[Rumours] Sainz To Renault to Replace Palmer?

[Akrapovic]

Is there really any evidence that these cars are too easy to drive compared to before? Or is it just more nostalgia and things were better in the old days?

Managing the electrical and hybrid systems is all part of the driving. You need to be able to multi-task and deal with those systems too.

I dunno, people keep saying F1 is too easy now. We cycle through drivers at a record rate, demand high standards instantly or your career is over. Drivers get a fraction of the testing that they used to get it...and then we say it's too easy.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Is there really any evidence that these cars are too easy to drive compared to before?

Drivers get a fraction of the testing that they used to get ...and then we say it's too easy.

There's your answer.

[F1Guy]

Back on topic, has Sainz replaced Palmer for the Hungarian GP yet???


I think this thread is in need of a bit of Blue 242!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

There's your answer.

So because they are allowed less testing, that's proof the car is too easy?
Everyone was in agreement that the cars are significantly hard to drive this year.

There's nothing to suggest the current cars are easy to drive, and a lot to suggest that the drivers are having to manage the car and its systems a lot more than anyone in history. I'm not saying the current drivers are the best ever, but it seems like another case of "things were better in the old days" really.

Nostalgia is heroin for old people, and I ain't got no time for that.

[Peter Mallett]

Up to you, I wasn't thinking Nostalgically however if you dismiss the theory then fine, but so far I've seen nothing to suggest that these cars and those since the decision to stop testing are as difficult to drive as they were previously. Likewise these testing results and those from last year are demonmstrating to anyone with an ounce of sense that to be on the pace all you need is to be good at playstations.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Up to you, I wasn't thinking Nostalgically however if you dismiss the theory then fine, but so far I've seen nothing to suggest that these cars and those since the decision to stop testing are as difficult to drive as they were previously. Likewise these testing results and those from last year are demonmstrating to anyone with an ounce of sense that to be on the pace all you need is to be good at playstations.

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense would dismiss the simulators as playstations

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Up to you, I wasn't thinking Nostalgically however if you dismiss the theory then fine, but so far I've seen nothing to suggest that these cars and those since the decision to stop testing are as difficult to drive as they were previously. Likewise these testing results and those from last year are demonmstrating to anyone with an ounce of sense that to be on the pace all you need is to be good at playstations.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense would dismiss the simulators as playstations

I believe there lies the problem, it appears there is a HUGE disconnect from what fans want to see, broken cars, drivers spinning, their driver far ahead and yes wrecks (views don't lie), and what they claim to want to see, close competition and no single team dominance.

If the DRIVERS say they are harder to drive, I'm willing to go out on a limb and go with their opinion as they have this thing called i don't know ACTUAL experience in the car. Just because the older cars were for the most part temperamental and broke more often than not does not make them harder to drive. It makes them WORSE cars. It's not even an often studied phenomenon any longer, things you saw younger are always what you want things to be even if they are demonstrably worse.

[Peter Mallett]

Actually that is definitely not my point.

Yes the cars are harder to drive this year due to the changes. But, they aren't difficult to drive. There is a difference. And if an inexperienced driver, or a number of them, with zero miles in a particular chassis can get within a few hundredths or even a tenth of the regular driver, with only a half day of testing, then yes, there is something fundamentally wrong with the entire formula.

It's not about crashing or wanting one driver to be far ahead of the others at all.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Yes the cars are harder to drive this year due to the changes. But, they aren't difficult to drive. There is a difference. And if an inexperienced driver, or a number of them, with zero miles in a particular chassis can get within a few hundredths or even a tenth of the regular driver, with only a half day of testing, then yes, there is something fundamentally wrong with the entire formula.

Completely disagree. If it's all about making the car difficult to drive, then just make them rear wheel steering and be done with it. A racing car should never be fundamentally difficult to drive - if it is then the engineers did a very bad job, because that car is just going to crash. The hard bit in a racing car is getting the last little bit.

They may not get the miles in the chassis, but they'll have done more laps in a simulator than the race driver gets in the car. Whilst these are not perfect, they are far from Playstations. It's a bit silly to use testing as evidence for anything at all - ask Prost how that went for him.

We demand higher standards than ever in F1, we have more complicated cars than ever, we have less testing than ever, and we cycle through drivers at a record rate. And then we sit and say it's too easy based on some testing times? Seems a bit insane to me.

Palmer is another example of that. He's probably going to be dropped soon. Drivers previously got more testing over the winter than he's had driving in 18 months, but because he's not hitting marks now, he's out. F1 cycles through some very capable drivers at a depressing rate nowadays.

[Peter Mallett]

We agree to disagree.

[ASCII Man]

Let em drive stick, see what happens.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

We agree to disagree.

I'm with you, Peter, however easier to drive is a relative matter.

This is why it is impossible to truly compare drivers from different eras, because each generation of car tends to be different and they require different skill sets to be able to drive them quickly.

Although a slight exaggeration, today's drivers need to have dextrous digits to manipulate numerous buttons, whilst drivers of old had to be able to drive a car on it's limits on tyres that had very little adhesion with relatively primitive, certainly compared to today's, suspension. They also required the skills to judge when best to manually change gear and how to balance brakes and throttles that were controlled by human input rather than being computer aided.

And so on and so forth.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Let em drive stick, see what happens.

Give it a few laps they'd be fine.

Remember we've been through this before. Niki Lauda said a monkey could drive a modern car. Clearly a monkey could also be world champion, as Niki spun it a few times when he got to test a Jaguar.

[ASCII Man]

Ofcourse they'd get the hang of it, it just opens up the opportunity for mistakes.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Peter was referring to the handling and car control, not the complications of the various black boxes.

The handling and vices of the cars are benign, which prevents really skilled drivers exploiting faster times available to really on the edge machinery.

I am not sure how you would know this ?

[Kempi]

Senna or Bellof were faster than the regular drivers in their initial F1 tests immediately. Were early 80s F1 cars also too easy to drive?

Same for MSC when he stepped in for Bertrand in 91.

Superior talent beats inferior talent who has more routine. Quite simple.

[Peter Mallett]

Easy Jeremy, there are many ex drivers saying the same thing. There's not enough difference between a Formula 1 car and any other of the current lesser formulae.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Kempi

Senna or Bellof were faster than the regular drivers in their initial F1 tests immediately. Were early 80s F1 cars also too easy to drive?

Same for MSC when he stepped in for Bertrand in 91.

Superior talent beats inferior talent who has more routine. Quite simple.

But you miss the point. They tested pretty much every week. There were test teams so they could drive current cars regularly before hitting the tack in a race weekend.

That doesn't happen now so how does one explain this? Palmer was also pretty quick in testing when he got the chance. Now he's being possibly sidelined.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But you miss the point. They tested pretty much every week. There were test teams so they could drive current cars regularly before hitting the tack in a race weekend.

That doesn't happen now so how does one explain this? Palmer was also pretty quick in testing when he got the chance. Now he's being possibly sidelined.

I don't understand the point here. Cars are too easy to drive, as shown by Palmer in testing, that's why Palmer is being dropped? If they were so easy to drive, surely he'd be kept because it's easy?

Ex-drivers can claim the cars are harder, but who has actually driven them? Again the one that sticks out for me is Niki Lauda making some insane comments, and then being pretty terrible. Did Schumacher test the Jordan before his race?

The only argument for the cars being too easy to drive seems to be "it's obvious". Well no offense to anyone, but that's weak sauce. What was the gap between F2 and F1 in the 60s? Smaller tyres, smaller ICE, less sophisticated cars? Sounds identical to F2 and F1 now - except now they have the MGUK to deal with too.

[Richard C]

This is all somewhat off topic given the thread title... but I don't even know what "easy to drive" means. Frankly, the the job of the teams is to make them work well on track (and by extension easy to drive). If they are unwieldy monsters then something is wrong somewhere. Regulations have been tweaked to artificially make them harder than they could be. An example is more power and no traction control. Believe me, if traction control was allowed, teams would have it. Given what is technically possible these days, and the overall maturity of race car design, they should be easier to drive than of previous eras. Decades ago, the deficiencies in the cars was much larger, so the impact of the driver was more obviously visible.

Back to the present... Today, talented, but generally inexperienced drivers set quick times in testing. But point made above clearly explain why this doesn't matter. First, while the times are bunched up, clearly the cream still rises to the top. Second, we don't have a bunch of rookies winning races, let alone championships. The difference between legendary and average is just smaller these days (when looking just at the stopwatch). Regardless, skill and experience still counts.

Richard

[chillibowl]

I would think there are a number of rookies/young drivers who show up with a tremendous amount of physical fitness that probably aides them in their early days. Fitness alone though isn't enough to cover up a lack of raw skill but that's another story.

That said, my two cents is also that overall modern fitness levels across the board adds to the impression that the cars are 'easier' to drive. A lot of pro sports benefit (or sufers from it depending on your pov) from this these days imo.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I am not sure how you would know this ?

The FIA allowed the engineers to spend a lot of time engineering the "Schumacher" factor out of F1 by reducing the front end grip of the cars so they become understeer limited and less "prone" to driver input.

The rules now set axle weights to ensure the same basic handling fault.
If a driver enters a corner over the limit, the car will basically just plough off speed and the driver can collect it up again and try to get it right. This is how the cars are dumbed down. If everything is on the limit it all tends to let go at the same time and tear up the scenery, no recovery.

When did we last see a big lose with a car on its own? Slight wobble and then business as usual.

Currently they are basically nursing the front of the car around the corner, and conserving fuel and tyres, hence your race lap times are about 5 seconds or more off the pole time, essentially just touring around within the prescribed parameters.

As far as the simulators being advanced play station, I would love to see the driver who learned the old Nurburgring on a simulator post a top time, the modern tracks have had all the bumps, camber changes and surface changes taken out of them, "dumbed down" so that there are less variables to put into the simulator!

The changes are quite obvious really!

Also the old chestnut about not dying or getting seriously injured anytime you screw up also holds true! Thankfully!


P.S. I do agree driving one of these cars to the possibilities of its performance with limited testing and only "PlayStation" time must be very challenging and difficult. I have no idea what it must feel like trusting a simulator limit on a track is like when you haven't felt what the actual car does on a particular circuit/corner.

[S griffin]

What was it Mario said? 'If you can drive, you can drive period' One thing I'd to see back though is manual gearboxes

[BSchneiderFan]

Manual gearboxes are dying out in road cars. To bring them back in F1 would be absurdly Luddite and make it like NASCAR.

[Peter Mallett]

Agreed although I'd still like to see it. My point is ( I may continue flogging this dead horse) that there is just not enough difference between the various formulae thus a rookie can be on the pace immediately. And that IMHO is plain wrong.