish, and which one would have the extra pace to catch the leaders back at the end.
Tristan has an interresting point of course. But does "blocking" has such a huge influence in races? Even if it was disallowed, people would still have to place themselves close enough to the car in front to pull a safe move, and that's always damn difficult to do because of dirty air. Just look at IndyCar, which has a no "blocking" rule nowadays: it barely has any influence to the racing on road courses, all it does is bring a bit of controversy whenever someone moves to the inside line a bit more than allowed(ie, Viso getting a DT at Sao Paolo, while he actually was trying to catch some standing water, as the track was drying).
So what if vettel dominated, the rest of the race was close.
Webber and Alonzo could have gone either way if Webber didn't pit early.
And the battle in the mid field was right down to the wire. I can remember cars ever finishing this close together to be honest. They can't make the field any more even than it is now.
If anything I'd probably want them to change back to the old point system.
Webber and Alonzo could have gone either way if Webber didn't pit early.
And the battle in the mid field was right down to the wire. I can remember cars ever finishing this close together to be honest. They can't make the field any more even than it is now.
If anything I'd probably want them to change back to the old point system.
The older systems are not as good, because the cars are more reliable then before and it will make getting points impossible for most of the midfeild and back markers.
Before there was plenty of mechanical problems and that allowed back markers to get close to the podium in certian races, now thats impossible. unless you get some really screwed up weather, which due to fia being nazi over safety will mean they won't even race anyway.
Before there was plenty of mechanical problems and that allowed back markers to get close to the podium in certian races, now thats impossible. unless you get some really screwed up weather, which due to fia being nazi over safety will mean they won't even race anyway.
Forgive my ignorance in advance, but why exactly did they drop refueling during the race? Different strategies are what makes opportunities to pass happen (unless the fast cars start in the back).
That in conjunction with the different tire compounds surely would spice up the racing alittle bit.
That in conjunction with the different tire compounds surely would spice up the racing alittle bit.
Because the fast cars would at some point in the race stay out longer between stops than the cars they were chasing and do a few fast laps, pit, and then come out in front.
It would be incredibly predictable. You knew who would be pitting and when, and so did the teams. Very often the majority of passes were made in the pits. You did get a skewed grid order from time to time because they qualified with the fuel load they wished to start the race with, but that didn't make for actual overtaking for the above reasons, and also it made qualifying a bit of a damp squib since you never saw outright pace.
Yeah but with the addition of KERS and DRS, surely the passing on the track would increase along with it? Before they would just sit behind another car and pass in the pits as you say, but now they could actually pass before entering pits, therefore allowing them to pursue the next car more quickly.
DRS and KERS are (thanks god) no magical buttons (yet?)... They still require you to have enough extra pace to be right on your opponent's tail and initiate a safe move. Especially on tracks like Valencia where overtaking has always been hard. And guess what - overtaking is actually dangerous, sometimes it sucks to lose everything while trying to gain 2 or 3 points.
I'm sure that if refuelling was still allowed, some would still try to play the saving fuel game and get the few extra laps needed to pass their opponent. Especially if the next cars up front are out of reach.
Enough extra pace could be the less fuel. Surely that would be easier to promote a safe move.
Or just cut the downforce in half.
Less fuel-->Pit earlier-->Get leapfrogged back in the pits.
Which is more or less what the FIA has attempted to do during the last few years, isn't it?
Wouldn't they pass while on less fuel? That's what I am getting at.
Not as much as I'm talking, hence the
. 
They made the front wing bigger hoping it would still provide enough grip in the dirty air to stay close. What has actually happened is make the loss of downforce at the front greater.
They should give them much smaller front wings. They would have to balance up the rear aero and make them slower in the corners and also make the loss of downforce at the front less catastrophic.
A bit of proper ground effect would not go amiss either.
They should give them much smaller front wings. They would have to balance up the rear aero and make them slower in the corners and also make the loss of downforce at the front less catastrophic.
A bit of proper ground effect would not go amiss either.
They banned refueling during race for safety reasons.
Uhm. Source?
I don't trust that to be honest. I do not even think the ban improved safety. Nowadays the crews are on high pressure for the tyre change, increasing the risk of having a car released with a badly fixed wheel. Check Rosberg in Hungary last year. Incidents like this can end very badly, just check Alboreto's at Imola 1994.
They banned refuelling to drop costs.
Not true, but that was proved in the 2009 Brazilian GP. It was a cost cutting measure.
From what I remember it was a bit of both. It costs a small fortune to ship the fuel equipment around the globe and then when it gets there it spews fire all over the pitlane.
IMO one of the few good choices that the FIA ever made.
IMO one of the few good choices that the FIA ever made.
Can't believe that there's not a Brit GP thread already.
Pretty sure there was no speed limit back then, and just look at the amount of people in the pitlane (when there's no stops ongoing) compared to nowadays.
2011 Formula 1 Grand Prix of Europe
(113 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG