F1 = Watersport

[mstillhere]

I know some of you get excited to watch F1 in the rain. I kind of agree with you....however I think now it is enough. Historically we never had so many grands prix in the rain and as exciting as it is F1 cars were not designed with the rain in mind. I know that McLaren's fans would rather see f1 in the rain since it helps their team but, as we saw today that's not always the case and I can't get enough of Kovi's performance. He's starting second and he drives normally without any particular aggressiveness. On the other hand, his team mate - 15th!!! - seems driving a totally different car and not only in Monza but everywhere. (Are they really driving the exact same car? Hard to believe) But if I am not mistaking we are going to have more races in the rain. China, Japan and Brazil often have had rain in past on Grand Prix day. So if Lewis were to win the championship just because of the unusual amount of rainy GPs, how would you rate his victory?

1. It makes no difference

2. Yeah he deserved to win but the rain sure helped him and McLaren a lot

3. Totally unfair. F1 is for fast cars not for powerboats


My pick? 2 of course : )

[Rollo]

Rain is the great equaliser because it to a very large degree negates the various capabilities of the cars.

Because the speeds are lower, the comparitive advantage to be gained from a better aero kit is diminished because the ability for the wings and things to work properly diminishes with lower speeds.

Because the track surface provides nowhere near the level of grip, the power can not be transmitted to the ground as effectively; this has at least two major effects. Firstly just having a vast amount of installed power is not going to help if you can't get it to the road and secondly it places a greater reliance on driver's skill to put whatever you have left to the road without spearing off into the scenery.

If you were to look at the drivers who gained a reputation of being exceptional in the rain you'd find Clark, Stewart, Senna and Schumacher who together gained 15 World Championships and if you look at this thread, collectively they hold four of the five top spots of who the forums think are the greatest drivers of all time (the other being Fangio).
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128684&page=3

I think you've have a fundamental flaw in your thinking if you think that the car in the rain does it for the drivers. If anything it shows up who has the most skill and talent, admittedly in some rare circumstances it does provide a bit of luck.

[mstillhere]

Rain is the great equaliser because it to a very large degree negates the various capabilities of the cars.

Because the speeds are lower, the comparitive advantage to be gained from a better aero kit is diminished because the ability for the wings and things to work properly diminishes with lower speeds.

Because the track surface provides nowhere near the level of grip, the power can not be transmitted to the ground as effectively; this has at least two major effects. Firstly just having a vast amount of installed power is not going to help if you can't get it to the road and secondly it places a greater reliance on driver's skill to put whatever you have left to the road without spearing off into the scenery.

If you were to look at the drivers who gained a reputation of being exceptional in the rain you'd find Clark, Stewart, Senna and Schumacher who together gained 15 World Championships and if you look at this thread, collectively they hold four of the five top spots of who the forums think are the greatest drivers of all time (the other being Fangio).
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128684&page=3

I think you've have a fundamental flaw in your thinking if you think that the car in the rain does it for the drivers. If anything it shows up who has the most skill and talent, admittedly in some rare circumstances it does provide a bit of luck.

I liked reading your point but.....we need to keep in mind that these cars were designed to race and to race on a dry tracks that are supposed to be very hot in the Summer. The rain is an equalizer obviously but this year I think we have had more that we should have. And I am saying that as Ferrari supporter but also as F1 fan. After all I like this sport for the fast cars not to see them keep a precarious balance in the rain while racing. Actually, I don't think anybody thinks of rain when they are thinking of racing. I don't.

[Rollo]

Do you not hold a race merely because of the rain? In extreme circumstances maybe, but bear in mind it's just not that easy to change the calendar. Simply moving the F1 circus from country to country requires the logistics of a small army.

Then there is the relatively minor aspect that some people plan holidays and even travel around the world to see a Grand Prix; I for one would be majorly annoyed if I paid hundreds/thousands of Dollarpounds and travelled megafurlongs only to be told that the race had been called off due to rain.

The teams get what they're given and so do the spectators. More rain than we should have? Well we could manipulate the weather to some degree like they did for the Beijing Olympics, but the results are an increase in smog.

[mstillhere]

Do you not hold a race merely because of the rain? In extreme circumstances maybe, but bear in mind it's just not that easy to change the calendar. Simply moving the F1 circus from country to country requires the logistics of a small army.

Then there is the relatively minor aspect that some people plan holidays and even travel around the world to see a Grand Prix; I for one would be majorly annoyed if I paid hundreds/thousands of Dollarpounds and travelled megafurlongs only to be told that the race had been called off due to rain.

The teams get what they're given and so do the spectators. More rain than we should have? Well we could manipulate the weather to some degree like they did for the Beijing Olympics, but the results are an increase in smog.

Hi,
I am not saying not to hold a race because of rain. What I am trying to say is that despite the fact that these cars were designed to go as fast as the wind this year due to a lot of wet grand prix these cars have not been used to their full potential. We have seen very exciting duels where the drivers strugle to keep their cars on the track and away from the walls but....that's not F1, IMO. F1 is about speed in any shape and form. What I am saying is: is the rain factor going to play too much of an effect on this year's world champion. Is LH going to be a world champion ONLY because McLaren have an advantage on the wet asphalt?

[Jag_Warrior]

I've always loved watching F1 races in the rain. I love watching ALL types of racing in the rain (except for ovals, of course). IMO, if a car or driver cannot compete in the wet, that car or driver is not complete and is lacking.

[Rollo]

The point is that the cars DON'T have an advantage on wet asphalt. F1 cars are designed to race and to race on dry tracks that are supposed to be very hot in the Summer, a wet track with slower speeds take them outside of what they've been designed to do.

If anyone wins the championship because he did so on wet tracks and because of the car, then the argument still stands that the driver car combination was better a majority of the time. And considering that all 20 cars have had to face the same sets of conditions at all tracks, then it still follows that whoever is going win the championship did so because they were better for a majority of the time.

[Kevincal]

The thing I hate about rain races is the leader has such a huge advantage to the rest of the field because he doesn't have to deal with the spray... Basically he can see perfectly and everyone else can barely see anything...

[ShiftingGears]

Interchangable conditions (acceptable within reason) have always been a part of grand prix racing.

[mstillhere]

Interchangable conditions (acceptable within reason) have always been a part of grand prix racing.

I would agree with interchangeable. But here is amost every race in the wet. And I am not afraid that it is over, as I stated before.

[mstillhere]

The point is that the cars DON'T have an advantage on wet asphalt. F1 cars are designed to race and to race on dry tracks that are supposed to be very hot in the Summer, a wet track with slower speeds take them outside of what they've been designed to do.

If anyone wins the championship because he did so on wet tracks and because of the car, then the argument still stands that the driver car combination was better a majority of the time. And considering that all 20 cars have had to face the same sets of conditions at all tracks, then it still follows that whoever is going win the championship did so because they were better for a majority of the time.

That's pretty much what I am saying as well. One thing I'd like to add is that this season for some reason LH, and strangely enough not Kovi, seems having something more when he is driving in the wet that nobody else has. I don't know if it's skill, strategy, luck, mistakes of the other teams/drivers or a combination of all the above. The rain this year is giving McLaren a big advantage. I think you said before that rain is an equalizer. I would agree with it however it seems that when it rains LH does not seem to equal to any other driver/team. So, it seems that so much rain is becoming a major player with a growing importance and concern amoung the different pilots and teams.

[Tonieke]

That's pretty much what I am saying as well. One thing I'd like to add is that this season for some reason LH, and strangely enough not Kovi, seems having something more when he is driving in the wet that nobody else has. I don't know if it's skill, strategy, luck, mistakes of the other teams/drivers or a combination of all the above. The rain this year is giving McLaren a big advantage. I think you said before that rain is an equalizer. I would agree with it however it seems that when it rains LH does not seem to equal to any other driver/team. So, it seems that so much rain is becoming a major player with a growing importance and concern amoung the different pilots and teams.

conditions are the same for everyone at the start of a race...the only advantage (you are refering 2) can be gained by either the driver (skills) and team for having a better wet race set up...so it is up to the others to improve....and nothing holds them to do so (if they keep it within the rules that is of course ;)

[tinchote]

Rain is the great equaliser because it to a very large degree negates the various capabilities of the cars.

Because the speeds are lower, the comparitive advantage to be gained from a better aero kit is diminished because the ability for the wings and things to work properly diminishes with lower speeds.

Because the track surface provides nowhere near the level of grip, the power can not be transmitted to the ground as effectively; this has at least two major effects. Firstly just having a vast amount of installed power is not going to help if you can't get it to the road and secondly it places a greater reliance on driver's skill to put whatever you have left to the road without spearing off into the scenery.

If you were to look at the drivers who gained a reputation of being exceptional in the rain you'd find Clark, Stewart, Senna and Schumacher who together gained 15 World Championships and if you look at this thread, collectively they hold four of the five top spots of who the forums think are the greatest drivers of all time (the other being Fangio).
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128684&page=3

I think you've have a fundamental flaw in your thinking if you think that the car in the rain does it for the drivers. If anything it shows up who has the most skill and talent, admittedly in some rare circumstances it does provide a bit of luck.

When I read your post I see nothing wrong with it, I basically agree. But then you have things like LH on Saturday, when he couldn't drive within two seconds of HK, and then on Sunday he is fastest. You won't convince me that LH forgot how to drive on Saturday, and so my conclusion is that the setup is playing a big part in the driver's speed in the rain. And even more than that, you see drivers being faster or slower compared to others when the rain increases or diminishes, again another sign that it is still a lot about the car in the rain: different variables to be adjusted probably, but still a lot about the car.

[MrJan]

Anyone who can drive quickly in the rain is a true champion in my opinion. Scuhmacher was magic in the wet, Senna too and now Hamilton. It shows genuine car control. Alonso too is a decent peddler in the wet.

I think that it is ridiculous that an apparent MS fan would want to get rid of rain soaked GPs......oh wait, a Ferrari fan, now it all makes sense what with Kimi and Massa being like boys amongst men in the wet.

If you want racing in the dry then watch American stuff, F1 is a proper sport without this namby pamby bull**** about 'oooh we don't want to get wet'.

[Azumanga Davo]

I'm sure Vittorio Brambilla would argue against no wet racing too (God bless him ;) ).

[Dave B]

So if Lewis were to win the championship just because of the unusual amount of rainy GPs, how would you rate his victory?
To suggest that Lewis would owe his championship to the weather conditions is ridiculous. Part of a Grand Prix driver's armoury is being able to cope with whatever the elements throw at you; be it in terms of car setup, tyre choice or pure driving skill.

[F1boat]

So if Lewis were to win the championship just because of the unusual amount of rainy GPs, how would you rate his victory?



2. Yeah he deserved to win but the rain sure helped him and McLaren a lot

[Dave B]

PS: Don't put "watersport videos" into Google. :eek:

[cosmicpanda]

I liked reading your point but.....we need to keep in mind that these cars were designed to race and to race on a dry tracks that are supposed to be very hot in the Summer. The rain is an equalizer obviously but this year I think we have had more that we should have.

Blame the person in charge of the weather.

[Jag_Warrior]

Where does this odd notion come from that Formula One cars are not designed to race in the rain???

Are the ride heights, wings and suspensions not adjustable? Does Bridgestone not offer two wet weather tire choices? Do the drivers not have the option to run heated visors? Are the electronic connections not mil spec and protected from water shorts?

This is the FIRST time I've ever seen a thread on an F1 board which complained about the weather offering one driver or team some sort of (unfair???) advantage. Talk about reaching...

[Rollo]

The rain this year is giving McLaren a big advantage. I think you said before that rain is an equalizer.

I'll re-iterate this:

Rain is the great equaliser because it to a very large degree negates the various capabilities of the cars.
I still hold this. In the rain it is the driver who has a bigger proportion of determining where the car finishes.

Senna in Monaco in 1984 - you can't honestly tell me that that Toleman was a world beater. It was Ayrton himself that drove the wheels of that car, not the Toleman being brilliant in the wet.
Likewise Senna's drive at Donington in 1993 was brilliant and again because of Senna being brilliant, not the McLaren which by all accounts if not for Senna was a dog turd on a stick.

Schumacher's drive in the European Grand Prix of 2000 had nothing to do with the Ferrari he was driving, at one stage he was 50 seconds ahead of Hakkinen who looked distant and out of his depth. The only reason why the margin at the end was only 13 seconds was because he dawdled across the line and drive near the pit wall for the team - the offcial race result belies the fact that Schumacher in the rain was pure magic (the Ferrari was irrelevant).


I would agree with it however it seems that when it rains LH does not seem to equal to any other driver/team. So, it seems that so much rain is becoming a major player with a growing importance and concern amoung the different pilots and teams.

If Lewis isn't equal in the rain it's because of the relative ability of Lewis. Equally Vettel's win had very little to do with the Toro Rosso. Vettel's win although it had a little luck showed up the fact that Sebastian Vettel is hiding a storehouse of talent and if anything, the Toro Rosso is holding him back.

[mstillhere]

Where does this odd notion come from that Formula One cars are not designed to race in the rain???

Are the ride heights, wings and suspensions not adjustable? Does Bridgestone not offer two wet weather tire choices? Do the drivers not have the option to run heated visors? Are the electronic connections not mil spec and protected from water shorts?

This is the FIRST time I've ever seen a thread on an F1 board which complained about the weather offering one driver or team some sort of (unfair???) advantage. Talk about reaching...

So, you are buiyng a brand new sports car (Camaro, Mustang, Corvette, FERRARI, Bugatti, whatever) and befere buying it, you think: "Hum,,,I wonder how this car handles in the rain. Can't wait to test it in the rain." What I am trying to say is: Formula 1 cars are NOT designed/engineered to be racing in the rain. I would hope we can agree on that. That's not what they are build for. They could be "adapted" to be racing in the rain, but that's not their main purpose.) Maybe from now on it would be, since Ferrari is suffering so much. And what I also am saying is that too many rainy GP's could crown champion a driver who otherwise would not have won if there would have been less wet GPs.

[ShiftingGears]

So, you are buiyng a brand new sports car (Camaro, Mustang, Corvette, FERRARI, Bugatti, whatever) and befere buying it, you think: "Hum,,,I wonder how this car handles in the rain. Can't wait to test it in the rain." What I am trying to say is: Formula 1 cars are NOT designed/engineered to be racing in the rain.

Formula One cars are designed to be the fastest - some cars have more mechanical grip than others, which contributes to their better performance in the wet.

Interchangable conditions have always been a part of grand prix racing. That means there may be more wet grands prix in some seasons than others - it doesn't matter.



I would hope we can agree on that. That's not what they are build for. They could be "adapted" to be racing in the rain, but that's not their main purpose.) Maybe from now on it would be, since Ferrari is suffering so much.

They are adapted - they can set the car up to a wet setup and put wet tyres on.

Ferrari's problem is that the car is at a disadvantage, moreso than McLaren, in cold and wet conditions.


And what I also am saying is that too many rainy GP's could crown champion a driver who otherwise would not have won if there would have been less wet GPs.

So what?

If a driver/team adapts to the conditions presented to them better than any other driver/team then they deserve to win.

[mstillhere]

Formula One cars are designed to be the fastest - some cars have more mechanical grip than others, which contributes to their better performance in the wet.

Interchangable conditions have always been a part of grand prix racing. That means there may be more wet grands prix in some seasons than others - it doesn't matter.




They are adapted - they can set the car up to a wet setup and put wet tyres on.

Ferrari's problem is that the car is at a disadvantage, moreso than McLaren, in cold and wet conditions.



So what?

If a driver/team adapts to the conditions presented to them better than any other driver/team then they deserve to win.

I dont know. I guess I am too used to see a F1 championship with one or maybe two wet races. Since this year is not exactely th same thing I feel that the winner is not the best driver but the luckyest driver. Because what makes people like these kind of races is that they umpredictable and might not see McLAren always win in the rain. After all, the rainy China GP last year was not an exactely good one for McLaren. I'll bet you next year the fin will disappear and we will see a sail instead placed rigth behind the driver's head. It might add stability in the wet :)

[ioan]

So, you are buiyng a brand new sports car (Camaro, Mustang, Corvette, FERRARI, Bugatti, whatever) and befere buying it, you think: "Hum,,,I wonder how this car handles in the rain. Can't wait to test it in the rain." What I am trying to say is: Formula 1 cars are NOT designed/engineered to be racing in the rain. I would hope we can agree on that. That's not what they are build for. They could be "adapted" to be racing in the rain, but that's not their main purpose.) Maybe from now on it would be, since Ferrari is suffering so much. And what I also am saying is that too many rainy GP's could crown champion a driver who otherwise would not have won if there would have been less wet GPs.

You're right mate! :up:
They design the cars to have the best behavior in dry conditions, simply because every year 80 - 90% of the races are run in dry conditions!

[Jag_Warrior]

You're right mate! :up:
They design the cars to have the best behavior in dry conditions, simply because every year 80 - 90% of the races are run in dry conditions!

Other than boats, all surface based vehicles display the best behavior, in regard to speed and directional changes, in dry conditions... even snowmobiles. How exactly would one design a car which displayed better handling characteristics on a wet track than on a dry track? Simple physics...

Anyway, the performance parameters within which F1, Champ Cars and Le Mans cars are built include the capability to race in wet conditions. Unless God tips off certain teams or drivers, and not others, that it is going to rain during a given number of races in a particular season, I don't quite understand what this thread is even about. Ferrari has more than adequate engineering resources to adapt to the conditions that every other team faces during a race. Kimi is the highest paid driver in F1 and this isn't Felipe's first rodeo. So all I can do is play my violin for them:
http://possumblog.mu.nu/images/tiniest%20violin.jpg

[Jag_Warrior]

So, you are buiyng a brand new sports car (Camaro, Mustang, Corvette, FERRARI, Bugatti, whatever) and befere buying it, you think: "Hum,,,I wonder how this car handles in the rain. Can't wait to test it in the rain."

Whether a daily driver or weekend car, yeah, that would cross my mind.

The only car I wouldn't worry about in the wet is one that I wouldn't drive in the wet: a vintage car. So unless it's a Series II E-type, it better be able to take a mountain road in the rain.

[ShiftingGears]

I bet theres going to be rain in at least one of the four remaining grands prix.

[ioan]

So unless it's a Series II E-type, it better be able to take a mountain road in the rain.

What if it's a 250 LM? Or a 250 MM? :p :

[Jag_Warrior]

What if it's a 250 LM? Or a 250 MM? :p :

Well, if I ever get to the point where I have to choose which to drive, my Series II or an LM or MM... I'll let Ivanka Trump decide before we start our date. :D

[ioan]

Well, if I ever get to the point where I have to choose which to drive, my Series II or an LM or MM... I'll let Ivanka Trump decide before we start our date. :D

Yeah, I think you would need it! ;)