BBC Home

Explore the BBC

46 comments

user rating: 2 star

Best car for 2010 season?

Formula One
by Hedge (U14020648) 10 January 2010
comment on the article

Who do you think will field the best car for this season and why?

It's generally believed that Red Bull had the best car for the majority of 2009. Will they carry on that momentum?

Brawn started last year with a clear (warm and dry track) advantage. But developed their car less during the season, apparently putting their efforts into their 2010 car from as early as June! It's still the same design team as from 2007-8. Is Ross Brawn ¡®harnessing¡¯ their talent or did they just get lucky with their 2009 car?

Ferrari, got it wrong last year! But are another team that started concentrating on this season early. Surely they'll be back to the front. Or (without Brawn, Schumi etc) are they on the slide (again)?!?
McLaren showed, without any doubt, that they can develop and make a bad car good during the season with a testing ban in force. They did this right up until the end of 2009. Will they have put enough effort into this year's car?

And what about the others, including the new teams? Are there going to be any surprises? Is there another team that I really should have mentioned as championship contenders?

(I'm sure that there's going to be some 'fan boy' rants, but please try and include some reasoning for your opinion;)

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by vjanik (U14292850)

posted Jan 12, 2010

Loven Krabs

i take it you are refering to the 107% rule which used to be in F1 in the past.

good question. i believe it shouldnt be implemented because the purpose of the rule when it was introduced to F1 back in the days was to prevent teams joining the sport who just had economic goals and did not intend to produce a competitive car. remember that this was a very different time to today in the sense that teams were falling over each other to join F1 at the time, whereas now you can see how much effort it took to increase the grid. i would say that even if some of the new teams will struggle for pace they should not be "disqualified". you would cut off their TV time and in turn scare away any sponsors eventualy killing the team.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 12, 2010

well when you look at some of the teams and their preparation (campos meta and USF1) i can see nothing but a huge gulf in quality and subsequent lap times.
It will be a very hard season for the newcomers i feel.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 12, 2010

Apart from 1 guy who said he thought KERS was a big advantyage for McLaren no-one has really commented on how not having it will affect McLaren/ Ferrari.

I firmly believe KERS was a big disadvantage to both these teams and McLaren managing to win with KERS was a fantastic achievement and may show they are very good at dealing with problems.

Starting without KERS they've got a great chance of winning, as well as having the agressive go-getter, fast but steady smoothly smooth driver combination should in theory be to their advantage as well, imo.

I'm less convinced about Ferrari whose response was to ditch KERS because they didn't think they could make it work, driver battles all over the place within and between teams suuper interesting though, as everyone says (although not everyone gives Webber the credit I think he's worth on some of last year's performances) - on that though I'd only say Ross Brawn knows if you've got a clear No.1 you give everything to help him win. V interesting.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by vjanik (U14292850)

posted Jan 12, 2010

higgins87

The qualifying system changed for the 2003 season among other things abandoning the 107% rule. the rule is not in place since then.

if it was, any driver who failed to set a time in qualifying (Glock in Japan for example) would technicaly not be alowed to race. however in these cases drivers usualy recieved exceptions if the FIA believed they deserved to race.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 12, 2010

the 107% rule was introduced because the slower drivers were nearly 10 seconds a lap slower than poleman and these were usually rent- a-driver


the 107% rule was replaced by the single lap qualifying in 2003

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 12, 2010

vjanik,

My bad! not only did I get 107 confused with 117 but I forgot that the change in quali in 2003 would affect the 107% rule. Thanks for pointing that out to me!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 12, 2010

vjanik:
Your explanation of the 107% rule's introduction is consistent with what you site as sponsorship incentive now; with the result that both ends of your argument are essentially the same. You seem to be saying it used to be different but your explanation shows great similarity with your explanation the present situation. (Perhaps I have misunderstood?).

The only reason I can see for reintroducing the rule (or a similar one), would be because the differences between front runners and back markers return to what we saw before; a return to the dangers of significantly different speeds, which was the biggest single reason it was introduced.

In the interests of the viewer, I sincerely hope that this is unlikely. In the last few years the differences between all of the cars has often been less than 1.8% giving realistic hope to those further back.

Let's hope it stays that way. The huge differences we used to see made a mockery of the relative importance of the driver. But with relatively equal machinery, such criticism at F1 becomes less valid, since the small differences are easier to compensate for if the driver is good enough.

However, I agree with your assessment of USF1, and the likelihood of them sitting at the back throughout the season (assuming they make it). In my opinion, this is the only team which may be so far off the pace (7%) but let's hope it doesn't happen.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by vjanik (U14292850)

posted Jan 12, 2010

cosicave,

the difference between then and now is that then there was a greater demand to enter F1 than the grid could accomodate and some teams took advantage of the sport to promote their business. to ensure that the fans saw the best drivers competeing in the most prestigious echelon of motorsport which is F1, they introduced this rule (there are other reasons as well, for example safety) as a filter.

now the situation is the opposite. the FIA want to attract new teams (which now finaly they succeeded) but because of various reasons (rising costs, financial crisis) no one was willing (or had the balls) to enter F1.

now that finaly new teams have enetered the sport, it would be counterproductive to tell them they cannot race because they are too slow.

(i stating this from the point of view of the FIA. not mine)

i dont have a porblem with the rule and would happily apply it if USF1 failed to meet the target time. but trust me this will not happen

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 12, 2010

I know you're all going to laugh at me but I'm serious - USF1 will finish the season 4th in the constructors championship. They will land a few lucky podiums - I've been watching F1 since 1988 and although some people think that their silence is evidence that they are dead, I expect them to be like how March were in 1988 and '89 - McLaren and Ferrari miles ahead with Red Bull, then USF1 benefiting from Peter Windsors' much boasted "years of preparing the idea". Mercedes will be like Williams - nowhere...
By the way, Hamilton will stuff Button and Alonso will win the title - Massa will be like Karl Wendlinger(not as good as before the accident) and quit mid season for more time to recover.
Michael Schumacher? So what? Just like Slyvester Stallones' character in "Driven" - fast but never the race winner...

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by David (U13898307)

posted Jan 13, 2010

I think Red Bull will develop the best car, simply because of Adrian Newey. The guy is the best F1 designer in history IMHO, even better than Chapman. He's got serious pedigree with Williams- designing the FW14B/FW15C that is the best F1 car ever made- and McLaren's title-winning cars in the late 90s. The weak link for Red Bull will continue to be the Renault engines, which are simply as not powerful or reliable as Mercedes' engines.

I expect the title-winning car to come from McLaren. Theirs was the best car at the end of the year, they've got two of the best drivers in the business and McLaren never normally make two rubbish cars in a row. Ferrari will be there or thereabouts, as will Mercedes, but I can honestly see the title challenge going down to the wire between Hamilton and Vettel.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 21.74%
    5 votes
  • 4 13.04%
    3 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 65.22%
    15 votes

average rating:
2.26 from 23 votes