Official Discussion Thread of the 2009 Formula 1 Season

Haven't been around for a while now.

Just want to throw in that I really really do not want to see Button (who inevitabaly will) win the championship :(.

Why not? Bias, don't like him? Not deserving? Sentimental Rubens fan?

Whoever has the most points at the end of the season deserves it unless you are MS in Adelaide 94 or Bennetton in seasons '94 '95
 
For me it's weird because I've always really liked Button, and I still do. But I'd really prefer Rubens to be champion, just because of his attitude and because he deserves it after the Ferrari years. Button is a great guy, but he didn't drive well enough in the middle of the season for me.
 
Button is a great guy, but he didn't drive well enough in the middle of the season for me.

Barrichello didn't drive well enough in the first third of the season for me. People seem to be forgetting how badly Button thrashed him in the first 7 races. Everybody is acting like the season started in Silverstone.
 
Yeah someone said to me "If Jenson won the last 6/7 races of the season and overtook Rubens as the WDC you'd consider him a worthy WDC", and they're right, I would.

I guess whoever has the most points is the worthy WDC, but I STILL THINK BUTTON SUCKS AND WANT VETTEL TO WIN!
 
If Button is making any mistake it's the one Lewis made two years ago when he lost to Kimi; no killer instinct. He's not saying, "yeah I could wait until the last race but I'm going to go for the win now".
It's all very conservative talk, followed by mediocre, timid performances.

Even last year in the closing stages Lewis lacked that killer instinct, he just lucked out compared to Massa with both of them making so many mistakes.
 
Barrichello didn't drive well enough in the first third of the season for me. People seem to be forgetting how badly Button thrashed him in the first 7 races. Everybody is acting like the season started in Silverstone.

Well fucking said!
 
Barrichello didn't drive well enough in the first third of the season for me. People seem to be forgetting how badly Button thrashed him in the first 7 races. Everybody is acting like the season started in Silverstone.

I think the second half is a better one to judge on, as there was actual competition.
 
First of all I like to apologise to the Lewis Hamilton fans whom I've upset with my 'Timo Glock' post in the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. The comments thrown at me were very hurtful but I deserved it. I should have expanded on that post and not leave that smart comment alone.

What I meant was that I believe the whole 'Button doesn't deserve the drivers title' talk as rubbish. The bottom line is, the person who deserves the title is the driver who finishes with more points than the opposition. Lewis Hamilton earned the 2008 title (at the very last moment), by 1 point, but still he deserved it. Should Jenson Button win the title (or Rubens Barrichello) by a slightly bigger points margin than Hammy's last year, it doesn't make them any more deserving of the title than Hammy. They equally earned the title and it's hats off to them.

Good luck to Brawn. May the best man win.

Once again I apologise for hurting people with my last post. I'll remember in future not to post such smart comments. Are we OK?
 
^ We're not computers so lets not forget other aspects of the championship. Points aren't everything.
I think Vettel is the most deserving driver this year. Yes points don't reflect that but thats because Renault engine failures. Where would Schumacher be if he had those? Even the best driver can't win the championship with the best car if he is penalized unfairly/ goes through mechanical failures/ others crashing into him.
 
Edit: I made a fundamental mistake so I have updated the table and figures.

If anybody reads the Autosport forums, they may have noticed the thread on overtaking statistics. http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=115835&st=80
I was looking at the tables and thought they were statistically a bit off. I have "normalised" the data to get a truer representation of how overtaking has changed. The way I have done this negates the effect of the track on the numbers, so this table purely shows the effect of cars. Credit goes to Brogan who has done most of the original work on the Autosport Forum. Just to point out, the numbers that will be given are only relative and do not relate to actually overtakes per race. Wet races and freaky races (such as Indy '05) have been excluded. And now the table:

1983 - 22.46
1984 - 31.78
1985 - 32.72
1986 - 30.38
1987 - 24.75
1988 - 19.68
1989 - 28.26
1990 - 19.60
1991 - 20.76
1992 - 17.96
1993 - 23.65
1994 - 15.64
1995 - 9.85
1996 - 9.62
1997 - 11.26
1998 - 9.76
1999 - 8.37
2000 - 7.16
2001 - 9.50
2002 - 9.82
2003 - 17.05
2004 - 11.72
2005 - 9.67
2006 - 10.41
2007 - 8.47
2008 - 7.69
2009 - 8.88

Table

https://pic.armedcats.net/p/pe/peter3hg/2009/10/07/overtakes1.JPG


My analysis is that the big reduction in overtaking happened with the introduction of the step plane following the tragic events in 1994. After that there has been little change overall, apart from maybe a small drop following the move to V8s in 2006 (ignoring the fact that 2006 had quite a lot of overtakes).
It has to be said, looking at these figures, that the single lap qualifying created more overtaking, probably due to having slower race cars further up the grid.
 
Last edited:
Ground effects arent really effected by the turbulent air so it makes that its introduction was the last step in the death of overtaking. Another interesting fact about that graph is the massive over-taking increase with the almost complete introduction of turbo cars.
 
Last edited:
My analysis is that the big reduction in overtaking happened with the introduction of the step plane following the tragic events in 1994.

What's the step plane? Google isn't giving me anything definitive.

Interesting stats, thanks.
 
The 10mm plank on the bottom of the car, can only be worn down by 1mm over the weekend. Or am I confusing that with reference plane?
 
The 10mm plank on the bottom of the car, can only be worn down by 1mm over the weekend. Or am I confusing that with reference plane?

Yeah, you've got it right, I just referred to it in a slightly obscure way.
 
What is the reference plane and step plane? what are their relationships with each other?
 
After the events of Imola in 1994, it was decided that flat bottomed cars were to dangerous, therefore all cars have to have a "step" in the middle of the car of a certain size to stop ground effects. Top regulate this, there is a plank which cannot be worn by more than a certain amount.
 
Last edited:
What is the reference plane and step plane? what are their relationships with each other?

Reference plane is not part of a car as such, a term in the technical regulations and it refers to a plane outlined in the schematics. In the case of F1 techincal regulations it refers to the top of the wooden plank, and the measurements in the technical regulations are based on this plane (for example, 'No part of the bodywork may be more than 950mm above the reference plane.').

If you'll check the technical regulations (available in the FIA website), search for 'reference plane' and then look at the drawings in the last few pages you'll get the idea.
 
Top