Has Vettel had a good Ferrari car behind him at all whilst he has been there? Because I feel like the expectations at Ferrari far outpace their actual technical acumen at this point.
2017 the car was pretty competitive. Vettel went into Singapore trailing Hamilton by 3 points, then proceeded to crash out in the Verstappen-Ferrari sandwich at the first corner and Lewis won from 5th on the grid. Then he had an engine problem the next weekend in Qualy (Malaysia) and started last (finished 4th) and then had to retire in Japan with electrical issues.
We seem to be re-writing history a bit here. 2017 and 2018 were more than competitive for Ferrari, they could have won both titles. In fact some could argue in 2018 they should have won, and for a majority of the season had a better car than Mercedes....but in that hilariously Ferrari way, Seb and the team fumbled it on several occasions. Vettel has gotten plenty of competitive cars from Ferrari.
Eh, I sort of thought the same way, but when I went back and looked at poles, Ferrari had 5 poles in 2017 (20 races) and 6 in 2018 (21 races). Mercedes had the other 15 poles in 2017 and 13 in 2018. Not sure how we can say they "should" have won the championship but for unforced errors, when they were being beaten in Quali handily.
Hamilton won the 2017 season by over 50 points and the 2018 season by over 80. With him dominating the second half of both seasons. Vettel did well to get second but it is a bit much to say he should have won. The mercs were just too far ahead on power tracks.
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Hamilton won 2018 by 80 after Ferrari fell off a cliff because grazzi riggazi.
They came in to 2018 and 2019 with a car every bit the equal of Mercedes at a lot of tracks, then got out developed on top of fumbling things multiple times. Yes, Mercedes is very, very good...but this idea that Ferrari never gave Vettel a competitive car, when in fact they gave him an excellent car three years running, is the narrative I'm pushing back against.
Overall a fun race. I knew something crazy must have happened because I was waiting for the replay to get posted and it kept just not going up. As for the results: I was really hoping for Russell to get points, even though the timing would have been bittersweet with Claire stepping down last week. Also, really wanted Ricciardo to get 3rd. I suppose Albon getting a podium is a nice enough result.
0
Options
PolarisI am powerless against the sky.Registered Userregular
Has Vettel had a good Ferrari car behind him at all whilst he has been there? Because I feel like the expectations at Ferrari far outpace their actual technical acumen at this point.
2017 the car was pretty competitive. Vettel went into Singapore trailing Hamilton by 3 points, then proceeded to crash out in the Verstappen-Ferrari sandwich at the first corner and Lewis won from 5th on the grid. Then he had an engine problem the next weekend in Qualy (Malaysia) and started last (finished 4th) and then had to retire in Japan with electrical issues.
We seem to be re-writing history a bit here. 2017 and 2018 were more than competitive for Ferrari, they could have won both titles. In fact some could argue in 2018 they should have won, and for a majority of the season had a better car than Mercedes....but in that hilariously Ferrari way, Seb and the team fumbled it on several occasions. Vettel has gotten plenty of competitive cars from Ferrari.
Eh, I sort of thought the same way, but when I went back and looked at poles, Ferrari had 5 poles in 2017 (20 races) and 6 in 2018 (21 races). Mercedes had the other 15 poles in 2017 and 13 in 2018. Not sure how we can say they "should" have won the championship but for unforced errors, when they were being beaten in Quali handily.
When Seb overtook Hamilton at Spa in 2018 - a circuit Mercedes had dominated in the hybrid era - it was clear the championship was Ferraris to lose. In 2017 they arguably had the best car, in 2018 they certainly did - for most most of the season. You cannot look at quali stats when Hamilton is just a monster at one lap pace, he had no business being on pole at Spa 2018 for example.
The fact they spectacularly lost was mostly Ferraris fault due to bad development of the car - if they had done nothing, they would have won (IMHO), a fact proved when they reverted the spec after Hamilton had already won and the car was immediately faster/fastest.
Of course it turned out that Ferrari were totally not cheating the engine regulations, but there you go.
Hamilton won 2018 by 80 after Ferrari fell off a cliff because grazzi riggazi.
They came in to 2018 and 2019 with a car every bit the equal of Mercedes at a lot of tracks, then got out developed on top of fumbling things multiple times. Yes, Mercedes is very, very good...but this idea that Ferrari never gave Vettel a competitive car, when in fact they gave him an excellent car three years running, is the narrative I'm pushing back against.
I did a survey for F1 today that asked me my opinion on them implementing a reverse grid race at four weekends next season that would take the place of qualifying. I personally like the idea of reverse grid races in general but I’m not happy about possibly losing qualifying as that’s one part of the weekend that is exciting to me. Why would you remove a good thing for a questionable thing?
I did a survey for F1 today that asked me my opinion on them implementing a reverse grid race at four weekends next season that would take the place of qualifying. I personally like the idea of reverse grid races in general but I’m not happy about possibly losing qualifying as that’s one part of the weekend that is exciting to me. Why would you remove a good thing for a questionable thing?
Wait, so a sprint race in place of qualy?
Huh... that's crazy enough that it might not be that bad.
On the other hand, it's a bit of a band-aid trying to cover a much deeper problem.
How else would you do a reverse grid? I also like qualifying, but I can't figure out a good way to do reverse grid and qualifying.
championship standing?
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I would prefer to see it replace FP2.
have one practice session, then a reverse championship order grid sprint race purely for entertainment, then fp3 and qualy the following day.
I think the idea behind having it replace qualifying is that unless you want to add a new event to the weekend, it has to replace an existing session and you can't exactly replace the race because otherwise qualifying becomes a farce where you may not want to qualify first.
The teams and drivers will never sign off on a reverse grid race that meant nothing more than extra data collection. It's either a race to set starting position, second points scoring race every weekend it's done, or the main race and there is no qualifying. If the teams have to qualify and then the grid is reversed you would see record setting sand bagging as it became a quest to qualify last. The only option that is near viable is a reverse championship points sprint race Saturday to set starting positions on Sunday instead of traditional qualifying.
I think it's something to maybe try next season, but I'd wait to see how the racing is with the new cars in 2022 first.
I always thought reverse grid meant that like 1-6 were reversed and 7-12 were reversed and then 13-20 (or whatever the last position is) were reversed, so that aiming for 6th fastest (and therefore first on the grid) was a real risk, because if you ended up 7th fastest whoops you're starting 12th, have fun with that. Is that not what the proposal is?
-edit- Also included in a provision that you have to be within a certain percent of the top time, otherwise your starting position is excluded from the reversal and you end up last instead of 13th if you end up too slow. At least that's what I understood the reverse grid idea to be.
chrisnl on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I always thought reverse grid meant that like 1-6 were reversed and 7-12 were reversed and then 13-20 (or whatever the last position is) were reversed, so that aiming for 6th fastest (and therefore first on the grid) was a real risk, because if you ended up 7th fastest whoops you're starting 12th, have fun with that. Is that not what the proposal is?
-edit- Also included in a provision that you have to be within a certain percent of the top time, otherwise your starting position is excluded from the reversal and you end up last instead of 13th if you end up too slow. At least that's what I understood the reverse grid idea to be.
The proposal is simply to have cars line up on Saturday in reverse championship order from start to finish, and then use the results of that race to set the grid for Sunday's race.
I remain firmly against reverse grids. They're an entirely artifical measure to try and introduce 'excitement' through meaningless passes on much slower cars (or failing to pass because of a halfway similar performance car and dirty air). It also takes away one of the core aspects of F1 - that it's an engineering competition. Penalising success goes entirely against that. What reward is it for building the fastest car if you're constantly shoved down the grid because of it? How could the constructor's championship be considered fair if teams are handicapped for doing well? It only really 'works' in series like F2 because they're a spec series.
I thoroughly hate the idea of reverse grid races for anything meaningful in F1 and would consider giving the sport up if they introduced it. I note that not a single driver has came out in support (that I've seen), yet many of them have come out against it.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
For the record in general I wouldn't want to see reverse grid races as a regular fixture on the calendar.
However, I also disagree that punishing success is inherently bad.
One of the worst thing about F1 is the way that fast teams are rewarded with more prize money, allowing them to continue to get faster. F1 needs more negative feedback loops, and to get rid of quite a few of its positive ones.
Creating events worth watching is more important than some ephemeral concept of "purity" in the engineering contest.
Lots of other series handle this with a BOP and honestly, it's about time F1 considered adding some ballast depending on constructors' position. Have some limits to it and what not, but let's not pretend that good, close racing is not something we all want.
Artifical entertainment makes it hollow as a sport. What achievement is there in winning if you had an advantage built into the rules? It would be like Italy winning the six nations because they were allowed 2 extra players on the pitch. If competitors aren't operating under equal rules then it isn't a fair sport. If it's only close because one car is mandated to be heavier than the other, then I'm simply not interested.
Is it not artificial now? Do we need spoilers to know who will win 2021?
LeMans and the DTM are not less entertaining for using BOP (and hell, even Mercedes there liked to win, ballast or not.) They are as "artificial" as any agreed upon set of rules that are not "you're free to do anything to win."
( < . . .
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Artifical entertainment makes it hollow as a sport. What achievement is there in winning if you had an advantage built into the rules? It would be like Italy winning the six nations because they were allowed 2 extra players on the pitch. If competitors aren't operating under equal rules then it isn't a fair sport. If it's only close because one car is mandated to be heavier than the other, then I'm simply not interested.
There's nothing less artificial about one team being a company that can spend 350m and others being a company that can spend 100m.
There is already an advantage built into the rules; you're allowed to spend whatever you want. That's not any less artificial than a balance of power.
The budget cap should make all of this unnecessary, but unfortunately they implemented the budget cap a year too late and allowed the teams to spend unrestricted while being able to design the new 2022 car.
If competitors aren't operating under equal rules then it isn't a fair sport.
They all operate under the same rules at every event. If they're winning, their car is simply better than the competition. If they're slowed down so that Ferrari can 'compete' with them they may as well turn it into a spec series and be done with it. Trying to 'even out' car performance and make it a driver only series nullifies all of the engineering work that makes F1 interesting.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
They all operate under the same rules at every event.
Meaningless distinction, to arbitrarily separate the rules of an event from the rules of the league as a whole.
Let's be clear, I'm not talking about Mercedes vs Ferrari here. If every team was spending 350m like those two teams are, and one of them was successful like Mercedes and the others were failures like Ferrari, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Dhalphir on
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
F1 is currently, and always has been, only an engineering competition between three teams.
If that's what you want it to continue to be, then just say that. There's no need to dress it up as being about engineering purity.
To be clear, the survey I participated in did not explain any details beyond what I put before, that there would be a reverse grid race that replaces qualifying for four unnamed race weekends. I haven’t heard official details beyond that from a reliable source yet, have I missed an announcement along the way though?
F1 has been a money race among top already-winning teams for what, 40 years? And up until relatively recently it was papered-over by the cigarette money since it was like the last place they could advertise.
The budget cap is coming because the teams that aren't Ferrari/Merc/RBR demanded it, and the sport clearly needs it in order to survive. Teams are not going to continue to show up to dump $200m+ down the drain for the *chance* of getting a podium spot like once or twice a season. The money has to sort of pencil out so that you can run a team with the money the sport generates (e.g. the prize money/participation money), plus what you can realistically get from sponsors (i.e. what the advertising benefit is actually worth.)
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So long as there are payouts for certain teams for arbitrary amounts just for showing up, and other teams get nothing, nada, bupkis, F1 is artificial. There is no 'free competition' when the sport awards Ferrari $92 million dollars for showing up, and Racing Point or Haas get $0. The notion that there is anything freely competitive about F1 is laughable.
I am, as they say, chuffed to bits that Ferrari is doing so terrible since they are given every advantage, but the fight between Mercedes and Haas is not an equal one, or a fair one.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Imagine! In the NHL, a brand new expansion team nearly took the fucking cup in their first year. Imagine Haas showing up and challenging for the constructor's on their first year. It is absolutely impossible in F1.
Stefano Domenicali (former Ferrari team principal, currently CEO of Lamborghini and occasional Channel 4 pundit) is to take over from Chase Carey (and his spectacular moustache) as the new chief executive of F1.
Keep in mind that in the time of this video, these cars were 600+ horsepower live-axle 1350 kilogram piles of shit with no power steering, no ABS, no traction control, and mechanical LSDs trying to keep their 11-inch-wide tyres on the road.
If you've ever had a crack at Bathurst in a driving sim and thought "that track is fucking ridiculous", imagine being a rookie doing it yourself in a real V8 Supercar, mixing it up with literal LEGENDS like John Bowe...
Some nice moves from Gasly! I believe he must feel amazing every time he passes Albon.
Overall pretty uneventful race, save for the 10 sec penalty for Hamilton. Then again after all the red flags in the world it was good to be back to some more normal racing.
Some great battles in the middle between the Renaults, McLaren and Alpha Tauris, but not much else.
Posts
You may want to end racism but you may not want to end racism.
Or something.
Are there no PR people!?
Jesus christ.
Hamilton won the 2017 season by over 50 points and the 2018 season by over 80. With him dominating the second half of both seasons. Vettel did well to get second but it is a bit much to say he should have won. The mercs were just too far ahead on power tracks.
They came in to 2018 and 2019 with a car every bit the equal of Mercedes at a lot of tracks, then got out developed on top of fumbling things multiple times. Yes, Mercedes is very, very good...but this idea that Ferrari never gave Vettel a competitive car, when in fact they gave him an excellent car three years running, is the narrative I'm pushing back against.
The fact they spectacularly lost was mostly Ferraris fault due to bad development of the car - if they had done nothing, they would have won (IMHO), a fact proved when they reverted the spec after Hamilton had already won and the car was immediately faster/fastest.
Of course it turned out that Ferrari were totally not cheating the engine regulations, but there you go.
Oh yes, agree with that.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Papaya-esque
He will be pleased
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Wait, so a sprint race in place of qualy?
Huh... that's crazy enough that it might not be that bad.
On the other hand, it's a bit of a band-aid trying to cover a much deeper problem.
championship standing?
have one practice session, then a reverse championship order grid sprint race purely for entertainment, then fp3 and qualy the following day.
I think the idea behind having it replace qualifying is that unless you want to add a new event to the weekend, it has to replace an existing session and you can't exactly replace the race because otherwise qualifying becomes a farce where you may not want to qualify first.
I think it's something to maybe try next season, but I'd wait to see how the racing is with the new cars in 2022 first.
-edit- Also included in a provision that you have to be within a certain percent of the top time, otherwise your starting position is excluded from the reversal and you end up last instead of 13th if you end up too slow. At least that's what I understood the reverse grid idea to be.
The proposal is simply to have cars line up on Saturday in reverse championship order from start to finish, and then use the results of that race to set the grid for Sunday's race.
I thoroughly hate the idea of reverse grid races for anything meaningful in F1 and would consider giving the sport up if they introduced it. I note that not a single driver has came out in support (that I've seen), yet many of them have come out against it.
However, I also disagree that punishing success is inherently bad.
One of the worst thing about F1 is the way that fast teams are rewarded with more prize money, allowing them to continue to get faster. F1 needs more negative feedback loops, and to get rid of quite a few of its positive ones.
Creating events worth watching is more important than some ephemeral concept of "purity" in the engineering contest.
LeMans and the DTM are not less entertaining for using BOP (and hell, even Mercedes there liked to win, ballast or not.) They are as "artificial" as any agreed upon set of rules that are not "you're free to do anything to win."
There's nothing less artificial about one team being a company that can spend 350m and others being a company that can spend 100m.
There is already an advantage built into the rules; you're allowed to spend whatever you want. That's not any less artificial than a balance of power.
The budget cap should make all of this unnecessary, but unfortunately they implemented the budget cap a year too late and allowed the teams to spend unrestricted while being able to design the new 2022 car.
You mean, like already is?
Meaningless distinction, to arbitrarily separate the rules of an event from the rules of the league as a whole.
Let's be clear, I'm not talking about Mercedes vs Ferrari here. If every team was spending 350m like those two teams are, and one of them was successful like Mercedes and the others were failures like Ferrari, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If that's what you want it to continue to be, then just say that. There's no need to dress it up as being about engineering purity.
The budget cap is coming because the teams that aren't Ferrari/Merc/RBR demanded it, and the sport clearly needs it in order to survive. Teams are not going to continue to show up to dump $200m+ down the drain for the *chance* of getting a podium spot like once or twice a season. The money has to sort of pencil out so that you can run a team with the money the sport generates (e.g. the prize money/participation money), plus what you can realistically get from sponsors (i.e. what the advertising benefit is actually worth.)
I am, as they say, chuffed to bits that Ferrari is doing so terrible since they are given every advantage, but the fight between Mercedes and Haas is not an equal one, or a fair one.
But not in other sports.
I wonder why that is.
I do love the Ferrari payout and the threats to leave if it went away. Like WTF even *is* Ferrari anyway if they're not participating in Formula 1?
A company that sells over 10,000 premium sports cars per year?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/sep/23/stefano-domenicali-to-become-new-chief-executive-of-formula-one-lewis-hamilton
Steam | XBL
Craig Lowndes is a driving GOD.
Keep in mind that in the time of this video, these cars were 600+ horsepower live-axle 1350 kilogram piles of shit with no power steering, no ABS, no traction control, and mechanical LSDs trying to keep their 11-inch-wide tyres on the road.
If you've ever had a crack at Bathurst in a driving sim and thought "that track is fucking ridiculous", imagine being a rookie doing it yourself in a real V8 Supercar, mixing it up with literal LEGENDS like John Bowe...
Steam | XBL
Overall pretty uneventful race, save for the 10 sec penalty for Hamilton. Then again after all the red flags in the world it was good to be back to some more normal racing.
Some great battles in the middle between the Renaults, McLaren and Alpha Tauris, but not much else.