is F1 on its knees
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
As for Jim Clark in a skitterish Lotus 49, Clark's most success came in the "small engined" 1 1/2 litre era.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that.That Clark didn’t win the WDC in the 3-litre days was due to reliability issues rather than his abilities.
Out of three races in 66, he retired twice, won once, and that in the BRM H16.
In 67 he retired in the H16 again, drove the Climax V8 in Monaco (retired) and then, when the Ford V8 came on line, he had three retirements, four wins, a third (puncture and then back up to first only for a mechanical failure - his best race according to many) and a sixth (a plug change). The partnership of Clark and the Ford V8 was a match made in heaven.
He won his final GP in 68.
Whenever the car lasted, he won.
He won 25 times out of 73 starts, so a success rate of over a third. If we take off his 6 wins in 14 x 3-litre car races, that gives 19 wins in 58 races, less than one third victories to starts. He drove the Ford V8 10 times and won 5 times. A quick perusal of my calculator shows this to be around 50%. Even if we take into account the drives in the BRM, that gives him 14 x 3-litre starts with 6 victories, giving a success rate of well over one third.
I’d call that pretty successful even allowing that he didn't win the 67 WDC, and more than comparative with the 1.5 days. I accept there are anomalies with the figures, but the basis is more or less right.
RogerVulva said:
Webber thinks so
http://www.news.com.au/sport/motorsport/formula-1-...
Lewis Hamilton recently spoke about tyres:http://www.news.com.au/sport/motorsport/formula-1-...
"Sometimes you slide them through the corners, and the tyres overheat; sometimes you drive the car the same way and they don't. It all depends on the kind of circuit, the corner type, the car set-up and the weather conditions." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/features/32323837
If you remember the Russian GP last year the tyres hardly degraded, drivers were on the limit and yet the consensus was that it was a boring race.
Boss of Silverstone chipping in his tuppence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32506582. Worth remembering that in the 2000s Silverstone was struggling to sell tickets. I was in a funeral in Hong Kong in 2006 and having to explain to a cousin of Silverstone's problem of over priced tickets - and thank goodness I missed that race as it was borefest and people still proclaim refuelling and tyre wars....
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
That Clark didn’t win the WDC in the 3-litre days was due to reliability issues rather than his abilities.
Out of three races in 66, he retired twice, won once, and that in the BRM H16.
In 67 he retired in the H16 again, drove the Climax V8 in Monaco (retired) and then, when the Ford V8 came on line, he had three retirements, four wins, a third (puncture and then back up to first only for a mechanical failure - his best race according to many) and a sixth (a plug change). The partnership of Clark and the Ford V8 was a match made in heaven.
He won his final
Whenever the car lasted, he won.
He won 25 times out of 73 starts, so a success rate of over a third. If we take off his 6 wins in 14 x 3-litre car races, that gives 19 wins in 58 races, less than one third victories to starts. He drove the Ford V8 10 times and won 5 times. A quick perusal of my calculator shows this to be around 50%. Even if we take into account the drives in the BRM, that gives him 14 x 3-litre starts with 6 victories, giving a success rate of well over one third.
I’d call that pretty successful even allowing that he didn't win the 67 WDC, and more than comparative with the 1.5 days. I accept there are anomalies with the figures, but the basis is more or less right.
I'm sure he would have done well in the 3 litre era but he never got the chance. The facts are his F1 successes came in the 1.5 litre era.That Clark didn’t win the WDC in the 3-litre days was due to reliability issues rather than his abilities.
Out of three races in 66, he retired twice, won once, and that in the BRM H16.
In 67 he retired in the H16 again, drove the Climax V8 in Monaco (retired) and then, when the Ford V8 came on line, he had three retirements, four wins, a third (puncture and then back up to first only for a mechanical failure - his best race according to many) and a sixth (a plug change). The partnership of Clark and the Ford V8 was a match made in heaven.
He won his final
Whenever the car lasted, he won.
He won 25 times out of 73 starts, so a success rate of over a third. If we take off his 6 wins in 14 x 3-litre car races, that gives 19 wins in 58 races, less than one third victories to starts. He drove the Ford V8 10 times and won 5 times. A quick perusal of my calculator shows this to be around 50%. Even if we take into account the drives in the BRM, that gives him 14 x 3-litre starts with 6 victories, giving a success rate of well over one third.
I’d call that pretty successful even allowing that he didn't win the 67 WDC, and more than comparative with the 1.5 days. I accept there are anomalies with the figures, but the basis is more or less right.
The point I am making is that Webber is trying to imply that Clark in a 49 was typical of Clark. I don't think it was because we never got to see him at his best in a 49.
Modern F1 technology with no downforce would be spectacular.
Eric Mc said:
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
That Clark didn’t win the WDC in the 3-litre days was due to reliability issues rather than his abilities.
Out of three races in 66, he retired twice, won once, and that in the BRM H16.
In 67 he retired in the H16 again, drove the Climax V8 in Monaco (retired) and then, when the Ford V8 came on line, he had three retirements, four wins, a third (puncture and then back up to first only for a mechanical failure - his best race according to many) and a sixth (a plug change). The partnership of Clark and the Ford V8 was a match made in heaven.
He won his final
Whenever the car lasted, he won.
He won 25 times out of 73 starts, so a success rate of over a third. If we take off his 6 wins in 14 x 3-litre car races, that gives 19 wins in 58 races, less than one third victories to starts. He drove the Ford V8 10 times and won 5 times. A quick perusal of my calculator shows this to be around 50%. Even if we take into account the drives in the BRM, that gives him 14 x 3-litre starts with 6 victories, giving a success rate of well over one third.
I’d call that pretty successful even allowing that he didn't win the 67 WDC, and more than comparative with the 1.5 days. I accept there are anomalies with the figures, but the basis is more or less right.
Modern F1 technology with no downforce would be spectacular.That Clark didn’t win the WDC in the 3-litre days was due to reliability issues rather than his abilities.
Out of three races in 66, he retired twice, won once, and that in the BRM H16.
In 67 he retired in the H16 again, drove the Climax V8 in Monaco (retired) and then, when the Ford V8 came on line, he had three retirements, four wins, a third (puncture and then back up to first only for a mechanical failure - his best race according to many) and a sixth (a plug change). The partnership of Clark and the Ford V8 was a match made in heaven.
He won his final
Whenever the car lasted, he won.
He won 25 times out of 73 starts, so a success rate of over a third. If we take off his 6 wins in 14 x 3-litre car races, that gives 19 wins in 58 races, less than one third victories to starts. He drove the Ford V8 10 times and won 5 times. A quick perusal of my calculator shows this to be around 50%. Even if we take into account the drives in the BRM, that gives him 14 x 3-litre starts with 6 victories, giving a success rate of well over one third.
I’d call that pretty successful even allowing that he didn't win the 67 WDC, and more than comparative with the 1.5 days. I accept there are anomalies with the figures, but the basis is more or less right.
dr_gn said:
It would also be very, very slow over a lap - probably eclipsed by most other high level categories.
yes it would be slower, HOWEVER!if you dump the comedy tyres, mandate an aero floor (std dimensions etc) so that they get decent ground effect, loose all the wings, open up the engine tech, I very much doubt they would be visibly slower, and they would then be able to run close together, have to brake much earlier, etc etc.
Yes, this current crop of drivers are hot. They will drive the pants off whatever they are given.
If they switched the prize cash to cumulative WDC points and just scrap the notion of a WCC then the world would be a much happier place.
Meanwhile on planet earth Bernie created a strategy group of people with hugely diverse opinions so we are stuck with hybrid dross. He is the winner and "the winner takes it all".
If they switched the prize cash to cumulative WDC points and just scrap the notion of a WCC then the world would be a much happier place.
Meanwhile on planet earth Bernie created a strategy group of people with hugely diverse opinions so we are stuck with hybrid dross. He is the winner and "the winner takes it all".
In 2004 , Michael Schumacher took 1hr 28m 34s to win Bahrain.
In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
Redlake27 said:
In 2004 , Michael Schumacher took 1hr 28m 34s to win Bahrain.
In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
I think the anniversary of the Imola race where two drivers died shows why speeds had to be reduced. What is remarkable is that they've been successful. If the lap times had continued to rise then the circuits would have had to be modified to an extent that would render races unexciting. In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
Derek Smith said:
I think the anniversary of the Imola race where two drivers died shows why speeds had to be reduced. What is remarkable is that they've been successful. If the lap times had continued to rise then the circuits would have had to be modified to an extent that would render races unexciting.
that's a massive oversimplification of what happened and whyBut in essence it's true. Allowing speeds to increase to their maximum potential would eventually render motor racing on circuits as we know them impossible.
Up until the early to mid 1980s technology more or less progressed to more power and more speed. From 1983-85 onward the technology and regulations were more about restricting how fast the cars could go.
An earlier attempt to reduce power and speed (the 1961-65 1.5 litre formula) was not terribly liked by the powers that be and the increase in capacity to 3 litres in 1966 was billed as "the return to power". By the mid 1980s power and grip levels were being reduced by regulation rather than increased.
Up until the early to mid 1980s technology more or less progressed to more power and more speed. From 1983-85 onward the technology and regulations were more about restricting how fast the cars could go.
An earlier attempt to reduce power and speed (the 1961-65 1.5 litre formula) was not terribly liked by the powers that be and the increase in capacity to 3 litres in 1966 was billed as "the return to power". By the mid 1980s power and grip levels were being reduced by regulation rather than increased.
Redlake27 said:
In 2004 , Michael Schumacher took 1hr 28m 34s to win Bahrain.
In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
They also had refuelling in those days (if I remember correctly), that's a pretty big difference just there. In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
Redlake27 said:
In 2004 , Michael Schumacher took 1hr 28m 34s to win Bahrain.
In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
There are a few very important differences between 2015 and 2004, which are rarely mentioned.In 2015, Lewis Hamilton took 1h 35m 05s to win on the same circuit layout.
That is the equivalent to 4 laps behind....
The slowest car in the 2004 race (The Minardi Cosworth) was faster than Kimi's 2015 fastest lap.
I'll admit, take away the downforce, the tyre war and give them DRS and we get more overtakes now....but surely we have gone too far.
Weight. The current cars are 100kg heavier than the 2004 cars. If we assume every 10kg is worth around 0.35s/lap as a rough baseline then the cars are instantly 3.5s/lap slower on every lap than 2004 before we consider anything else. Over a race than equates to around 3 minutes and 20 seconds.
Fuel load through the race. This adds further to the weight issue. In 2004 the race was effectively three short sprints on fairly low fuel, so there was only a tiny pace difference between each stint. These days they start with 100kg, which affects their pace throughout the race and means that only the last stint can be roughly compared with the refuelling days - because that's the only time when the cars are on similar fuel loads. I won't do the sums here, but you can see how much that weight would impact pace over the first 60-70% of the race.
Plus, as you say, the zenith of the V10s, unlimited fuel allowance, tyre war, liberal downforce regs etc, etc.
Bearing those weight figures in mind, consider that LMP1 cars are 170kg heavier than F1 cars and that the fastest LMP1 lap by Lotterer at Silverstone the other week was 3.7s slower than Hamilton's from the 2014 GP. Silverstone's weight effect is greater than Bahrain's, so in effect (if we assume similar fuel levels) the LMP1 Audi was around 3 seconds faster than the F1 Mercedes around Silverstone. For me, as a big endurance racing fan, that's awesome. (I'll edit this to say that LMP1 weights are excluding driver, while F1 are including driver, so you can add another 65-75kg to the LMP1 weight, making their effective pace even more impressive).
Edited by Ahonen on Friday 1st May 10:17
Ahonen said:
Bearing those weight figures in mind, consider that LMP1 cars are 170kg heavier than F1 cars and that the fastest LMP1 lap by Lotterer at Silverstone the other week was 3.7s slower than Hamilton's from the 2014 GP. Silverstone's weight effect is greater than Bahrain's, so in effect (if we assume similar fuel levels) the LMP1 Audi was around 3 seconds faster than the F1 Mercedes around Silverstone. For me, as a big endurance racing fan, that's awesome. (I'll edit this to say that LMP1 weights are excluding driver, while F1 are including driver, so you can add another 65-75kg to the LMP1 weight, making their effective pace even more impressive).
no comedy tyres!
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff