Chris Dyer Replaced

Yep, but unfortunately, rules are bent quite often to keep things interesting.

 

That sword cuts both ways.

 

I was not referring to the overall car performance under Brawn, i was commenting on the Pit Wall strategy's, which during his Ferrari days, Brawn was the head of, and unlike since he left, major mistakes were extremely rare.

 

I would prefer to see a great driver/team combo win time after time than season after season of rule changing (tires, rpms, qualifying, points, etc.) in order to prevent such a thing from happening. Talk about orchestration...

 

+1

 

F1 is a dynamic sport where the rules change often. Has been like that since 1950. Just look at how often the engine formulas changed in the fifties alone. If anything, we're having more of a stable environment since the inception of the Concorde agreement.

Making changes to the technical regulations isn't orchestration as everybody is given the same playing field for the following season.

Changing race results after the flag drops is orchestration and manipulation of the sport (e.g. Spa 2008, Fuji 2008).

PS: The majority of F1 fans prefer different drivers winning to the same car/driver combo all the time as was proven by the dropping of global TV viewership numbers in the years Schumacher dominated with Ferrari. That's a fact.

 

Oh like IndyCar right? That makes F1 just another spec series imho and does not let the team designers/engineers make a difference over the next team. I realize F1 will not be like it was in days gone past but the restrictions are choking the sport, once again only my opinion.

 

Just curious...

If the F10 was a pig of a car, what was the F60?

(Besides a shocking waste of some perfectly good carbon fiber, I mean...)

 

If you stop watching F1 because one driver/team is dominant, then you're not a fan of F1...

 

Changing regulations to disrupt a winning solution is not orchestration?

 

We should not forget that this is supposed to be a sport, not a show. If someone deserves to win with ease, it´s OK.

The same goes for the tourist attractions surrounding the track, that now seem more important that the track itself.

 

IMO every year is the 'Golden Age' simply because I love the sport yet one must admit it would be nice to see different engine configurations back in the sport. Sorry to the OP as I'm getting OT, please carry on.

Best,
tex

 

I'm all up for new regulations, it makes the sport much more interesting as a fan, and gives designers, engineers and drivers the chance to show there worth under a different framework.

But not all regulation changes that have been brought in have been a done with a "level playing field".

A good example was the "1 set of tyres per race" ruling brought in for the 2005 season.

During previous 2004 season, Michelin runners would often not change tyre during there race, or sometimes only change the fronts or rears, due to the tyres compound nature to perform better and more constant when worn. The Bridgestones runners always changed during pit stops, and it was clear that there tyres had a large performance drop off once worn.

Everyone in F1 knew these different characteristics, including the FIA, but they still choose to introduce this biased new rule that heavily favoured the French tyre brand.

As we all know, Bridgestone never recovered lost ground to Michelin during the 2005 season, and you could say that the FIA's regulation change had the exact effect they were looking for, mixing up the grid, and stopping the Ferrari/Schumacher dominance.

 

You have to remember that the year Brawn GP won, they were under severe finances. This impacted the later parts of that year and seriously impacted the Mecredes car of this year. What will be telling is the pace of the 2011 car as to whether they have the inherent tallent to remain a top team.

 

Yes, but don´t forget that they made the 2009 car with huge financial resources from Honda and, well, some say that FIA allowed the double diffuser just for political reasons.

As you say, let´s wait and see what Brawn can do with Mercedes; that will show if he´s still in the edge.

 

We are far away from the IRL. Every manufacturer can build his own engine and has to build his own chassis. Very different. Oh and no ovals. A good thing.

I watched through the Senna/Prost dominated years in the McLaren and I watched through the boring Schumacher wins it all in the Ferrari years. It was painfully boring, but I stayed with the program. And I like F1 a whole lot better since 2005.

That is probably in regards to 2005 and prohibition of tire stops?
Well, Ferrari could have switched to Michelin. Nobody forced them to stick with Bridgestone. Too bad the Bridgestones didn't hold up for the duration of a race, so Ferrari lost the title because of that. After they won several titles in a row partly because of the superiority of the Bridgestones.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Karma.

Sport is entertainment. Otherwise it wouldn't be done. Or at least not watched by millions who ultimately pay for the few to practice the sport. So the sport/show has to appeal to the masses.

Travelling to F1 GPs is expensive and cumbersome. So if local tourist attractions can sweeten the deal, all the better. They don't matter to the audience at home watching on TV, but those folks don't pay the organizers to hold the race. Or only partially through TV commercials.

 

So true.

 

Absolutely matters to the audience if they replace Spa or Monza to race in a dirty park lot or an empty track in the middle of the desert.

 

Well there was a few things stopping them switching to Michelin, most namely there contract. But also Ferrari have been very loyal in recent years with there technical partners, especially ones who they have had great success and a special relationship with, like they did with Bridgestone.

And your right, Bridgestone was a large part of the Ferrari/Schumacher successes, as the there primary F1 effort was geared towards Ferrari for much of that period.

But the same thing was true about Renault and Michelin's relationship and successes together, it was clear at that time that Michelin where favouring there fellow Frenchmen.

But i do wonder if Ferrari's loyalty to Bridgestone during 2005 would have continued if the Old Man had still be around, i think not !

 

Was the reference of "dirty park" about Spa's "parking lot" or Monza's park?

Oh c'mon! This is F1. Contracts are not worth the paper they're printed on.
The real reason they didn't switch was because their car was totally designed towards the Bridgestone and switching to Michelin was a sure fire way to loose whereas staying with Bridgestone had the off chance of success. At least that's how I see how it went down. And they were right once: In the US.

Enzo wouldn't have had any qualms about loyalty. He swapped from Goodyear to Michelins in a heartbeat. Roadcars and racecars alike.
Ferrari SpA btw is equally fast in changing their "long term partners". Just look at the array of official watches over the past decade.