Points well taken flatlander_48.

• I do believe that Petrov is one of those drivers whom has been overlooked by team managers and the racing media. That is one of the deterrents that can face #2 drivers on a team, especially if one is being outperformed by one's teamate, in Vitaly's case by the very talented Robert Kubica. The new R31 Lotus-Renault has much potential and should allow Petrov to better display his driving talents in 2011.
• Well, what can one say of driver tirades that hasn't already been said? Frustration in the cockpit is an occupational hazard it would seem. As a spectator, it is easy to cry foul and point a finger at a driver while saying that the behavior is wrong (which it is and I am not condoning that kind of action) but at the same time the view from the cockpit is a different one. Competitive fires burn deep and it is easy for frustration to blow the lid off the pot. At Abu Dhabi the circuit proved to be just as much an opponent to Alonso as Petrov was. Passing areas are limited and Petrov drove extremely well. Alonso knew that but his view was that he was chasing a WDC and that Petrov should probably have ceded the position as he was not in contention for the title. What Fernando did not take into account was that Petrov was "racing for position" ... Fini! Now, no driver is going to move over and just give up a position without a fight! That's the competitive fire burning deep (not to mention points, prestige, and $$$ that go along with it) and Alonso should have known that! Kind of reminds me of the Senna v. Irvine contretemps at the 1993 Japanese GP. Senna was furious with Irvine but Eddie was racing for position.

• At the end of that day Alonso was bested by the better driver. On that day, with that car combination, and that playing field, Petrov rose victorious. As it is said in the NFL, "On any Given Sunday." It was a well driven race by Petrov and one that should ring familiar for Alonso for he bested Schumacher at the 2005 San Marino GP by holding off a charging Schuey for lap after lap and Michael just could not get past him. Sterling drive that day for Fernando but that does not detract from Schumacher's talent. Any given Sunday...

 

Speaking of Petrov today...

MAN, The Was Some SERIOUS Air!?!?!?!?!?!?

Good thing he had brakes because I don't think he had any steering...

And, another 2 or 3 races like this and Dr. Marko is going to start calling for Webber to support Vettel's championship bid...

 

OMG I actually LOLed when they showed the replay. He needed that horn tune from Dukes of Hazzard!

What is with Webber's lack of start? It's so weird, it's like the car just doesn't GO for the first 5 seconds of the race.

 

No KERS, No Kick...

 

Sure is shaping up to a pretty embarrassing start to the season for the Scuderia..

 

I wish Massa would have been a touch quicker...

 

Bravo Lewis!

 

Agreed, Well Done!!

 

I find myself in a bit of a quandry these days...

I must admit, the races that have taken place so far in 2011 have been fun to watch. I really relished the idea of watching cars overtake one another but then I started scraping the frosting off the cake to see what lay underneath and I have to admit that what I found left a sour taste in my mouth.

The combination of Adrian Newey's RB7 design and the mastery of SebVet behind the wheel have given us virtuoso displays of racing! Add to that the ability of McLaren to close the technical gap and Hamilton and Button's performance (not to mention the other teams/drivers that have upped their game) and you have the makings of a great season!

Or do we...

I feel ambivalent in a way because additions to F1 this year, namely KERS and DRS have allowed overtaking but at the same time these techno gimmicks have made racing an "articifical or contrived" endeavor.

"How so?", you may ask...

My take on this is that these systems (KERS, DRS) make for predetermined racing...

In an era when money is crucial to the performance of a team alot of development dollars are being spent on KERS (which hampers the smaller or less funded teams) in an effort to improve the show yet Mr. Newey demonstrated that you don't need KERS to go fast (Vettel destroyed the opposition in Melbourne minus KERS). KERS reminds me of the PTP (push to pass) button that was adopted in CART several years back. If a driver could not drive around or outmanuver an opponent then all he/she had to do was wait for the straight and hit the button... opponent eliminated. One did not outdrive one's opponent, one simply had to hit the magic button and motor on by... artificial in my view and not racing.

DRS leaves me just as cold... So now race control dictates where a driver can pass (DRS activation zones are designated at each track by the FIA). Drivers cannot apply the DRS anywhere on the circuit only in areas that are allowed! Additionally the driver who is being overtaken (defending driver) cannot deploy his DRS in an effort to stave off a pass! Totally contrived and artifical!

I have to agree with Niki Lauda when he stated,

“Completely crazy – now the FIA decides where you can overtake… Overtaking is something that should be decided by the drivers, not by the FIA flashing green lights in the cockpit telling them to fold their wings up or down. I would have never introduced it (DRS). It's definitely the most stupid idea ever conceived!”

OK, so we've gotten more passing but at what cost? Is this really racing or is it just a show... nothing more than a global marketing excercise disguised as a competition?

I guess that sometimes we have to watch out what we wish for...

 

A tip of the helmet to Lewis on his drive and win, but IMO the drive of the race was turned in by Mark Webber!

From grid position 18 to P3... Sterling job mate!

 

Yeah, great race by Webber! That was a fun race to watch - I only wish the DRS could be used whenever they wanted.....

 

While I enjoyed the race primarily for Webbers phenomenal drive, I feel like Sabre, Lauda and others that DRS (and to some extent KERS) makes for contrived racing.

Particularly DRS because it gives an advantage in the easiest place to pass. The other car may be faster in teh twisties but is balked because of how difficult it is to pass in F1.

I am also not a fan of the new tires. It seems a dangerous concept for one and the amount of debris they generate is unbelievable.

 

Yes and No...

Remember that a significant part of having KERS is the idea of developing some degree of technological relevancy to civilian life. Note that everyone doesn't share our mindset of being motorsport fans. Many view it as a waste of time and resources. Motorsport used to have more technical relevancy that it does now, so the idea is to get some of that back. So, I don't have a problem with KERS. And true, Vettel didn't use KERS in Australia but I think it would show better in some places and others not so much. Plus, it only helps on the straights. It doesn't make you car any better under braking or cornering.

DRS is a mixed bag. It isn't anything more than what Jim Hall ran over 40 years ago, except with an electronic twist. The thing is this: a number of passes yesterday didn't happen at the end of the straights. They happened in that complex of turns at the end of the front straight and the end of the back straight. Often drivers would take an outside line at Turn 1 and 2 and then have an inside line for 3 and 4. DRS would help if you were far away at the last turn, but my guess is less help if you were relatively close. Once along side of the other car, and assuming you were able to keep the other car pinched, you had the better line for 3 and 4. The back straight was a different story. Drivers would take the outside line and try to do an Over and Under sort of move. I think these maneuvers would take place with or without DRS.

I have noticed over the last several years that passes are taking 2 and 3 turns to complete. I take this to mean that there isn't a lot of difference in power levels to give a big advantage down the straights like in the days before rev limits and multiple race engines. In other words, it's not like you catch someone on the straights and enter the next corner a length or 2 ahead. You can't even do that against the Cosworth as it is a pretty stout piece. Also, braking distances have become very short. Friction materials, carbon discs and grippy tires all work to close the gap between the late brakers and the REALLY late brakers.

Anyway, my opinion...

 

KERS has to go. It's not even remotely "green." The battery is good for ONE race.

DRS, just silliness.

I wish they would just get rid of the fake cr@p, no DRS, no KERS, no launch control. Restrict the aero to something like GP2, and let the drivers make the difference.

 

With the exception of the Abu Dhabi gift, last years started off badly for Ferrari as well, and at the end of the season Alonso almost got his third WDC but for a blown pit strategy in the last race.

 

I suspect that is because it has to have such high recharge and discharge rates. Street cars would not need that, but it does work to push the technology. To me, if you don't consider social relevance, someone else will come along and tell you how the whole concept of motorsports is a SUPREME waste and has NO relevance. Do you want that?

Tell that to Jim Hall (Note: This is the 2E. The original low wing concept appeared on the 2C in 1965)




There is no launch control. Everyone is using the same McLaren ECU.

 

Having to manufacture new batteries for every race, is not ecologically sound, so it completely defeats the stated purpose of KERS "Green" technology.

The Chaparral's were never dominant in Can-Am or USRRC. They won ONE race before the FIA banned movable aerodynamic devices as unsafe, something DRS has the potential to be. Think what would happen to a car if their DRS malfunctioned heading into Eau Rouge? And BTW, the 2E appeared in 1966, and scored ONE win, at Laguna Seca.

Perhaps "launch control" would be the wrong name. The drivers do have electronic help to get off the starting line.

 

Dont think the DRS would be activated until the Kamel (sp?) straight....

Hey....I say have st all the tech stuff they can come up with. It's F1!!!

 

Every technology isn't fully bulletproof before it surfaces. There are a lot of very high powered people working on KERS right now. You would waste a lot of time waiting for the battery technology to catch up. Knowing that there is an application needing ultrafast recharge and ultrahigh discharge provides an incentive to help push the battery technology forward.

Case in point: if Adam Osborne had waited in 1981 until battery technology caught up to his portable computer (actually transportable at almost 25 pounds), the idea would have been delayed by several years.

Chaparral sports cars were not dominant not due to any lack of technology. They suffered from hurried preparation and being outright no-shows because they were not ready with the latest tweak. They also didn't use rat motors until well after everyone else did, so they were consistently down on power.

The 2C had the original movable rear spoiler (not a wing per se as it was mounted low) and it appeared in that configuration in 1965. However, in the short time that I had to search, I didn't find a photo of the 2C. The car doesn't exist as such today. Not sure, that might have been the basis of the 2D endurance car?

They have the ability to soften the throttle response; sort of the reverse of what we can do with the SPORT button.

 

The Chapparral 2C was a 1966 Group 7 CanAm car.
It was converted to the 2D that was used in the world endurance races.
The 2E was the 1967 CanAm car.
The 2F was the 1968 Endurance car.
It won 1 race, Brands Hatch.
There are only 2 Chapparral's existing today.
They are on display in Midland, TX
F1 cars had fixed wings in 1968 and movable wings in 1969.

 

Perhaps I can assist you flatlander_48...

 

In the late 60's a number of people adapted a moveable wing on their cars.
It was activated by the brake system hydraulics.
There was a guy running a SV (Super Vee) with a moveable wing.
The thing ran 3 sec. a lap faster than anyone.
The car was protested so many times that it became a ritual.
The SCCA didn't ban it for two years.

 

The Charparrals and early F1 cars with wings had the right idea, in that the spoiler was actually mounted to the rear suspension, not the bodywork - so that the forces acted directly on the wheels.

They also broke with great regularity and always at the "wrong" time, coming into a corner, right in the middle of a corner, under braking and so on...they also caused huge stresses on the tires that they were not designed to take - and they failed too.

Now the spoilers are part of the bodywork, so while it acts on the suspension it does so indirectly, which means incredibly stiff "springs" are needed, and the cars don't handle well on anything rougher than billiard table smooth tracks.

I agree with the idea that the wings need to go away completely, and they should go to a fuel used based formula, then let 'em run whatever they want - 2 cyl with 4 turbos or 12 cyl with none, whatever takes their fancy - that's how you get improvements in technology that translate to street driven cars. And no more pneumatic valve actuation, it's not techically feasible for street use either, and it's not fuel efficient to run at 20K RPM.

 

As an engineer, I am speechless with what technology has come out of F1.
As a fan, I am very disappointed by the "racing" and the "driver's skill".
There is no individualism in the cars, they all look the same.
The color of the cars is about the only way to tell them apart.
The engines are all of the same configuration.
They are no V12, H16, Flat 16, V6, etc.
If it rains to hard they stop the race.
The driver controls everything by buttons.
They don't even have a clutch lever.
The drivers are nothing more than button pushers.
I will take the drivers of yesteryear, Jim Clark, Dan Gurney, Mario Andretti,
Ronnie Peterson, Niki Lauda, John Surtees, etc.
They were drivers.

 

Forgot something.
Since we are talking about the Chapparl's by Jim Hall.
There was another Chapparl inovation that was copied by F1.
The 2J Chapparral was called the "sucker" car.
It was a Group 7 car.
It featured lexan skirts on the sides of the car.
In the rear was a snowmobile motor that drove a large fan to suck the air out from under the car.
The down force was incredible.
The Brabbham F1 team copied the concept and installed it on one of their cars.
The fan was pointed straight back at the following car.
The car raced 1 time and won that race, I believe Niki Lauda was the driver.
The following cars were literally blasted by rocks, pebbles and anyother debris that the fan picked up.
Nobody could pass the car.
The Lotus 78 used the lexan side skirts as a means of down force.