Formula 1 stuff

Thanks Ian, I hope you enjoy your stay here.

Way off topic here : I am not that much into the F1 scene, but from a distance the new rules this year have certainly made for some more interesting races and have opened up the drivers championship nicely. What is the view of the rule changes from within the F1 community. Are they deemed to be a success?

Robbo

 

Ian - congrats on 5th place in the constructors championship and 4th and 6th places in today's race!

Looks like the new boy Sato done good aswell

Don't know what your view on the whole Villeneuve saga is (and I don't expect you to reveal them!) but IMO you're better off without him

Michael.

 

Michael,

They'd have managed it alot sooner if they didn't break down with the predicability of Marco's posts

 

Hi Robbo,

"Way off topic here : I am not that much into the F1 scene, but from a distance the new rules this year have certainly made for some more interesting races and have opened up the drivers championship nicely. What is the view of the rule changes from within the F1 community. Are they deemed to be a success?"

The rule changes helped cars that run on Bridgestone tyres! And made the races more interesting although I think we have Michelin and teams on Michelin tyres to thank for that as well.

Seeing as they are to be changed for next year I don't think they have been seen by the authorities as successfull enough though.


Hi Michael,

"congrats on 5th place in the constructors championship and 4th and 6th places in today's race!"

Thanks. It was a very tough year to get us there. Now we need to focus on moving up the gridfor next year!


Hi Robbo,

"They'd have managed it alot sooner if they didn't break down with the predicability of Marco's posts"

58% reliability is not acceptable. We know this and are working to improve it dramatically for next year. That along with another big step in perfromance should put us close to the top 3 teams. However, the targets are always moving forwards as well so until the season starts it is very difficult to predict!

Ian

 

Here you must be referring to the recent rule "re-interpretation" due to Michelin's, shall we say "optimistic" view of the rules governing tyre tread width That certainly did help the Bridgestone teams allthough I would argue that up to that point the Michelin teams had had a form of unfair advantage.

I think Robbo was referring to the new rules in general (points system, qualifying, parc ferme etc) which I can't see particularly advantaged any tyre company. If anything it helped the Michelin teams because Michelin had a top team (Renault) involved in the Friday pre-race testing.

On the whole I think the new rules worked well allthough there are two elements I don't like:
- qualifying on Saturday with race fuel
- the new points system.

The new points system (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) massively reduced the bonus for winning (it used to be 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1) and that enabled Kimi Raikonnen who only won a single race to challenge Schumacher, who won six, for the championship until the final race by benefit of having had many 2nd place finishes.

I guess you could say the new points system made it more exciting by dragging out the championship but there are previous years where the new points system would have wrapped up the championship earlier (1997 for example) so it's not so clear cut.

Michael.

 

Hi Michael,

"I think Robbo was referring to the new rules in general (points system, qualifying, parc ferme etc) which I can't see particularly advantaged any tyre company. If anything it helped the Michelin teams because Michelin had a top team (Renault) involved in the Friday pre-race testing."

I was also in talking in general. I agree the re-interpretation helped the BS teams but the rules overall ahd a far more important effect. This was becuase it pushed more teams into a predictable (and generally 2 stop) strategy (there are many reasons for this but the following is important for this discussion). Given the Mi tyres generally don't wear out over a race distance this was great news for BS tyres who did. To put into a race context the old system would have allowed Williams to qualify first and then run with a ton of fuel on board, nobody overtake them and then Fearrai have to pit more often than them for new tyres. So without having the fastest car or race pace they would have won the race.

Ian

 

Interesting observation Ian and not one that's been made before on the Atlas F1 forum. I hadn't thought of it that way.

The "more predictable" strategies, IMO, handicapped Ferrari to some extent (despite being a Bridgestone team) because strategy is something they (Ross Brawn in particular) were always very good at and this year strategy options were pretty limited meaning they didn't have the chance to use creative strategies to any significant advantage like they have in the past.

Michael.

 

Right, I know nothing about F1. But am I right in thinking that you MUST take a certain number of stops? Are tyre changes a MUST? Sounds a bit daft to me.

 

There is no rule that requires you to make a pit stop. However, ever since the rules have allowed stops for refuelling, none of the fuel tanks are big enough for a car to last the distance.

If you're allowed to stop, it makes sense to do so. You'll be faster overall. There's also no requirement to change tyres but there are rules governing how worn the tyres can be at the end of the race and in any case, really worn tyres are very slippery and slow.

Basically, if you're allowed to, it's much faster to change fuel and tyres during the race at least once. The benefits of running a lighter car (less fuel) and softer tyres (that wear out faster) far outweigh the penalty of having to come in and stop.

Michael.

 

An interesting reversal. The first World Champions were Dr. Giuseppe Farina and Juan Manuel Fangio in 1950 and 1951 in Alfa Romeos. The Alfas were fast, but notoriously thirsty, and they had to stop for refuelling. The coup from Ferrari was a car that could run the whole race distance without stopping. This helped give Alberto Ascari the championship in 1952 and 1953.

Refuelling was brought back by Brabham in the 1980s, helping Nelson Piquet to a World Championship, if I remember correctly. The whole business is now so scientific/technological that I imagine that in-race refuelling is here to stay, unless rule changes dictate otherwise.

 

Refuelling was banned in F1 from 1984 until it was re-introduced in 1994. Pit stops for tyres were always allowed though but there was (and still is) a limit on the total number of tyre sets you can use in a weekend.

Refuelling was re-introduced in '94 mainly in an attempt to "spice up the show". They nearly got more than they bargained for when Jos Verstappen's Benneton was engulfed in a huge ball of flames during a pit stop at Hockenheim due to a fuel spillage. Fortunately no one was seriously hurt.

Fuel-efficiency still has great benefits even with stops, especially with the new (this year) regulations that require you to qualify on Saturday with your race fuel load. If you're more efficient you can afford to have less fuel on board to start with and therefore a lighter (and faster) car for qualifying to give you a better start position without sacrificing anything in strategy by having to refuel before the competition. Alternatively, it allows you to have the same starting fuel on board as the competition with which you can run a longer first stint and make your first stop later so there's a few laps when you're running ultra-light and your newly refuelled opposition is running heavy where you can make hay. When you then refuel, chances are you'll come out ahead

Michael.

 

I think the whole trouble with F1 is that it has become too technological, where "technological" = "expensive", and therefore the preserve of only a few very wealthy teams. Ferrari, Williams and McLaren have facilities and expertise that the others can only dream about. It ensures that, whatever regulations are applied, the top teams will come out on top. The FIA's attempt to stop Michael Schumacher winning another championship at least reduced his winning margin, but didn't stop him winning and didn't help the little teams at all - it was still The Big Three.

F1 could be regulated as tightly as US racing, which seems to generate close racing and perpetually different winners, but then one raison d'être of F1 has been that it represents the highest technological peak, and is therefore (relatively) free from rules and regulations of the "if you can't beat it, ban it" type favoured at Indianapolis. How one solves this conundrum I don't know.

 

Hi Michael,

"Interesting observation Ian and not one that's been made before on the Atlas F1 forum. I hadn't thought of it that way"

This one of the areas that I in charge of. Obviously I can't be too specific as we do this to gain competitive advantage but a general view like that wouldn't be a surprise to most teams. I don't read any of the F1 forums as I don't like to read things where they are adamant that they are right when they have understood very little!

"The "more predictable" strategies, IMO, handicapped Ferrari to some extent (despite being a Bridgestone team) because strategy is something they (Ross Brawn in particular) were always very good at and this year strategy options were pretty limited meaning they didn't have the chance to use creative strategies to any significant advantage like they have in the past."

There is some truth in what you have said. However, the Ferrari strategy brilliance is a complete con. We have investigated all the occasions where seemingly Ross Brawn has pulled it out fo the hat. In each case it is down to MSC doing what is required. He drives in and out laps faster than anyone else. He can put in fast 2nd stints (this is where he generally gains over all other drivers!). He is brilliant in greasy conditions and he was in the best car this year, although not on the best tyres.

If you want to see clever strategy then try looking at RAI in the first race. How did McLaren know to pull RAI in and fuel him so that he won the race from last?

Why did they switch COU from a 2 stop to a 3 stop at Suzuka? Most likely answer: so that instead of swapping RAI and COU publicly on the track they did it by changing strategy so that the faster driver (COU) ended up behind the slower driver (RAI) who was challenging for the championship.

Why were McLaren and BAR running 2 stop strategies at Suzuka and most others weren't? Which strategy was most successful (2 stop vs 3 stop) in terms of gaining places from race start to race finish?

Ian

 

Interesting stuff.

I have a little theory of my own regrding the last race, which is probably not that revelatory, but i haven't seen commented on anywhere. I reckon Barichello let Montoya through on the first lap in order to let him get away and secure first place, thus preventing Raikkenen, giving Ferrari a further thing to fall back on, in case Schumacher got into more difficulties in securing a point. Maybe thats just another conspiracy theory i've made up though?

Couldn't agree more with that, and thought as much at the time.

My enthusiasm for F1 has never diminished, regardless of any changes in the sport over the years. However it is so difficult to try and seperate the driving abilities of the drivers now, when the technology has totally saturated the sport. I personally do a rain dance before every race, as this undeniably seperates the men from the boys. The Bridgestones are certainly better suited to such conditions, but regardless of this fact i think Schumacher would still trounce the others under such conditions, without this advantage.

Do you have group hugs in your team Ian, when the points role in, ala Jean Tote and Schumacher at Ferrari .

 

I thought that in cases where one driver in the team was chasing the title and the other had no mathematical chance of winning it, it was OK to show favouritism. Having said that McLaren's efforts were more PC.

 

Nope - as of this year team orders are banned under any circumstances even if it means it cost you the title.

Clearly though, playing about with strategies like McLaren did in Suzuka or having one driver have a "problem" in the pitstop that delays them is always an option and no-one will be able to prove that it was deliberate.

It would seem that 2 stops was certainly better in this case

You say (Ian) that strategy is the area you work in? That's one of the areas I always thought I'd like to have worked in if I'd ever got a job with an F1 team. I've done a bit with genetic algorithms and always assumed that F1 strategy would be one area where such a "learning" system could be well applied.

About Ross Brawn's amazing strategy coups, I don't think anyone ever claimed they would have been possible without a driver like MSC. However some famous wins (eg Hungary '98) were a combination of MSC's brilliance and Ross Brawn's strategy. Having a driver like MSC just gives you even more creative strategy options.

Michael.

Michael.

 

Hi Michael,

"You say (Ian) that strategy is the area you work in? That's one of the areas I always thought I'd like to have worked in if I'd ever got a job with an F1 team. I've done a bit with genetic algorithms and always assumed that F1 strategy would be one area where such a "learning" system could be well applied."

I am in charge of the strategy group and some other areas. Therefore I know how it all works (and in fact often specify the requirements and the technical spec to meet the requirements) but don't have the real in depth knowledge that one of my team actually doing the project does. We thought about using genetic algorithms and may go back to actually trying them but we went for a different approach that works extremely well.

"About Ross Brawn's amazing strategy coups, I don't think anyone ever claimed they would have been possible without a driver like MSC. However some famous wins (eg Hungary '98) were a combination of MSC's brilliance and Ross Brawn's strategy. Having a driver like MSC just gives you even more creative strategy options."

There was nothing clever about that strategy. All the teams were aware then of that strategy. The real issue is as we both agree on that you need a driver like MSC to do it. Or you cheat which many people have realised you can do to achieve exactly the same end result (and realised that in 98!). The RAI strategy I mentioned is far more impressive than any Ferrari strategy attempted! However, the press has chosen to promote Ross brawn as the strategy genius. He isn't!

Ian

 

Cheat? At strategy? Or are you referring to teams using TC when it was banned?

I will have to go back and revisit the lap charts (fortunately all available on www.forix.com) for the races you mentioned to see if I can see what you see about the clever (or not) strategies used :MILD:

Michael.

 

Hi Michael,

"Cheat? At strategy? Or are you referring to teams using TC when it was banned"

Purely on strategy, nothing to do with TC etc.

All to do with fuel loads.

Ian

 

Cheating with fuel loads...it's been speculated about but I didn't know anyone was definitely doing it.

Something like having a car that becomes underweight when the fuel load is low so it can be substantially quicker during critical parts of the race. Then, to make sure it's a legal weight at the end when all cars are checked have far more fuel than is necessary onboard for the last stint of the race. By that point it won't matter because you're in front and no one can pass you In any case, if the other's aren't cheating you'll only be the correct legal weight just like everyone else so it's not a significant penalty.

Effectively using fuel as a variable ballast during the race.

Short of draining the fuel from each car at the end of the race I don't see how that kind of thing can be policed.

Michael.