Formula 1 thoughts:

[Bud Plug]

Not true.
Toyota reputely has the biggest budget but can't buy a podium finish.

But which 2 teams?
For years Ferrari was crap. They got Michael and it still took several years for them to get their shit together. Remember when Williams was on top? And Renault/Beneton? The ebb and flow of the ability to win is based on talent. The synergism of driver, engineering, money and organization.

I agree with both of your comments, and I enjoy F1 more than other forms of motor racing. However, criticism about the limited number of competitive cars is legitimate. I don't believe the disparity of budgets would be such a factor if the rules permitted more agressive car modification during the season. The rules are so conservative now that any car (like the Honda) which starts the season at a disadvantage has no hope of closing the gap or overtaking competitors.

In short, the F1 season is won by engineers, off the track, and before the season ever starts.

All that's left is to watch the drama created by weather, the rare driving error, and attempts to cheat.

 

[TQM]

Two points:

1. Someone suggests that McLaren won't let Hamilton go.

Perhaps. But, that suggests that they are in control of the situation. They aren't. They don't have the guy under contract next season, and he is grossly underpaid this season. Add to this the now documented tension between not just Hamilton and Alonso, but also Hamilton and Dennis, and add further fuel to the fire that Ferarri intends to sign him, and you see the potential of Hamilton leaving.

Alsono used to be managed by the guy at Renault - it wouldn't totally surprise me to see him back there.

2. Engineers and winning: not entirely true - how do you explain Alonso's championships, and Renault's failures this year?

 

[goodandkind]

it just goes to show how bad the rest of the drivers are for hailton to come in and dominate. lets not forget they screwed him out of 2 wins earlier in the year and let alonso win

 

[dcbogey]

Champ car and Indy have completely lost me as a fan because of the small fields that each league runs every race. 17 cars? Come on people... re-combine for the love of your sport and put the ego's behind you. You've killed what was once the best North American race car series.

Agreee 100%.

NASCAR has gotten my full attention in the past few year. 42 - 43 cars in teh field, 12 - 15 lead changes in each race by 5 - 8 different drivers, passes on the track are easily done, pit mistakes and strategies can make or break a race. If you can get over the "redneck factor" it really is an awesome series to watch. Bad news with NASCAR though is that the races are too long over all. But I guess that the endurance of the high milage is what makes the things I like about it that much more attractive.

To me, NASCAR is the WWE of motorsports. There is action, surely but much of the passing is the result of the car ahead being "helped" out of the way by the car behind. NASCAR officials throw caution flags for any little thing, often for suspicious reasons. And can someone please explain to me why a "competition yellow" should be necessary at this level of racing.

All the cars do look the same, to the detriment of the sport. I preferred NASCAR years ago when you could tell at a glance who was driving a Ford, Chevy, Dodge, etc. I understand why this was done but that doesn't mean I like it. The whole idea of racing is to develope a car that is faster than the other guy's - kind of hard to do when the cars are all pressed out of the same cookie-cutter.

 

[Bud Plug]

2. Engineers and winning: not entirely true - how do you explain Alonso's championships, and Renault's failures this year?

Easily. Just look at the dramatic changes in the regulations from last year to this (e.g., engine freeze based on the last two races of 2006, rev limited to 19,000 rpm, setups have to accomodate two different tires in the race, changes to qualifying), and the fact that Renault is now forced to run on the Bridgestone tyre. These are the problems that engineers figure out before Race 1.

 

[TQM]

But you are on the one

hand saying they must have been great engineers the past two seasons, but suddenly became bad engineers this season.

 

[Bud Plug]

hand saying they must have been great engineers the past two seasons, but suddenly became bad engineers this season.

No, I'm saying that the performance of the engineering teams (and the Renault engineers might outperform or underperform the engineers of other teams in any given year) before the season begins is becoming too determinative of the season results.

 

[TQM]

so you're saying

you knew, before the season began, who was going to win?

I don't really understand your point. You think the engineers at McLaren knew their vehicle would suddenly become reliable, after a couple of years of unreliability?

You knew that Renault engineers wouldn't be able to deliver after two years of delivering? You knew Ferrari was going to have engineering problems?

You knew Honda would take a major step backward? You knew BMW would take a major step forward?

 

[Bud Plug]

you knew, before the season began, who was going to win?

I don't really understand your point. You think the engineers at McLaren knew their vehicle would suddenly become reliable, after a couple of years of unreliability?

You knew that Renault engineers wouldn't be able to deliver after two years of delivering? You knew Ferrari was going to have engineering problems?

You knew Honda would take a major step backward? You knew BMW would take a major step forward?

I think you do understand my point. So does everyone else reading this thread.

If you really don't, I don't think a further re-iteration will help.

p.s. Starting an argument with "so what you're saying is" is a dead giveaway of a "straw man" argument.

 

[TQM]

You make a good straw man yourself.

Here's your quote:

In short, the F1 season is won by engineers, off the track, and before the season ever starts.

I think that you've exaggerated by a country mile here. Sure the engineers are of vital importance - an unreliable car ain't going to win.

But good engineers are a necessary but hardly sufficient ingredient in F1 success. And no season is determined ("won" in your words) before the season starts - that's just silly. If it were true than you'd have been able to tell me who'd win.

 

[abear]

Not true.
Toyota reputely has the biggest budget but can't buy a podium finish.

true however it is Toyota we are talking about. They can not develop a good F1 car. i want them to succeed but i don't see it happening. its a shame that there is soo much money going into that car and its doing nothing.

 

[Bud Plug]

Here's your quote:

In short, the F1 season is won by engineers, off the track, and before the season ever starts.

I think that you've exaggerated by a country mile here. Sure the engineers are of vital importance - an unreliable car ain't going to win.

But good engineers are a necessary but hardly sufficient ingredient in F1 success. And no season is determined ("won" in your words) before the season starts - that's just silly. If it were true than you'd have been able to tell me who'd win.

1. You don't understand what a straw man argument is.
2. You make no sense.

 

[TQM]

Hey bud,

that's some reply, little one.

 

[bobistheowl]

82% of all wins in F1 are won from the pole.

I don't know where you found this statistic, but it isn't accurate. For the period of 2005-2007, only 54.17% of pole sitters have won F1 races, and that's not a statistical anomaly. The breakdown by year:

2005: 9/19
2006: 10/18
2007: 7/11

82% certainly didn't apply during the turbo era, or the Renault factory team would have won several championships. Back in 1982, only three of sixteen races were won from pole.

It is possible that, in recent years, 82% of races may have been won from the front row of the grid, ( I didn't check that, as the stats archive at formula1.com loads slowly), but that's very different from from saying the wins were from pole.

 

[TQM]

Thanks Bob,

That's a good reminder that people should take statistics thrown at them with a grain of salt.

I thought it seemed very high, but I gave it a pass. My mistake. People will say anything if they think they can score points....

 

[Bud Plug]

that's some reply, little one.

I must be bored.

1. You believe that pre-season engineering is not the major determinant of season race results. Fine. Some reasonable approaches to advancing your point would include (as examples): a) demonstrating that in-season adjustments to cars have turned around F1 seasons in recent years, b) demonstrating that the cars which are leading the season results are not, in fact, technically superior to the cars which trail, or c) offering some objective evidence that other factors can, and do, overcome engineering superiority as between cars. You elected none of these courses of debate.

Instead, you advanced the illogical proposition that in order for it to be true that pre-season engineering is overly determinative, an ordinary member of the public (like myself) would be able to predict which engineers had done a better job in advance of the season. Of course, this is not possible before the cars (which are developed in secret - have a look at the Renault site - they won't even tell you what the max revs were for it's 2006 car!) start racing. Worse yet, you tried to attribute this illogical proposition to someone other than yourself (that's a straw man argument).

However, it's been pretty clear to ordinary observers within the first couple of races in each of the last several seasons, barring weather or race incident anomalies, which teams had engineered a better car (reliability factor included). These teams have maintained their advantage over "the rest of the pack" for the entirety of those seasons.

2. Having reviewed a sampling of your posts, your "little one" comment seems to be a favourite device for you. Do you remember the recurring Kids In The Hall skit where the principal character pretended to squish people in his fingers by imagining they where as small as they appeared, viewed that way? A funny skit, but I think the Kids in the Hall were suggesting that such behaviour might be a sign of mental illness. Maybe you should get someone to look into that?

Also, what's with splitting your sentences between your title and the body of text? It isn't more interesting, but it is harder to reproduce your quotes.

 

[TQM]

little one,

First point: On strawmen

You start with a summary of what you claim is my position

You believe that pre-season engineering is not the major determinant of season race results.

That's a quote.

What I actually said,

Sure the engineers are of vital importance - an unreliable car ain't going to win.

When presenting an example of a strawman argument, you, littlest, take the cake.

Second point: You've moved your position just a tad.

First you said,

"The F1 season is won by engineers, off track, and before the season ever starts."

Now you are saying "engineering" is the major determinant.

Yawn.

My first point to your first position was that the engineers haven't changed at Renault - if they were the reason they won last year, it's funny how the same guys aren't winning this year.

So - you responded there have been changes. This means though, that winning isn't won by the engineers themselves, but by the team responsiveness to those changes, and engineers that produced a winning team last year might not be produce a winning team this.

Then, I pointed out there are other contributing factors.

Rubens Barrichello and Michael Schumacher were teamates for several years, but produced very different results, didn't they?

Mika Hakkinen had different result from Davey Coulthard, didn't he?

Funny those engineers.

As for mid-season impact, Michael Schumacher, just last year won 5 of the last 9 races, Alonso winning just 1. Schumacher's partner, Massa, won 2 of the last 9 races (the only other winner was Button).

Compare that to the first 9 races: Alonso won 6. Schumi 2 and Massa none.

In the end it wasn't enough of a turn around, but only an idiot would think that mid season change isn't/wasn't an important factor in winning.

There's no doubt that this season McLaren's tweaking has returned them to their form of earlier in the season - something important now that Raikkonen's vehicle is suddenly showing reliability (which is another mid-season example).

So - no one is denying that engineering is important. I am denying that the season is over, due to engineers, before it begins (which was your original position).

Off now, little one.

 

[Jaedon]

I don't know where you found this statistic, but it isn't accurate. For the period of 2005-2007, only 54.17% of pole sitters have won F1 races, and that's not a statistical anomaly. The breakdown by year:

2005: 9/19
2006: 10/18
2007: 7/11

82% certainly didn't apply during the turbo era, or the Renault factory team would have won several championships. Back in 1982, only three of sixteen races were won from pole.

It is possible that, in recent years, 82% of races may have been won from the front row of the grid, ( I didn't check that, as the stats archive at formula1.com loads slowly), but that's very different from from saying the wins were from pole.

The stat was from a Toronto Sun article about 5 weeks ago ( I am looking for the paper still to see if I can scan it and post the image)but you are correct in that is was from the front row and not the pole... my over zealous fingers typed all that before my brain kicked in to edit my thoughts. That being said however ... 54% is still very high and if you look at other race series there are no other series with a win from the pole percentage that high.

Please don't think I am bashing F1 or any other series... I love fast cars of any and all types.... but as someone else stated earlier.. the entertainment value is reduced when the winners always come form the front row / pole / heck even from the top 5 qualifying times. In most of the open wheel race series this appears to be the case. There are no come form the back of the field victories as there are in stock car races. I can count at least 5 off the top of my head where the driver has come from the back of the field and won the race. Jeff Gordon is the first one that comes to mind... who not only had to start at the back.. but he had to do it in his back up car because of a crash .... and he still ended up winning the race. He said in the interview after the race something to the effect of... "I just had to prove to these guys that my little old back up car was better than all of their regular cars."

Yeah NASCAR throws out the "competition yellows" but only at the begining of the race when the track conditions have changed drastically form qualifying the day before (overnight heavy rains washing off the rubber so they want to check the tire conditions after 20 laps or so) and debris cautions... well... I can't say I agree with all of them but if there's something that could cut a tire.. then I agree with them for safety sake.

 

[Perry Mason]

Excuse me...

But is it not just common sense that the car best suited for the track, weather conditions, race strategy, etc. and the driver who can best put it all together on that circuit over two or three consecutive days are likely to win both the pole and the race?

More than in any other type of motor racing, in F1 the race is won by the swiftest on the track... and that is the result of a combination of many long term factors such as design and engineering and short term factors such as race preparation.

And overall competitive performance is calibrated in milliseconds!

Perry

 

[TQM]

You're right Perry,

And given the actual percentages - your odds are only a little better than 50% to win from the pole position. So qualifying 1st gives you a lot, but doesn't make you a lock.

The other thing about qualifying that most teams have figured out, is that you can improve your qualifying position by going with a light fuel load, but this hurts your chances at the race (usually) by requiring an extra pit stop, which kills precious seconds.