Formula 1 Pirelli British Grand Prix 2020Formula 1 

  • Thread starter Jimlaad43
  • 512 comments
  • 16,481 views
Jimlaad43

Jimlaad43

GeoGuessr God
Premium
12,623
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Three rounds have been and gone, and after a week's break we head to Silverstone for the first race of the second double-header round of the season. This will be the first low downforce circuit we see of the season, so expect the pecking order to change again. The fast sweeping corners of the circuit in theory should spread the pack out, but long straights between each section of corners seems to bring the pack back together, making this one of the circuits on the calendar with the most overtaking spots. DRS? What DRS? people usually need to shout after drivers are seen passing into Village, The Loop, Luffied, Copse and Vale. That said, Brooklands and Stowe are still the main overtaking spots, but expect battles to last multiple corners if the last few years are anything to go by. Mercedes have absolutely dominated so far, with the W11 looking like it will be the fastest F1 car of all time with the new regulations looming, so let's actually enjoy it in qualifying while we have it. Weather may intervene - this is the British Summer after all. No fans will be at what is usually the most attended Grand Prix of the year, so let's see how the lack of home support affects current Championship leader Lewis Hamilton as we strap in for the BRITISH GRAND PRIX!!!
image.png

First Grand Prix
1950

Number of Laps
52

Circuit Length
5.891km

Race Distance
306.198 km

Lap Record
1:27.369 Lewis Hamilton (2019)
​
 
Difficult to see anything other than Mercedes 1-2. Fancy Bottas to spring a surprise though. The Racing Points should be strong as well, typically go well on low downforce tracks and that shouldn't be any different this season. Ferrari have been decent here in the past but I can't see them being up there this time. Mclaren were strong last year too so I expect them to be ahead of Ferrari.

Pole - Bottas

1. Bottas
2. Hamilton
3. Stroll

4. Perez
5. Norris
6. Verstappen
7. Sainz
8. Leclerc
9. Vettel
10. Albon
 
The current livery looks like a random assortment of sponsors, but looking forward to seeing what they come up with next season. Hopefully it's similar to that 720 👍
 
MagpieRacer
Difficult to see anything other than Mercedes 1-2. Fancy Bottas to spring a surprise though. The Racing Points should be strong as well, typically go well on low downforce tracks and that shouldn't be any different this season. Ferrari have been decent here in the past but I can't see them being up there this time. Mclaren were strong last year too so I expect them to be ahead of Ferrari.

Pole - Bottas

1. Bottas
2. Hamilton
3. Stroll

4. Perez
5. Norris
6. Verstappen
7. Sainz
8. Leclerc
9. Vettel
10. Albon
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Silverstone is a low downforce track.

I think Ferrari will struggle considering its a power track that requires decent amounts of downforce.

Id say

MB
RB
RP
McLaren
Ferrari
Renault
Alpha Tauri
Haas
Williams
Alfa Romeo
 
SlowGrayAudi
I wouldn't say Silverstone is a low downforce track.

I think Ferrari will struggle considering its a power track that requires decent amounts of downforce.

Id say

MB
RB
RP
McLaren
Ferrari
Renault
Alpha Tauri
Haas
Williams
Alfa Romeo
Click to expand...

Its 100% a low downforce track. High speed corners lots of fast/flat out corners, long straights, only 2 sections that could be considered tight.

In a normal season its typically one of the firdt GPS where teams introduce their low downforce packages like they did last year.
 
SlowGrayAudi
I wouldn't say Silverstone is a low downforce track.
Click to expand...
MagpieRacer
Its 100% a low downforce track. High speed corners lots of fast/flat out corners, long straights, only 2 sections that could be considered tight.

In a normal season its typically one of the firdt GPS where teams introduce their low downforce packages like they did last year.
Click to expand...

I guess it used to be high downforce before 2017. its more aero efficiency that rules now since big tires and wide wings = flat everywhere.

I wish they stuck with skinny tires. It would definitely help the show. Even k mag said in an interview that he just plants it out of every corner and theres grip for days.

Low downforce would be more like spa and monza imo. Where the rear wing is almost flat.
 
For reference, the 2019 pole time at Spa was at an average speed of 245 kph. Silverstone was 249kph. Silverstone might not have the tea-tray wings of Monza, but it sure is the second-fastest circuit on the calendar. Monza is 262 kph, so well clear, but even Austria is 246kph. At Silverstone they basically run just enough downforce to take Copse flat-out, and then it's good from there on. I reckon with Monaco downforce levels, the cars Mercedes could be flat-out from Luffield to Vale.
 
Jimlaad43
For reference, the 2019 pole time at Spa was at an average speed of 245 kph. Silverstone was 249kph. Silverstone might not have the tea-tray wings of Monza, but it sure is the second-fastest circuit on the calendar. Monza is 262 kph, so well clear, but even Austria is 246kph. At Silverstone they basically run just enough downforce to take Copse flat-out, and then it's good from there on. I reckon with Monaco downforce levels, the cars Mercedes could be flat-out from Luffield to Vale.
Click to expand...

I didnt know that the average speed was that high. I knew its a high power track but i didnt think it was that close to spa. Its almost getting out of hand how much downforce they have now.

Faster lap times doesn't mean better racing.
 
SlowGrayAudi
I guess it used to be high downforce before 2017. its more aero efficiency that rules now since big tires and wide wings = flat everywhere.

I wish they stuck with skinny tires. It would definitely help the show. Even k mag said in an interview that he just plants it out of every corner and theres grip for days.

Low downforce would be more like spa and monza imo. Where the rear wing is almost flat.
Click to expand...
Skinny tyres means the drivers can’t be aggressive at low speeds, which equals even less ‘show’. Drivers just pampering their cars through low speed sections, and relying on the downforce to carry them through the high speed bits and using the dirty air to build a gap. Do you want Trulli Trains? Because that’s how you get Trulli Trains. The solution is to reduce the aero. Make the cars hairier at high speed but inspire confidence at low speed. Drivers can make or lose huge amounts of time wrestling cars through corners like Esses at Suzuka and Maggotts-Becketts, but then have the stability to fully send it at the next braking zone. Also makes the loss of traction more progressive and more manageable, so cars aren’t just snapping away faster than drivers can react. Essentially all the problems with modern F1 can be solved by reducing the aero. End result of reducing the aero but keeping the width and fat tyres? F1 on-track action like what was seen prior to 1993. Think: Arnoux and Villeneuve side by side for half a lap at the French GP.
 
Frank McGank
Skinny tyres means the drivers can’t be aggressive at low speeds, which equals even less ‘show’. Drivers just pampering their cars through low speed sections, and relying on the downforce to carry them through the high speed bits and using the dirty air to build a gap. Do you want Trulli Trains? Because that’s how you get Trulli Trains. The solution is to reduce the aero. Make the cars hairier at high speed but inspire confidence at low speed. Drivers can make or lose huge amounts of time wrestling cars through corners like Esses at Suzuka and Maggotts-Becketts, but then have the stability to fully send it at the next braking zone. Also makes the loss of traction more progressive and more manageable, so cars aren’t just snapping away faster than drivers can react. Essentially all the problems with modern F1 can be solved by reducing the aero. End result of reducing the aero but keeping the width and fat tyres? F1 on-track action like what was seen prior to 1993. Think: Arnoux and Villeneuve side by side for half a lap at the French GP.
Click to expand...

I was 4 in 1993 but ill take your word on it.

Makes sense to me though what you're saying 👍
 
SlowGrayAudi
I was 4 in 1993 but ill take your word on it.

Makes sense to me though what you're saying 👍
Click to expand...

Graph shows a pretty comprehensive image of it. As aero became more and more important, overtakes started to fall off. And in 1993-1994 when the cars went from 2.2m wide to 2m wide and were made to have much narrower tyres, along with the reintroduction of refuelling, on-track action fell off the cliff and stayed at the bottom until 2009. 2009 is when refuelling was re-banned, slicks were brought back, and aero was dramatically simplified. See a big jump in overtakes. Then came 2010 with DRS and it went up to a level not seen since the era of Jim Clark and Graham Hill.
 
Frank McGank

Graph shows a pretty comprehensive image of it. As aero became more and more important, overtakes started to fall off. And in 1993-1994 when the cars went from 2.2m wide to 2m wide and were made to have much narrower tyres, along with the reintroduction of refuelling, on-track action fell off the cliff and stayed at the bottom until 2009. 2009 is when refuelling was re-banned, slicks were brought back, and aero was dramatically simplified. See a big jump in overtakes. Then came 2010 with DRS and it went up to a level not seen since the era of Jim Clark and Graham Hill.
Click to expand...

2009 had slicks but refuelling wasn't banned till 2010 with DRS coming in 2011 but the big change in my view was the Pirelli tyres, I don't like these graphs though because DRS style overtakes are a completely different type of overtake most times.
 
I'm not sure what happened in 2009. That chart is showing that 2009 is still following the downtrend. From what I remember, the cars were able to stay closer, but passing was still difficult. It seems like the refueling removal had the greatest effect going into 2010. 2010 also gained 2 teams.
 
mustafur
2009 had slicks but refuelling wasn't banned till 2010 with DRS coming in 2011 but the big change in my view was the Pirelli tyres, I don't like these graphs though because DRS style overtakes are a completely different type of overtake most times.
Click to expand...
I don’t like DRS either because it’s a crutch to address the symptoms rather than cure the problem. I was more using the graph to illustrate how through the 90s F1 went down a path of restricting mechanical grip (tyres and suspension) whilst promoting aerodynamic grip, and how it led to F1 becoming a giant snooze fest. It’s the same argument I make when people say Monaco is too narrow to provide overtaking and should be abandoned, or current F1 cars are too wide. The issue is the aero, first and foremost. Followed by weight and then length. Restrict the cars to a 3m wheelbase, 630kg weight, 2m width, and single/dual plane wings with no winglets slathered all over, and we’d see more on-track action than Indycar. We’d see the sort of battles seen in karting and touring cars.
 
mustafur
Tbh we could remove even more then that if we had a return to ground effects.
Click to expand...
The issue with ground effect is the same we had back when it was first used. Suspensions have to be rock hard for it to come anywhere near approaching efficient, and even minor undulations in the road surface can dramatically affect how much downforce you’re generating. There’s a reason it was banned in the first place, after all.
 
Yes because we clearly loved the change from 2013 to 2014 when the cars lost all their speed and allure because they were slower and awful. Were things better in the old days? Hell no. When F1 showed the full race rerun of the 1986 Adelaide Grand Prix it was clear that the "dominance" of Mercedes was nothing compared to then. Senna took the lead into Turn 1, got passed later around the lap and Piquet had something like a 3-second lead by the time he got to the hairpin. The top cars all streaked off into the distance, and the only thing keeping the race and the championship "interesting" was unrealibility. Racing was pretty much non-existent and the leaders were passing backmarkers every other lap. This set of regulations has produced one of the closest grids between the top and worst car on the grid. You're only salty that current F1 "sucks" because one team keeps winning. Yes, that isn't ideal, but it's not Mercedes' fault that Ferrari and Red Bull got slower this year is it? We have a super-close midfield and a reliable bunch of cars that aren't a danger to each other because the backmarkers are running on a shoestring budget and therefore are woefully uncompetitive.

Literally the only change F1 could do with is the return to the cottage cheese tyres of 2012 that necessitated multiple stop races, not simple 1-stops all the time. Nothing else needs to change. These cars are the fastest ever and are the greatest to watch on tracks. If racing sucks, why were Bahrain, Austria, Britain, Germany, Hungary, Belgium, Italy and Brazil worthy of being classed as All-time classics last season?
 
Jimlaad43
Yes because we clearly loved the change from 2013 to 2014 when the cars lost all their speed and allure because they were slower and awful. Were things better in the old days? Hell no. When F1 showed the full race rerun of the 1986 Adelaide Grand Prix it was clear that the "dominance" of Mercedes was nothing compared to then. Senna took the lead into Turn 1, got passed later around the lap and Piquet had something like a 3-second lead by the time he got to the hairpin. The top cars all streaked off into the distance, and the only thing keeping the race and the championship "interesting" was unrealibility. Racing was pretty much non-existent and the leaders were passing backmarkers every other lap. This set of regulations has produced one of the closest grids between the top and worst car on the grid. You're only salty that current F1 "sucks" because one team keeps winning. Yes, that isn't ideal, but it's not Mercedes' fault that Ferrari and Red Bull got slower this year is it? We have a super-close midfield and a reliable bunch of cars that aren't a danger to each other because the backmarkers are running on a shoestring budget and therefore are woefully uncompetitive.

Literally the only change F1 could do with is the return to the cottage cheese tyres of 2012 that necessitated multiple stop races, not simple 1-stops all the time. Nothing else needs to change. These cars are the fastest ever and are the greatest to watch on tracks. If racing sucks, why were Bahrain, Austria, Britain, Germany, Hungary, Belgium, Italy and Brazil worthy of being classed as All-time classics last season?
Click to expand...
I would argue the regs from 2009 to 2013 where clearly better for racing and the cars where closer.

But while it's not Mercedes fault for domination blame can be argued for those that put the regulations in place and the further additional regulation changes that didn't have the ability to change the pecking order like past regulation shakes ups have had.
 
The 2014-16 regs were "boring", so F1 had to come up with new regulations to make the cars good again. They did that and now people are complainiging again, despite the fact the 2017+ regulations did exactly what was asked for - make the cars look and be faster than anything ever before. 2017 and 18 were close title battles until Ferrari/Vettel happened, and it's only because Lewis Hamilton is the best driver of the generation by a long shot that this debate is even happening. He doesn't buckle under pressure and has helped build a rock-solid and dominant team behind him, so of course he's going to keep on winning. We were spoilt with the Hamilton-Rosberg rivalry making the 2014-16 Mercedes dominance bearable for people who weren't Mercedes/Hamilton/Rosberg fans. Bottas isn't as close as Rosberg was to Hamilton, but he does the job Mercedes wants. He's not like Leclerc - getting in the established number 1's way and causing discontent - or like Gasly - completely off the pace in a top team - he just is there, always scoring points and picking up wins every so often, but compliant enough to play the team game when asked. What's that delivered? Titles and more titles. None of this is the regulation's fault. Mercedes would dominate any set of regulations thrown in front of them because they have the right drivers, right attitude and the right team structure. The large bankroll is only a small part of the puzzle that helps. Toyota always had the biggest budget in F1, and look how many races they won. Money isn't everything and these regulations aren't broken.

If the Mclaren MP4/4 is such a beloved car, why isn't the W11? That McLaren was just as dominant and revolutionary, but no "ooh, Senna and Prost nerr nerr nerr" is paraded by a lot of F1 fans born after 1988 who still think it's great because they didn't have to sit through the season. Stop complaining and enjoy the fact that we're witnessing the fastest racing cars ever built. The racing is fine. On bad days it's got a vaguely enthralling midfield battle (The 2019 French GP was a lot better than a lot of people think, the battles in the midfield were epic), and on good days it's truly thrilling. Oh wait, wasn't the first race of 2020 an absolute belter? Let's see, 8.9 rating on ImdB? That's comparable to the 1997 Jerez race, 2007 Nurburgring race, 2010 Montreal and 2011 Nurburgring. It outranks classics like Fuji 2007, Monaco 2008, Brazil 2019, Japan 2005, Canada 2007, Hungary 2006. Maybe F1 isn't broken... ;)
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
I'm not sure what happened in 2009. That chart is showing that 2009 is still following the downtrend. From what I remember, the cars were able to stay closer, but passing was still difficult. It seems like the refueling removal had the greatest effect going into 2010. 2010 also gained 2 teams.
Click to expand...

Three teams, I'll take any opportunitty for a shameless plug!



But anyway, I'm surprised at the jump in 2010. 2011 is obvious because of KERS and DRS, but even though the grid in 2010 was bigger those new teams weren't exactly competitive, and the tyres would last for the entire race a lot of the time. Unless the graph is only counting on-track passes, I feel like a lot of that is from retirements and first and last lap pittings.
 
Jimlaad43
Yes because we clearly loved the change from 2013 to 2014 when the cars lost all their speed and allure because they were slower and awful. Were things better in the old days? Hell no. When F1 showed the full race rerun of the 1986 Adelaide Grand Prix it was clear that the "dominance" of Mercedes was nothing compared to then. Senna took the lead into Turn 1, got passed later around the lap and Piquet had something like a 3-second lead by the time he got to the hairpin. The top cars all streaked off into the distance, and the only thing keeping the race and the championship "interesting" was unrealibility. Racing was pretty much non-existent and the leaders were passing backmarkers every other lap. This set of regulations has produced one of the closest grids between the top and worst car on the grid. You're only salty that current F1 "sucks" because one team keeps winning. Yes, that isn't ideal, but it's not Mercedes' fault that Ferrari and Red Bull got slower this year is it? We have a super-close midfield and a reliable bunch of cars that aren't a danger to each other because the backmarkers are running on a shoestring budget and therefore are woefully uncompetitive.

Literally the only change F1 could do with is the return to the cottage cheese tyres of 2012 that necessitated multiple stop races, not simple 1-stops all the time. Nothing else needs to change. These cars are the fastest ever and are the greatest to watch on tracks. If racing sucks, why were Bahrain, Austria, Britain, Germany, Hungary, Belgium, Italy and Brazil worthy of being classed as All-time classics last season?
Click to expand...
The issue with the 2014 change was the engines, primarily the sound. That’s consistently been the biggest complaint of the turbo hybrid era. It had little to do with actual on-track pace, especially when you remember that the cars had essentially gained back all the speed they had lost by 2016.

Dominance in the 80s was frequently down to driver more than the car, and it rarely lasted more than a race or two. Compare Senna to Nakajima when they were teammates. In 1986 for example, Keke in the McLaren dominated in Australia. In Spain, Senna dominated in the Lotus. In Canada, Mansell dominated in the Williams. This was the norm. It doesn’t matter how close the midfield is when they’re all scrapping for the final point available. You’re conflating pace with ability to overtake. The idea of one team and one driver dominating race after race for multiple seasons in a row didn’t exist until the 90s. Do you remember the WDCs and WCCs of the 80s? 1980: Williams and Jones. 81: Williams and Piquet. 82: Ferrari and Rosberg. 83: Ferrari and Piquet. 84: McLaren and Lauda. 85: McLaren and Prost. 86: Williams and Prost. 87: Williams and Piquet. 88: McLaren and Senna. 89: McLaren and Prost. No driver won more than 3 WDC, no team more than 4 WCC. Only 2 seasons (85 and 86) featured a driver winning the championship consecutively. 3 of the 9 seasons featured a WDC from a different team from the WCC. No WCC was won by a team more than twice consecutively.

And FURTHER, midfield battles could be just as tight. You point out how front runners could dominate in the 80s, and then focus on the midfield in the modern era. Why not compare like and like? Then you bring up reliability as a positive, before immediately pointing to races featuring unreliability and DNFs and say they’re “all-time classics”. Which do you want, reliability or unreliability? Besides, the entire reason the midfield has any semblance of parity in pace is because of DRS. Without it, it would be a procession. As we can plainly see at circuits where DRS has less of an effect (Spain, Monaco, Hungary, etc).

Sounds to me like you’re a salty contrarian contradicting yourself just to make excuses for the modern era.
 
Jimlaad43
If DRS makes everthing interesting, why ban it?
Click to expand...
Because there’s better ways to fix the problem than a gimmicky ‘gain 20mph’ button. As I suggested in a prior post, dramatically reduce the aero and weight, and preferably the wheelbase. Aerodynamics is where the lion’s share of disparity between the cars comes from in the modern era (look at what Williams has had to suffer despite having a Merc engine in the back), and weight and wheelbase is what makes the cars too bulky and clumsy to dice around with each other at lower speeds. Notice how awkward the cars look through corners like T1 at Monza and basically the entire lap at Monaco? It’s the momentum from the weight combined with the wheelbase that make it essentially like trying to ride a bike in your living room.

To use your example, it’s not the 80s anymore where the BMW cars have 150+ horsepower more than the Ferraris and most tuning was down to guesswork and driver feel. Mercedes were able to dominate as much as they did in 2014-2016 because they had less than a 40bhp advantage over Renault and Ferrari. Ferrari have supposedly only lost around 20bhp from last year. That’s the level of engine disparity we’re at in the modern day. Such a horsepower disadvantage can easily be overcome if aero isn’t making it so difficult for cars to remain within a second of each other that they literally need to disable half their rear wing to be able to gain the pace advantage to actually get past someone.
 
Jimlaad43
The 2014-16 regs were "boring", so F1 had to come up with new regulations to make the cars good again. They did that and now people are complainiging again, despite the fact the 2017+ regulations did exactly what was asked for - make the cars look and be faster than anything ever before. 2017 and 18 were close title battles until Ferrari/Vettel happened, and it's only because Lewis Hamilton is the best driver of the generation by a long shot that this debate is even happening. He doesn't buckle under pressure and has helped build a rock-solid and dominant team behind him, so of course he's going to keep on winning. We were spoilt with the Hamilton-Rosberg rivalry making the 2014-16 Mercedes dominance bearable for people who weren't Mercedes/Hamilton/Rosberg fans. Bottas isn't as close as Rosberg was to Hamilton, but he does the job Mercedes wants. He's not like Leclerc - getting in the established number 1's way and causing discontent - or like Gasly - completely off the pace in a top team - he just is there, always scoring points and picking up wins every so often, but compliant enough to play the team game when asked. What's that delivered? Titles and more titles. None of this is the regulation's fault. Mercedes would dominate any set of regulations thrown in front of them because they have the right drivers, right attitude and the right team structure. The large bankroll is only a small part of the puzzle that helps. Toyota always had the biggest budget in F1, and look how many races they won. Money isn't everything and these regulations aren't broken.

If the Mclaren MP4/4 is such a beloved car, why isn't the W11? That McLaren was just as dominant and revolutionary, but no "ooh, Senna and Prost nerr nerr nerr" is paraded by a lot of F1 fans born after 1988 who still think it's great because they didn't have to sit through the season. Stop complaining and enjoy the fact that we're witnessing the fastest racing cars ever built. The racing is fine. On bad days it's got a vaguely enthralling midfield battle (The 2019 French GP was a lot better than a lot of people think, the battles in the midfield were epic), and on good days it's truly thrilling. Oh wait, wasn't the first race of 2020 an absolute belter? Let's see, 8.9 rating on ImdB? That's comparable to the 1997 Jerez race, 2007 Nurburgring race, 2010 Montreal and 2011 Nurburgring. It outranks classics like Fuji 2007, Monaco 2008, Brazil 2019, Japan 2005, Canada 2007, Hungary 2006. Maybe F1 isn't broken... ;)
Click to expand...
You seem overly hostile to any mention of not liking the status quo?

Look there is no doubt races have action in the middle of the pack but the race for the lead is dull as dishwater, team battles between drivers don't do it for me as atleast one of them isn't that talented.

F1 is a formula where you can make calculated guesses on where the driver pecking order is but at the end of the day the car dictates the side of the grid they are going to be on 90% of the time so to say this person is the best because they are driving the best car by a country mile good it makes them the best? I don't buy it.

Imdb rankings for races thats new, I mean I liked the first race but to say its better then Suzuka 2005, I'm not going to take it seriously.

A mid pack battle isn't exactly a thrilling reason to watch a race, it can be good for awhile but seeing lead battles is just better.
 
It would be awesome if F1 could use. Bop like GT3 racing to close the pack up.

Either with ballast or boost pressure.

If you're winning a race by 30 seconds to the nearest rival team, then lets add 40kg of ballast.

Etc, etc. Knowing how sensitive F1 cars are to weight i think it would make it very easy to help balance things.
 

Latest Posts

Back