/f1/ - Formula One

First off, welcome to the board!

F1 was deeply underwhelming this year. I want to like WEC, I really do, but I'm not convinced that it's as engaging. Not that F1 is doing all that much better.

There is more technical freedom (but I would wager not enough and that the rules are politically motivated). I fail to understand the obsession with forcing hybrid power units when they are not the most efficient way to go fast. I know that LMP-L does not require hybrid units, and that Rebellion almost competed with the factory teams.

For me it's hard to get into WEC because the drivers are less visible personalities (I know Andre Lotterer, and Nicholas Prost, Alan McNish, and Tom Kristiansen), and because I can't really get behind any of the teams. I tried to watch the 24 hours of LeMans this year, but it was like Volkswagen Group: the race. I know that Audi is probably on the way out in favor of Porsche, and I was rooting for Toyota, but it doesn't hold the same appeal to me. Production based super cars (a la lister storm, jaguar xjr15, mclaren f1, lotus esprit) cars no longer contend for the overall win, there aren't enough top tier teams for me to root for, and I cant get into watching the other classes because watching a bunch of miscellaneous gentleman drivers in non works Porsches gets old.

I don't know all that much about WEC (and I heard that Emerson Fittipaldi is having a one-off race for AF Corse).

Don't see this as me being cynical, I am just interested in you explaining it to me/proving me wrong.

>>455
>I fail to understand the obsession with forcing hybrid power units when they are not the most efficient way to go fast
While I do think that hybrid units shouldn't be forced, I disagree on them not being the most efficient way to go fast when it's free power that you can use more or less however you want. What I think is significantly more forced would be things like mandating direct fuel injection, engine layout, attempting to "fix" the shape of the noses (Twice now! Can you believe it?) because the governing body is incapable of writing regulations correctly and needs to stroke its penis to feel worthwhile, cutting back on certain radio messages (I was looking forward to someone using rally pacenotes just to be cheeky), standing restarts and double points as anything other than a joke, etc., and as it has turned out with the WEC's fuel-based rules the Volkswagen turbodiesel V6 and turbo V4 have lost out to a large displacement V8 built by a manufacturer who doesn't give a shit about anything other than doing well on track.

I think LMP1 right now has a very good balance between aerodynamic and engine development, and is where F1 needs to be if they want their green bullshit without driving away literally everybody. Also, they have testing. That, and as someone who didn't bother watching the last five races of 2013 because I absolutely despise Vettel and his "WOOHOO YES BOYS RINGADINGDINGDING" routine, less visible personalities isn't that bad of a thing.

GT racing is mostly a giant mess of rule waivers and balance of performance that I think everybody only just tolerates now. Large GT3 events (Bathurst 12 Hours, Nurburgring 24, etc.) are great, though they aren't WEC.

On a slight tangent, I think the best cars in motorsports are the ones that are worth watching for the sake of watching and that don't need an exciting race to be worth paying attention to. I think F1 still sort of has this, but I do very much enjoy seeing a prototype make its way through traffic.

>>462
Also, this post isn't meant to bash F1 (although I think I did pretty well for myself there) as much as it's meant to point out that LMP1 is one of the purest forms of motorsport with open regulations left standing. If you look at what regulations and events national governing bodies like the ACO (Le Mans, LMP1 before the WEC) and the ADAC (Nurburgring 24) can come up with on versus the FIAs mishandling of F1 and the various single seat junior ladder formulas, it makes me think that the FIA and the teams (and not Bernie as usually believed) are complicit in pushing through dumb decisions that only serve to set the sport back and that the majority of current issues facing the sport are ones of thoughtless over-regulation (you wouldn't need fifty tiny winglets on a front wing if you could just put them wherever you need them on the sidepod, fucking idiots) and eagerness to change things either for changes sake or because someone complained loudly enough.

I'd like to think that if you aren't willing to make a set of regulations and then leave them completely unchanged for five or ten years then you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near regulations in the first place, but maybe that's just me. Not to mention the fact that most peoples' "year-old customer car" masturbation fantasies elsewhere on the internet rely on the FIA not constantly shoving the regulations up their ass and then shitting out something slightly different each and every year.

>>462
I'm of the opinion that nothing but displacement, boost allowed, and fuel injection to the turbo charger (Ferrari did this in the 80s) should be regulated about the engines. I am equally up in arms over the direct injection, layout, and nose bullshit.

The FIA needs to get out of the habit of even making aero rules. The dick noses sucked (heh) and were unsafe, the fucking obsession with banning everything as a "movable aerodynamic device" in season infuriates me. The mass damper and the fric systems were neither electronically controlled, nor ever exposed to the air.

Agreed radio message moratorium is exactly as retarded as the proposals to mandate a certain number of buttons on the steering wheel.

I don't believe in performance equalization rules except between formulas (I.e. If turbocharged cars are clearly running away with it, a boost pressure limit should be imposed such that it is not unfair for naturally aspirated cars).

Agreed that the aero obsession would never have happened if they opened up the engines and aero was not so heavily regulated.

I actually don't have a problem with customer cars in f1 either, provided that they are provided by a march, Reynard, swift, or Lola, rather then sold by a larger team. Teams just starting out have long used customer chassis as a starting point for their own designs.

so yeah, we agree on a lot.

>>462
Hybrids add weight, reduce reliability, add trivial horsepower, complicate braking systems and the regenerative components hurt braking consistency, have immense cooling concerns, and have a very short operating life. Additionally their direct efficiency gains (i.e. not including weight and other compromises) are markedly different for each track. We can agree to disagree, and as long as you aren't interested in seeing it mandated, i'm fine
>>463
We need a new constructors association, and an arbitration committee to go in and throw out rules.

>>466
road relevance, now that's a phrase that makes me cringe. Its like people think race on sunday, sell on monday will magically comeback when cars that have dire reliability, sound like vacuum cleaners, and produce tuned hatchback power are the norm in motor racing.

racing that has limited restrictions on development will always be road relevant for as long as vehicle dynamics and the internal combustion engine are relevant.

does wec have different tire suppliers that have different approaches to their compounds?

>>467
Tires in the WEC are open but many teams run Michelin because they have god-tier support and they're the best at what they do. If I'm not mistaken they go so far as to work with each works LMP1 team separately and produce tires specific to their requirements.

As for compounds, there's no way of telling between them and for the most part there's nothing out of the ordinary other than a slick compound specifically for use on a damp track.

>>1090
looks like the front engine rumors are true based on those proportions