Official Korean F1 Grand Prix 2013

It happened. There was some action in the midfield and some bad tyre behaviour. But that Red Bull bloke won again.

Meh.

What desperate times are these for F1...

Not seen a complete race all year and understand I've not missed much

Some good Hamilton / Alonso action in the highlights on the BBC website.

Far from the worst race of the year, way better than Singapore, but this feels like comparing the best dog turds you've ever stepped in.

Sadly it appears nobody else is even in contention this year. Please let there be a contest next year.

At risk of being way too simplistic (but then why not!) ..

1. The racing is way over-regulated
2. Drivers are too cautious in case they get a penalty
3. Tyres, should never be designed to 'degrade' to add interest
4. The cars are way too sophisticated aerodynamically these days, but then that's partly because of (1.) and the need to extract last bit of performance.

Not sure what you do to turn it in to 'motor racing' again, as once you get to the state where it is now, how do you turn the clock back?

Depressing isn't it?

Think it startedon the slope down, when drivers no longer had to change gear, so less chance of them making mistakes (which they all did) and livening things up.

Next year I think I'll watch my collection of 15 years worth of early 80's / 90's races instead! :-)

1) maximum aero, one flat(ish) plate at the front, one at the back
2) no flippyflappy overtaking bits
3) manual gear and clutch.

or,

de-regulate and let the cars evolve with no limits.

Unfortunately that was what was allowed to happen from the 50's to the 70's and driver mortality was horrendous.

Simple solution. Webber should mess with sebs car and then punch him, on the nose. That may resolve some issues. Furthermore, hulkenburg should be given a proper car and someone at Ferrari needs to start leaving horses heads around key persons to ensure not only someone puts effort in on their car but others (redbull) stop being so damn good!

Sadly F1 is currently in bad place. I've followed it avidly since the Hunt and Lauda era, wasting many a Sunday afternoon!
During most of that time a strong British interest, be it either driver or car, has always helped.
Thinking back, I loved it when Williams came to the fore, with Alan Jones and the Leyland/Saudi sponsorship era suggested the British car industry might still have a good future!!!
Senna and Mansell, Hill v Schumacher, tells me F1 lacks a real intense rivalry with two equally matched drivers, from differing teams and philosophies?
I must go and see the Hunt/Lauda film, is it any good?

Removing Adrian Newey from F1 should do the trick.

Seeing Adrian driving a Ford Le mans GT40 would suggest you may have your wish!!! Only joking Adrian, great to see you sharing your pride and joy with the public!

Yes.

But you'll come away disappointed at how joyless the present F1 is...

It's easy to see the history of F1 through rose-tinted spectacles. It wasn't Villeneuve - v - Arnoux every race and the Schumacher-dominated years tried my patience to the limit. It's bad for the show when anyone dominates absolutely, be it Williams, McLaren, Ferrari or Red Bull. For those that can remember that far back, JPS Lotus, Brabham and Tyrell also had their moment in the sun.
Part of the problem for the sport as it is now run is that it relies on bringing in money for the shareholders to the exclusion of other considerations. This leaves poor Bernie (aaah, the little lamb!) struggling to keep up the cashflow in the face of pesky engineers exploiting the rules too well (I'm looking at you, Adrian). There were a number of rule changes designed to end Schumacher's rule and I imagine everyone in the pitlane (bar one garage) and beyond has their fingers crossed in the hopes that Newey & co have got their sums wrong for next year. As Gary Anderson said in his BBC column, this is not likely to be an effective strategy!

I worry that in between the "ban all aero" and "free development" arguments, we end up exactly where we are now.

One identical chassis for everyone, fixed wings and just a space for there own engine.

Sounds simple but....

That sounds like the A1 GP which is where now?

Another nonsense is the minimum weight rule that could cost taller, heavier drivers a seat, despite their being more talented than a smaller, lighter rival. How is that sensible? Any sport that discriminates against its participants is preposterous. In horseracing, jockeys are small, but horses are the size they are, like humans. I understand that some people have a more suitable build, but it shouldn't rule out a-typical individuals. In motor racing, we decide what size to make the cars, so it shouldn't have any effect! I also think basketball is ridiculous for the same reason. The average height in the NBA is over 6'7". If you have to be a freak to play a sport, there's something wrong with the rules.

Well thats pretty much most sportsmen/women and most sports then. All sports have limitations or pre-requisites to compete at the top level be it size, speed, strength, endurance, height, weight, or any other attribute.

In horse racing wouldn't the horses be analogous to a car not a driver?

There's nothing wrong with a predisposition and to be part of an élite in any domain, you need to be specialised, but you don't need to be freakishly tall/short/heavy/light to play football or tennis to a top level or be a track and field athlete (perhaps high jumpers excepted) or a cyclist. Yes, be *more* something, but not extreme.
I was making the horse analogous to the car, but I qualified it by saying that horses are not (entirely) the result of man's design, whereas cars are, so I can sort of understand why jockeys need to be smaller, as you can't just build horses bigger. Sorry if it wasn't clear, I was writing an email at the same time. Multi-tasking - there's another thing...

Went to see the first ever A1 GP race at Brands. I bloody loved it, especially taking the micky out of all the Dutch fans

Ok Jim but why would a horse trainer choise to run a heavy/tall jockey over a smaller built one all else being equal? Likewise why would a an F1 team choose larger driver over a smaller one for the same reasons. This is not a new issue. Especially since the introduction of kers some driver/constructers have struggled. Making the car larger just to accomodate a larger driver compromises the rest of the car . If your on the weight limit you have less options during in season development in terms of adding thing and/or moving ballast weight arround the car to optimise performance.

Whilst I feel sorry for drivers that will be disadvantaged by the rules its the game they are in, its like the 6'5" basketball player moaning that the 6'7" players have an advantage. There will anyway be something that moves the game to the level and there will always the losers and winners because of it. Just like real life!

Gerhardt Berger was 6'6", as I recall...

I accept your point that sports will gravitate towards those with better physiques to compete, but my argument was that it seems a nonsense to make the rules on car construction effectively rule out anyone that isn't uncommonly small and light. There is nothing to stop the FIA from adding 10 or 15 kilos to the weight limit of the cars. It will give a slight advantage to those with lighter drivers as they will be able to use ballast more effectively, but if you are a superb driver with a bit of extra height/weight, you'll negate that. At least you should be allowed the chance to try and prove it.

Require the jockeys drivers to *wear* the ballast in the form of thin lead sheets, up to the weight of the heaviest driver.

I think they should be made to carry it as loose change in the pockets of their overalls.

The sort of loose change Button picks up doing ads for Santander?

If he put that in his overalls, he wouldn't want to go walking near any deep water...

I wonder, with all of the people crying foul over the performance of the Pirelli tyres and the drivers complaining at how they have to nurse them, I can only imagine all of the moaning that will be generated next year with the 2014 regs.

The cars will have their fuel capacity cut by over a third to 100kg, which means the drivers will be into economy mode as soon as the lights go out. They will be driving to preserve a resource, just like this year. Except instead of tyres, the biggest limiting factor will be fuel. I can picture the quotes now: "this isn't real racing", "we cannot push 100% for the whole race", "I'm useless at using my brain and driving tactically", blah, blah.

Very good point, Dennis. I've become a big fan of Paul Hembery over the last couple of seasons and I totally understand his comments to Alonso (for which he ended up having to apologise). People are still criticising Pirelli for the tyres, even though they have been ordered to produce them to certain specifications without testing them on the cars on which they will be driven to the limit. I think the treatment has been shameful by teams and drivers alike and I just hope that the brand emerges with as little harm as possible to its image from the ungrateful, spoilt world of F1. The very definition of a hiding to nothing.
I hope next year gives us close, interesting racing that enables the cream to rise to the top. Although that may mean another finger-wagging season.
Incidentally, Rocky (Vettel's race engineer) was trying to get him not to do the finger after his Korean win - according to the radio transcripts...

Don't forget with the new fuel regs the engines will only be going to 15000rpm, so I would imagine the fuel saved from the extra 3000rpm will make a difference, but a 40KG difference? Who knows.

When the drivers short-shift currently to save fuel, anyone know what the numbers involved are? 18k instead of 19? And how much fuel does it save? I presume also the engine maps are able to save quite a bit. Will the new V6 engines have less inertia than the current ones? I think you make a good point Begbie - there are a lot of factors to take into account. Plus, cutting a third of the fuel will surely account for quite a proportion of the 40KG, won't it? Or is that your point?

Couldn't say on the numbers when they short shift. I'm sure our resident F1 nut DennisK might be able to provide some data? The cars don't rev to 19k at all Jim, they are limited to 18k.

Well, with the fuel regs, they are limited on flow per/hour or per minute and this the flow maxes out around 10 - 12k, so the more revs they give it, the leaner the burn will be, so guess the only option is to keep it to 15k, other the engines will just turn into massive grenades.

I wasn't making any point, I was just saying

Grenade engines. I remember those!

Yep.
They also went off during the race quite often as well.

When they've been fuel saving this year they appear to use about 1k less revs and get off the throttle 100yds earlier before corners.

Oh, I lost track, I thought it was 19k this year...

I thought it looked like around 1k fewer revs. I think it makes sense that we will see quite a few more engine failures next year, which will-re-introduce a slightly more random element. Good for interest, bad for costs...