Official F1 2005 Thread

[Deepak]

So post your thoughts about Aus GP. BTW, three cheers for first Indian F1 driver.

 

[_xxx_]

I didn't like the race since both Schumacher and Villeneuve (my favs) didn't make it. I also don't think it resmbled the true speed of the cars. IMHO Ferrari and BMW will be fighting for the crown, maybe Renault as well. I'd like to see McLaren (note that I avoid to say Mercedes, since not a single part in that car is actually made by Mercedes) win a few races, but I don't really think so.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I'm fairly cheesed off with the rule changes - I think all the FIA changes over the past few years have been barmey - lets improve safety by keeping one set of tyres for the entire race eaving pitstops for fuel in! They should have removed any undertry aerodynamics, put full slicks back (possibly reducing them a cm or two) and let drivers actually race without having to conserve all their tyres and engines.

At this point I really hope the manufacturers championship takes off, or at least changes the current status quo with FOM & FIA and installs some sense into the rules and the idea of equality.

 

[StefanS]

I'm fairly cheesed off with the rule changes - I think all the FIA changes over the past few years have been barmey - lets improve safety by keeping one set of tyres for the entire race eaving pitstops for fuel in! They should have removed any undertry aerodynamics, put full slicks back (possibly reducing them a cm or two) and let drivers actually race without having to conserve all their tyres and engines.

Yes, the pit stops are pretty boring now; plus instead of improving the leeway for strategic decisions they've basically have just dumbed everything down. Every single team now races with the same strategy (same amount of pitstops, etc.). I was seriously disappointed with the rules they've implemented in the last few years.

 

[_xxx_]

Their intention was to lower the max speed. Nothing bad in itself, but the idea with one engine for two races and no tire change during pitstops really sucks.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Their intention was to lower the max speed.

And, IMO, they have been systematically going about it in the worng fashion for the past few years. Removing any undertry aerodynamics would reduce the downforce, hence the cornering speeds, in such a fasion that wouldn't be too outwardly visible to spectators. Giving us full slicks back will increase the speeds relative to the grooved "slicks" but in conjunction with a reduction in downforce, shifts the onus back on to mechanical grip making the cars less skittish, making for better overtaking, and also would help retardation of speeds in many situations should something go wrong.

 

[PC-Engine]

I don't know I always thought pit strategy was too big of a factor in the outcome of a race. It should really only be driver and car. Forcing everyone to have the same number of pitstops seems like a good rule as long as you don't have to stay in the pits for a specific period of time.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

The FIA rule changes over the last few years are obvioulsy faulty. They haven't slowed the cars down have they? All they've done is force teams to concentrate on aerodynamics, which is the thing that breaks down as soon as you get close to another car.

This is why we've seen such poor overtaking in the last few years, and why teams now see advantage in actually avoiding any racing, and are using the pitstops to do that. Getting too close to a car in front and can't overtake because of aerodynamic turbulence - don't bother to try, just pit.

I don't see how reducing mechanical grip and ensuring that everyone's tyres will be worn out and sliding around will help safety. If the FIA were serious they wouldn't race at dangerous walled tracks like in the US or in Monaco - but that's where the corporate suits want to be wined and dined, so the FIA put money in front of safety.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What I also found really irritating with the race was that there was almost no overtaking. The only overtaking was done by Alonso .. and only because his car was faster than anyone elses.

Also ... PLEASE GET RID OF JACQUES VILLENEUVE. What a TWOT! He held up Coultard who was about to lap him and most probably caused Coultard to lose his (deserved) third place. Do yourself a favout JV .. quit .. because you are pathetic.

Congrats to Coultard for that fourth place finish. You deserved it. I'm a HUGE F1 Fan .. or at least was. Am about to lose interest in it. No overtaking (Oh yes .. when the tyres are at there end the cars will overtake). Ye right .. the tyres are being looked after by the drivers .. and therefore .. No Overtaking. Pathetic.

US

 

[mito]

Barichello is a chicken.

Senna the best driver ever, F1 is not the same since his tragic death in 1994.

 

[_xxx_]

Villeneuve is the second best driver out there, after Schumacher. Wouldn't you fight to keep your place in front of your follower? That's all he did, you know...

 

[_xxx_]

Oh yeah:

Keep an eye on the rearview mirrors of the Safety Car. The sidemarkers with funky lights are my very own product! I even left the cosiness of my lab to install them myself (very hard to do any wiring in this car, all covered with carbon and reinforcement tubes) 8)

 

[Gerry]

Villeneuve is the second best driver out there, after Schumacher. Wouldn't you fight to keep your place in front of your follower? That's all he did, you know...

Second best driver in F1? Unlikely. Second best driver for Sauber? That's more like it.

 

[Nappe1]

Barichello is a chicken.

Senna the best driver ever, F1 is not the same since his tragic death in 1994.

F1 hasn't been same during last 45 years. back then cars were made from tin and drivers were steel.

I would like to say that racing losed it meaning after death of Rosenmayer, Nuvolari, Clark, Petterson or Senna... or perhaps we should take a look of tracks that aren't in F1 anymore: Old Nurburgring, Reims, Fuji, Zandvoort, old SPA, AVUS, Brand Hatch, Aintree, Bremgarten, Mantorp, Clermont Ferrand, AIDA, Dijon-Prenois, Donnington, Estoril, Paul Richard... the list is veeeery long. There are some really great drivers, cars and tracks in the past that youths do not even know. It's all about what you have seen to happen. For Example, quite few sources say that Petterson was one of the most promising drivers ever and saddest thing is, he didn't chance to drive full season with competitive car.

while Petterson is swedish, he is the first really publically recognized F1 driver in finland. I have been wondered, how a swedish driver could have become such a legend in finland. Eventually I ended up the fact that while Petterson died in Monaco 1978, Finnsh Road Racing legend, Jarno Saarinen, died just few years earlier in Monza after hitting oil spill and taking Renzo Pasoliini with him to wall. So, it could been a kind of shared sorrow.


...and oh, Finland has never hosted World Championship F1 Grand Prix, though some sources claim that there would have been non-world championship start in Eläintarha Track in early 50's. I don't even think that could happen anytime soon, just because we don't have GP1 classified tracks. (again, one is said to be GP1 ready, but afaik, it hasn't tried to get the license.)

 

[pcchen]

I think those new rules are making F1 boring. Even my sister thinks so.
Perhaps it's just because the teams are being cautious in the first race.
Too bad I can't watch the second race live... but I'm going to record it (I recorded every F1 races anyway).

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

A few of the drivers gave the new rules a slating after the race. Said it discouraged racing because now you have to conserve the tyres and the engine, and the slightest mistake on the track punishes you severely.

 

[Rambler]

I thought FIA was after safety and lowering top speed. I think their intentions are good, but their reasoning very flawed.

I read again the rules changes http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/13/995.html and i find some of their reasoning very poor if not completely wrong:

These changes will require harder compounds than in 2004 and will force drivers to drive with tyre preservation in mind. The knock-on effects will be slower lap times and much-revised race strategies

IMHO this will only increase the chance of flat tyres or other accidents, hence not really helping safety.

With even greater reliability required from the engines, these changes are likely to cut rev limits and power outputs, hence reducing car performance

This is bullshit - F1 teams already stated (before the season) that they will have at least as powerful engines as last year, it will only be bigger challenge for the designers to make it last 2 races.

Initial estimates suggest that the changes could cut downforce by as much as 25 percent over 2004. Designers are likely to claw much of this back as their 2005 machines evolve, but slower laps times and trickier-handling cars would seem inevitable.

Is this a joke? They themselves state this could lead to trickier-handling cars - how's that gonna help safety?

 

[London Geezer]

It doesn't matter. Ferrari will win. MS will win. We will all bow before the Lord of Formula 1.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Interesting way teams are responding to the "engine must last two races" rule. If they are not in the running for points, the teams are retiring their cars before the finish so that they can get a fresh engine for the next race. Another great new rule that discourages actual racing.

I guess it won't be saving them money after all, not that they care anymore now that the teams at risk of running out of cash have been rescued since the end of last season.

In fact, it's even cost them more, as the rules came in so late, many engine manufacturers had to scrap the work they had been doing and redesign new engines at the end of last season to meet the new regulations that everyone is trying to curcumvent when they can.

 

[Dave Baumann]

It doesn't matter. Ferrari will win.

Well, it certainly seems the FIA are intent on ensuring that happens.

BBC News[/url]]
But Ecclestone and Mosley's exclusive deal with Ferrari confirmed in most of the other team owners' minds their already serious fears that Ferrari had an unhealthily close relationship with the FIA.

And the special favours the new deal granted Ferrari finally drove Honda and Toyota - which had until then been sitting on the fence - into the manufacturers' camp.

Under the present arrangement, the teams are paid a proportion of F1's revenues based on a complicated - and secret - formula derived from their length of time in F1 and their success.

Inevitably, as F1's most successful and longest-running team, Ferrari get more money than anyone else.

No-one objects to that - even Ferrari's bitterest rivals feel they should be rewarded for having more pulling power with the public than any other team.

But the breakaway camp believes the new deal Ecclestone has struck with Ferrari goes too far - one insider has described it as "incredibly biased, a playing field that is not so much level as 45 degrees in favour of" Ferrari.

Among the issues concerning the rival teams and manufacturers are:

• Ferrari are guaranteed $67m (£34.8m) every year - an estimated 15-20% of their budget - before any money is distributed to the other teams.
• Ferrari have absolute veto over all changes agreed by the other teams, even if the other teams agree unanimously.
• Ferrari would get more of F1's commercial revenue if they finished last than any other team would if they won the world championship.

Agreeing to this, one insider says, would be "perpetuating them having a permanent advantage; they already have an advantage".