2022 Formula One Spanish Grand Prix

Colt459 said:

The whole point is the physics have changed when the track remains the same size but the cars are bigger, faster, grippier with aero that makes the car behind slower. You cannot make a move to get around another car when all those physical factors change compared to the past.

And Indycar has push to pass because the same problems exists, without it there would be no passing.

Click to expand...

Indycar races most of times in way tighter tracks than F1. And P2P is used both to attack and defend a position.

pai said:

Indycar races most of times in way tighter tracks than F1. And P2P is used both to attack and defend a position.

Click to expand...

Which is FAR more strategic due to the time limited use of P2P than letting everyone use DRS every lap when they are within 1 second.

Colt459 said:

The whole point is the physics have changed when the track remains the same size but the cars are bigger, faster, grippier with aero that makes the car behind slower. You cannot make a move to get around another car when all those physical factors change compared to the past.

And Indycar has push to pass because the same problems exists, without it there would be no passing.

Click to expand...

davehenrie said:

Which is FAR more strategic due to the time limited use of P2P than letting everyone use DRS every lap when they are within 1 second.

Click to expand...

But you both are missing the point of DRS vs P2P

Problem: the aero of the car in front prevents the car behind from keeping up. It’s an OP defense.

Solution: Give both cars a boost like P2P? No, that doesn’t solve our problem.

Or give the car that is unfairly being held back? Yes

If DRS were so OP the leading driver who was passed would just return the favor on the next lap or two. Funny we never virtually never see that happening.

Colt459 said:

But you both are missing the point of DRS vs P2P

Problem: the aero of the car in front prevents the car behind from keeping up. It’s an OP defense.

Solution: Give both cars a boost like P2P? No, that doesn’t solve our problem.

Or give the car that is unfairly being held back? Yes

If DRS were so OP the leading driver who was passed would just return the favor on the next lap or two. Funny we never virtually never see that happening.

Click to expand...

Catching a car is one thing. Passing that car is another thing. DRS impedes the latter from being a thing. Speaking for myself, I want to see battles where both attacker and defender have chances of going wheel to wheel and coming out on top.

More work needs to be done in the regulations for DRS to not be needed so overtakes happen. It's a band-aid that has overstayed its welcome.

It seems like the point of conflict in our discussion, is the belief that an F1 car by default has irremediable aero wake that disables close racing, and because one set of rules that has tried to solve this has not accomplished its mission fully, then nothing will. Like if it was impossible for the FIA to remove surfaces from the front wing, increase the size of venturis, shorten the overall length, add a legality panel on the rear wing that increases slipstream, and/or remove aids from the steering wheel. All of that can be done without F1 losing its character, quite the contrary.

pai said:

Catching a car is one thing. Passing that car is another thing. DRS impedes the latter from being a thing. Speaking for myself, I want to see battles where both attacker and defender have chances of going wheel to wheel and coming out on top.

More work needs to be done in the regulations for DRS to not be needed so overtakes happen. It's a band-aid that has overstayed its welcome.

It seems like the point of conflict in our discussion, is the belief that an F1 car by default has irremediable aero wake that disables close racing, and because one set of rules that has tried to solve this has not accomplished its mission fully, then nothing will. Like if it was impossible for the FIA to remove surfaces from the front wing, increase the size of venturis, shorten the overall length, add a legality panel on the rear wing that increases slipstream, and/or remove aids from the steering wheel. All of that can be done without F1 losing its character, quite the contrary.

Click to expand...

Curious: what steering wheel aids do you speak of?

Still cracks me up

Anyway, I like LH as a driver, not so much as a personality. - Especially was a fan of his in his early career (no wonder I now mostly prefer MV + I'm from NL of course), but it got a bit stale with the previous regs, especially after NR left - But I can ignore that. Though I understand Sky is British media, it would be nice if the focus in coverage was a little less on the British drivers, in particular LH.

But nice to see him back in form. Hoping for a good battle between him & Russel.

Radio calls are just fun, I just don't take anything anyone says over it too serious. Heat of the moment, trying to coax the stewards or mislead other teams, frustrations, blame games, etc. Good entertainment.

pai said:

Catching a car is one thing. Passing that car is another thing. DRS impedes the latter from being a thing. Speaking for myself, I want to see battles where both attacker and defender have chances of going wheel to wheel and coming out on top.

More work needs to be done in the regulations for DRS to not be needed so overtakes happen. It's a band-aid that has overstayed its welcome.

It seems like the point of conflict in our discussion, is the belief that an F1 car by default has irremediable aero wake that disables close racing, and because one set of rules that has tried to solve this has not accomplished its mission fully, then nothing will. Like if it was impossible for the FIA to remove surfaces from the front wing, increase the size of venturis, shorten the overall length, add a legality panel on the rear wing that increases slipstream, and/or remove aids from the steering wheel. All of that can be done without F1 losing its character, quite the contrary.

Click to expand...

Then why isn’t it done? These new regulations were an attempt to create ideal following and racing. Why didn’t Brawn implement these suggested changes if they are the fix?

Colt459 said:

Then why isn’t it done? These new regulations were an attempt to create ideal following and racing. Why didn’t Brawn implement these suggested changes if they are the fix?

Click to expand...

Because like i mentioned already many times, F1 is a business, and teams are corporations.

Changing those things overnight is going against the teams wishes, and you need to strongarm them a lot to get that. It took them years and years to implement the current cost and wind tunnel cap. It took them DECADES to bring ground effects back.

The teams dont want better racing and unpredictability. They might say they do, but thats a lie. They want all to always go according to plan.

Also, F1 has a pathological fear of copying whatever works on other series.

BP said:

Curious: what steering wheel aids do you speak of?

Click to expand...

All those buttons in the wheel are there for a reason.

Modern F1s have things like dynamic electronic differential and brake bias and pressure maps, and electronic gear slip syncro. These things basically mimic traction control and ABS, hence why its so rare for us to see wheelspin or lockups these days, even on wet conditions.

Richard answered for me before I read latest posts

Richard Wilks said:

Because like i mentioned already many times, F1 is a business, and teams are corporations.

Changing those things overnight is going against the teams wishes, and you need to strongarm them a lot to get that. It took them years and years to implement the current cost and wind tunnel cap. It took them DECADES to bring ground effects back.

The teams dont want better racing and unpredictability. They might say they do, but thats a lie. They want all to always go according to plan.

Also, F1 has a pathological fear of copying whatever works on other series.

Click to expand...

Interesting conspiracy theory. Then why agree to these new regs that changed aero, ground effects, fuel standards, etc.? As we have seen, the results have not been (and were not) predictable.

Colt459 said:

Interesting conspiracy theory. Then why agree to these new regs that changed aero, ground effects, fuel standards, etc.? As we have seen, the results have not been (and were not) predictable.

Click to expand...

Its not a conspiracy theory.

Do you follow F1 at all? All these changes were negotiated with the teams!

The days of Max Mosley basically waking up one morning and deciding things on his own are long gone.

F1 is a big big business, and the teams actually own a piece of it.

Brawn had to strongarm the teams, with the help of Liberty Media, to agree with all this, and still these were all done with the justification that F1 needed all this to become a better product for audiences and engine builders and to help the smaller teams to stay in the sport.

And the changes DID improve a LOT the capabilities of the cars racing each other, even in a perennial hard circuit to pass like in Spain.

And yet, there are rumours all the time that the FIA does want to scale down the cars size, and scale down the complexity, but teams resist that with the argument that they would lose all the investment made so far, and personnel would get redundant, and their wind tunnel investments would go down the drain, etc etc.

Richard Wilks said:

Its not a conspiracy theory.

Do you follow F1 at all? All these changes were negotiated with the teams!

The days of Max Mosley basically waking up one morning and deciding things on his own are long gone.

F1 is a big big business, and the teams actually own a piece of it.

Brawn had to strongarm the teams, with the help of Liberty Media, to agree with all this, and still these were all done with the justification that F1 needed all this to become a better product for audiences and engine builders and to help the smaller teams to stay in the sport.

And the changes DID improve a LOT the capabilities of the cars racing each other, even in a perennial hard circuit to pass like in Spain.

And yet, there are rumours all the time that the FIA does want to scale down the cars size, and scale down the complexity, but teams resist that with the argument that they would lose all the investment made so far, and personnel would get redundant, and their wind tunnel investments would go down the drain, etc etc.

Click to expand...

Yes it’s a conspiracy theory when there is no evidence for your hypothesis (teams dont want close racing because it is too unpredictable), and what we do have (teams agreed to massive reg changes for this year so cars can follow closely) disproves the conspiracy. But i guess you do have those “rumors” to fall back on.

Colt459 said:

Yes it’s a conspiracy theory when there is no evidence for your hypothesis (teams dont want close racing because it is too unpredictable), and what we do have (teams agreed to massive reg changes for this year so cars can follow closely) disproves the conspiracy. But i guess you do have those “rumors” to fall back on.

Click to expand...

I think you must have reading troubles.


The teams dont like random factors or things beyond their control no.

The teams had to agree on a compromise for new regulations, because before 2020, viewership of F1 was in freefall for years, hurting THEIR product, you understand this, right?

They were basically forced to accept that something had to change.

No team likes to lose priviliges, no team likes to lose control. Look how much Mercedes cried and moaned about even simple small rules changes last year, rules that were imposed to try to take away the load on the pirelli tires, that were blowing like crazy in some GPs, but that mercedes spent the year accusing the FIA of attacking them specifically.

Look how hard it was to impose the cost cap. Look how hard it was to impose anything. Its always a negotiation. Even for 2026, we hear all sorts of things the teams want, things newcomers want.

The teams even decide who joins F1 and when, look at Michael Andretti, begging to let him in at this point. Who is opposing him? The teams, that want MONEY, because they will be forced to share the profits with one extra team.

Again, you dont seem to understand how F1 works today.

But let's throw the ball back at you then, if everybody agrees that the F1 cars are too long, what is stopping the FIA from just saying "cars cannot be more than X long"? They even expressed they want this to be a point to be negotiated for 2026, why not do it NOW? Who is opposing it? Why did the FIA caved in, and increased the minimum weight yet again this year, to now be saying that they wish that for the future the F1 cars become lighter again? Why not just say that the minimum weight is way smaller? I mean, surely , if an indycar can be that small, F1 can do the same right?...

pai said:

Not only I have been following the sport since 1991, but I've also taken the time to rewatch full old races the last few years. Both for sheer pleasure, and for understanding with an adult point of view what has changed in the last 4 decades, and what the sport has lost.

And I stand by what I've said.

Click to expand...

I watch motoGP and Superbikes (and by the way, what ai am going to say applies to the 90's era and to today's smäller displacement classes even more). I LOVE the huge amount of overtakes, different lines on on the limit, no domination, a new winner each race. The only thing that can be as much exciting and eventful in car racing is wet/ rainy races.

The battles and overtakes is what makes the sport exciting to watch. Ending DRS means less overtakes, which means less exciting to watch, which means less audience, which means less revenue and resources, which means China is coming. (The last 1 is only a joke to show my pessimism).

azaralamouri said:

I watch motoGP and Superbikes (and by the way, what ai am going to say applies to the 90's era and to today's smäller displacement classes even more). I LOVE the huge amount of overtakes, different lines on on the limit, no domination, a new winner each race. The only thing that can be as much exciting and eventful in car racing is wet/ rainy races.

The battles and overtakes is what makes the sport exciting to watch. Ending DRS means less overtakes, which means less exciting to watch, which means less audience, which means less revenue and resources, which means China is coming. (The last 1 is only a joke to show my pessimism).

Click to expand...

Formula 1 is not motoGP. Never was.

And even motoGP is now having problems with overtakes, because of ride height devices, and specially WINGS! Imagine that, wings ruining racing...

Ending DRS would mean that F1 would finally get their act together and solve the problem, instead of relying on band aids.

Last time i checked, motoGP doesnt have DRS.

But if you want to see overtakes all the time, F1 is not for you.

azaralamouri said:

The battles and overtakes is what makes the sport exciting to watch. Ending DRS means less overtakes, which means less exciting to watch

Click to expand...

Fair enough and I think everyone else would agree, but...
are you saying that the battle between GR and MV was LESS exciting when MV had no DRS?
Or would it have been MORE exciting to see him use DRS to catch and pass GR before they got anywhere near the braking area?
A driver's skill allows him to drive a slower car well enough to keep a faster driver behind them. Otherwise we might as well just have everyone do five timed solo laps and see who's quickest; and forget the racing part of the competition altogether.

Haven't we just had an extended period where the Mercedes was "supposedly" much faster than every other car giving LH and unfair advantage?
Rule changes that simply give that advantage to another team doesn't even up the racing at all.

As it stands it seems that the Mercedes engined teams would appear to be at a power disadvantage - if the supposed "Green Bull" is a considered to be a "copy" then it's not that close a copy is it?
SV's fastest lap being 3.5 secs slower than that of SP.

If we want to do something that could be done easily then do away with the two tyre compounds rule. Teams can then decide if they do race on one set of hards rather than one set of mediums and one set of softs.

Or perhaps Formula AI using Formula E spec elecric powered cars driven by computers using AI that learns how to drive.

Or give all the teams Fanatec kit with ultra-wide HD screens and powerful PCs so they can race in a virtual world....
Oh hang on!!!

trichens said:

As it stands it seems that the Mercedes engined teams would appear to be at a power disadvantage

Click to expand...

! I think the Mercs were fastest in the speed traps. Now that doesn't account for setup options, we don't know how much downforce/drag Team Merc was carrying vs Redbull & Ferrari.

LMGiorni said:

What Hamilton told on the radio about giving up is not my opinion, is a fact. And later after the race he said that thankfully he did not give up, he did not say, thanks to the team that persisted on me not giving up. That is a double standard hypocrisy of a statement and that is on him and is not the first time nor the last.
You will never find this type of statements on Schumacher, and that shows a lot of character. Not opinion, fact.

And I did say in my opinion Villeneuve incident was not Schumacher's fault, not to say he did not participate in the incident he could have avoided.
But you read and interpret whatever you like as when calling laughable another one's opinion. But yeah, the bias is on me.

And who in F1 did not work hard and got plenty of accomplishment to be able to have a seat? But that doesn't change the fact that he was quite privilege, I said in another post, the only two drivers I remember starting in the best car of the grid is Villeneuve Jacks, and Lewis Hamilton.
The other drivers had to develop their careers to get into top teams or even build the top team, what makes a huge difference on showing up talent and adding to the statistics.

Click to expand...

Schumacher's first year he was teammates with Martin Brundle, a journeyman driver, but hardly one of F1's greatest drivers. Lewis came in with Fernando Alonso as a teammate, and immediately impressed. When Lewis started in F1, Alonso was already a superstar, and a twice world champion. In my opinion a way tougher task. Your disdain for Lewis is apparent in everything you write. I am not even a big Hamilton fan, and I can easily see your bias. Just because you repeat the same opinion over and over and over doesn't make it a fact.

azaralamouri said:

I watch motoGP and Superbikes (and by the way, what ai am going to say applies to the 90's era and to today's smäller displacement classes even more). I LOVE the huge amount of overtakes, different lines on on the limit, no domination, a new winner each race. The only thing that can be as much exciting and eventful in car racing is wet/ rainy races.

The battles and overtakes is what makes the sport exciting to watch. Ending DRS means less overtakes, which means less exciting to watch, which means less audience, which means less revenue and resources, which means China is coming. (The last 1 is only a joke to show my pessimism).

Click to expand...

Personally I like to see two racers "fight", one attempting the overtake and the other resisting it, FAR too often with DRS the overtakee doesn't bother fighting as it's pointless...to the point you had Max and Lewis colliding last year because Max wanted to give Lewis a place back before the DRS zone and Lewis didn't want the position before the DRS zone. Earlier this year Charles and Max actively slowing down MORE to NOT lead into a DRS zone. I don't want to see a race where the racers WANT to slow down to gain an advantage, that's just crap.

DRS is a crutch to fix a fundamental flaw in F1 car design, that the new regs have (to a limited degree) rectified but havn't gone far enough. DRS is not good, noither is push to pass. Any system of digital button pressing is skilless. Whatever is implemented needs to be analogue so that driver skill is required.