F1 2025 Las Vegas Grand Prix - Race Weekend Thread

[imadodgyumpire]

It makes for shit racing and takes strategy out of the race.

No one who follows F1 thinks a tyre lasting the entire race is a good thing.

The point of F1 is good entertaining racing, with the tyres and the current cars too many times we just get boring shit races.

The point of F1 is to be an outlet for the best to be the best. That means for every facet of the competition. NOt jsut drivers, the tyres, engines, everything.

How it looks to spectators doesn't matter in determining who/what is the best (although it's made out to be important by those running it). For its whole history, there's always been complaining that F1 has boring, shit races. In the rare periods where there wasn't complaining over boring shit races, there was complaining that too many gimmicks influenced the result. Gimmincks like deliberately made shit tyres.

 

[catstorm]

The point of F1 is to be an outlet for the best to be the best. That means for every facet of the competition. NOt jsut drivers, the tyres, engines, everything.

How it looks to spectators doesn't matter in determining who/what is the best (although it's made out to be important by those running it). For its whole history, there's always been complaining that F1 has boring, shit races. In the rare periods where there wasn't complaining over boring shit races, there was complaining that too many gimmicks influenced the result. Gimmincks like deliberately made shit tyres.

So I’ll put it to you directly, you think F1 tyres should last an entire race?

 

[Festerz]

Max gets a sniff of another world title and his Dad gets let's his cat loose amongst the McLaren pigeons...

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Re: Piastri v Norris.

I read last night that the suspension 'non-upgrade' for Norris earlier this year wasn't actually the final upgrade McLaren put into this years car.

In/after Baku, they brought a new floor design to both cars - developed to regain the performance loss for the "Norris" alternative suspension. Back when Norris first took the alternative suspension setup, it was well documented that while the 'Norris' version had more 'feel' it was actually slower as it required a higher overall ride height and diminished peak aero performance for greater stability/control.

It gave Norris greater confidence to 'attack' corners/curbing without unsettling the car as much and he believed was to his overall benefit. The "Piastri" version kept the full aero advantages of the McLaren (able to run lower than anyone else) - but the car was more fragile and difficult to drive - small slips/slides/bumps had greater effect and were harder to regain control - it was still (theoretically) faster. Initially this proved true in practice - Norris able to attack corners and mount curbs Piastri still had to avoid.

The new floor from Baku was developed around the Norris setup, allowing him to run just as low as Piastri - regaining some/all of the lost aero performance from his suspension choice, whilst keeping the drivability. Whilst the floor upgrade also improved Piastri's car, there was was less of a benefit as he was already closer to the maximum (minimum?).

IMO the Norris setup is now faster (and probably has been since Baku). Not particularly noticeable anywhere, but the new floor allowed them to run the car even lower than before.

After Las Vegas, they may need to raise the cars - (though being much smoother tracks may not be such an issue) - which would likely reduce the theoretical gap between the two suspension choices.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

So I’ll put it to you directly, you think F1 tyres should last an entire race?

I'm not a dodgy umpire, but absolutely not. They last for far too long as it is now.

They should never explode, or become dangerous through catastrophic failure - but they need to suffer degradation in performance much more rapidly. They are ALL too close together in performance too. A push for significantly improved performance gains should increase both the peak grip/speed and degradation/reliability.

Hards should be difficult to get 50% race distance and require management - 40% if raced normally. I know it's against regulation, but in terms of endurance H/H should be possible, but difficult.
Mediums should not last 50% at all. 33% being managed, 25% raced normally. M/M/M
Softs should only last 25% being managed, peaks around 17%. S/S/S/S

IMO, an ideal ratio would allow a S/M/H combination to allow 100% attack throughout a race.

Allowing say 25s for a pit stop (more time could also be used to lower pitlane speed or a mandated minimum pit time = less injuries, less risk):

Medium should on average be 25s faster than Hard over race distance to cover an extra pit-stop. Soft should be 50s faster to cover two. Given degradation, that probably needs something like 1-1.5s per lap between the tyre standards.

 

[nikkig98]

The point of F1 is to be an outlet for the best to be the best. That means for every facet of the competition. NOt jsut drivers, the tyres, engines, everything.

How it looks to spectators doesn't matter in determining who/what is the best (although it's made out to be important by those running it). For its whole history, there's always been complaining that F1 has boring, shit races. In the rare periods where there wasn't complaining over boring shit races, there was complaining that too many gimmicks influenced the result. Gimmincks like deliberately made shit tyres.

"That means for every facet of the competition. NOt jsut drivers, the tyres, engines, everything."

This is such an unresearched point you're making.

You know that we had Traction control, launch control, automatic shifting, and other electronic driving aids in the early 90's right? They were banned for a reason. Williams were literally years ahead of the game
Also, V6 hybrids are nowhere near the "best of the best" nor optimal for open wheel racing.

Mercedes came up with DAS (Dual axis steering) which i thought was pretty cool and it was banned straight away, Ferrari had a rocketship for a power unit in 2019 from a fuel injection trick (that was later found illegal).

So the idea that the tyres need to last as "they're the best of the best" is moronic. F1 exists to be a racing spectacle that allows for competitive racing, because if it was about being the best, then Mercedes, Red Bull and the rich teams would have out developed the other teams by such a vast margin we'd never see a single mistake on the track from them. The other teams wouldnt even qualify for the race as they wouldnt reach the "107%" threshold

Tyre degradation allows for competitive racing and also tests the strategy skills of the team

 

[imadodgyumpire]

I'm trying to think how am I going to respond to this know it all ******** without getting in trouble by nuggs. I'm at work now so I'll have a go tomorrow.

Edit: Still preoccupied with work. So tomorrow again.