Basic problems/solutions with Formula 1. Opinion not Fact.
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
There can be little doubt that Merc don't go racing for the fun of it. It is a marketing decision. Winning races shows the manufacturer as on top of the rest.
Indeed, but winning in a series containing cars which appear to the untrained eye to be significantly related to the direction that road cars are taking is massively more valuable as an advertising tool. Derek Smith said:
...
However, BACK ON TOPIC
I have an idea on how to improve the sport. It addresses the most obvious problem after costs: aerodynamics. The disturbed air behind a car gives rise to reduced grip and braking and also to increased tyre wear. It also requires computer game style solutions like DRS.
Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.
There should be an increase in requirements year on year.
I accept that this will increase costs to an extent but so will any change.
That's a great idea and would bring back close racing, which is what most of us want to see. However, BACK ON TOPIC
I have an idea on how to improve the sport. It addresses the most obvious problem after costs: aerodynamics. The disturbed air behind a car gives rise to reduced grip and braking and also to increased tyre wear. It also requires computer game style solutions like DRS.
Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.
There should be an increase in requirements year on year.
I accept that this will increase costs to an extent but so will any change.
I was under the impression that moves had already been made in that direction (things like the narrow rear wings and huge front wings in 2009). My suspicion is that nobody knows how to draft a loophole free version of the regulation.
The elephant in the room is that ground-effect cars don't suffer the aero problem, but have a tendency to spear off into the scenery if the ground effect fails ...
I am really enjoying reading all the opinions on here, fascinating stuff. In very simple terms, here is how I would set about fixing F1:
1. Nobody should be in a position where they are having to save fuel and tyres. Watching F1 cars several seconds off their potential, and afraid to race for fear of wrecking their tyres is completely unacceptable. And ‘lift and coast’ PLEASE! ARRRGGGHHHHH!
2. They need to accept they are in the entertainment business. ‘Going Green’ has been a total disaster. We have Formula E for that. Make F1 cars scary, proper racing cars again. It used to be a colossal leap from the categories below up to F1. Make that the case again, although it looks like they are on that for 2017.
3. Lots of mechanical grip, as little aero grip as possible. This issue has been going on for many years. Just sort it out, F1! Ban wings, if that solves it.
4. A significant reduction in team interference, just have the driver drive the car. How about a sort of car version of Moto GP? They wave a flag, and then there is a race, usually a really good one, between the on-track participants. Not much wrong there…….
5. Engines. They just have to sound amazing. The ’sound is wasted energy’ argument is ridiculous. EVERYTHING is wasted energy. Holding an F1 race, wasted energy. Flying the cars and parts to the event, wasted energy. Me typing this, wasted energy. Someone coming on here to say I am talking nonsense, wasted energy!
1. Nobody should be in a position where they are having to save fuel and tyres. Watching F1 cars several seconds off their potential, and afraid to race for fear of wrecking their tyres is completely unacceptable. And ‘lift and coast’ PLEASE! ARRRGGGHHHHH!
2. They need to accept they are in the entertainment business. ‘Going Green’ has been a total disaster. We have Formula E for that. Make F1 cars scary, proper racing cars again. It used to be a colossal leap from the categories below up to F1. Make that the case again, although it looks like they are on that for 2017.
3. Lots of mechanical grip, as little aero grip as possible. This issue has been going on for many years. Just sort it out, F1! Ban wings, if that solves it.
4. A significant reduction in team interference, just have the driver drive the car. How about a sort of car version of Moto GP? They wave a flag, and then there is a race, usually a really good one, between the on-track participants. Not much wrong there…….
5. Engines. They just have to sound amazing. The ’sound is wasted energy’ argument is ridiculous. EVERYTHING is wasted energy. Holding an F1 race, wasted energy. Flying the cars and parts to the event, wasted energy. Me typing this, wasted energy. Someone coming on here to say I am talking nonsense, wasted energy!
BlimeyCharlie said:
Dr Z said:
<snip>
It’s interesting that the 1995 Ferrari V12 has been cited as the epitome of F1 engine notes. I find it to be so lacking in character that it might as well be white noise. Sacrilege!
I enjoyed reading these comments, but the Ferrari V12 from 1995 lacking in character?It’s interesting that the 1995 Ferrari V12 has been cited as the epitome of F1 engine notes. I find it to be so lacking in character that it might as well be white noise. Sacrilege!
My hat!
The 1994 car was also something to behold. Watching at Copse corner you could hear the car accelerate from Luffield, up through the gears, sound echoing off the grandstands and bridge. Brilliant.
To say a Ferrari V12 in any F1 car is/was lacking in character is like saying you don't like fire because it is too hot!
If an engine is a V12, or a V11 whatever is, to me, irrelevant. A flat 6 Porsche engine sounds great too, along with a 5 cylinder Quattro from the 80's. It is a point of reference that the engine is this or that, the sound generated is what is all about.
I love the sound of a Lancia Delta S4 from 1986, supercharged and turbocharged, only 4 cylinders. Also loved the sound of a 205 T16 which was 4 cylinders and turbocharged. A Metro 6R4 with a V6 sounded grand too.
A Ferrari 333 SP sounds ace, as does a Sauber Mercedes C11, with a turbo'd V8.
Formula 1 today is trying to be a Vulcan bomber but with Airbus A380 engines.
I don't get the analogy with fire and heat though. Are you saying that character is an intrinsic property of a Ferrari V12? If so, that's news to me.
I define character as something that allows one to distinguish one engine from another and appreciate the number of cylinders emitting the sound to some extent purely from hearing its sound; it's subjective and your idea of character may be very different to mine. Character is not something that is amenable to sweeping generalisations, unlike heat and the perception of heat.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves. The purpose of racing engines is not to frighten or to generate warm fuzzy feelings in spectators. Function over form, pure and simple. If they induced strong emotive feelings in spectators by the sound that they emitted, it is an unintended consequence. The engineers don't set out to make it sound better and they don't give prizes out to the best sounding engine at the end of the year. Therefore, asking any racing series let alone F1 to conform to our individual notions of 'what a racing engine should sound like' is an exercise in futility.
Derek Smith said:
I have an idea on how to improve the sport. It addresses the most obvious problem after costs: aerodynamics. The disturbed air behind a car gives rise to reduced grip and braking and also to increased tyre wear. It also requires computer game style solutions like DRS.
Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.
There should be an increase in requirements year on year.
Didn't we have high noses and adjustable front wings to make the car less sensitive to turbulence in 2010? What's more, we also had tyres that didn't degrade as much as the Pirellis or as much as they did in 2009...I don't recall that we had particularly close racing then. Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.
There should be an increase in requirements year on year.
A lot of the current chassis rules were borne out of the findings of the Overtaking Working Group back in the mid noughties...we have turbulence still, but this year I have observed that a faster car can follow another car fine.
I'll let Paddy do the talking on the findings of the OWG:
Paddy Lowe said:
It was the first time some real science had been applied to the subject of overtaking and I think it's useful to go back to that time. Remember that in the mid to late 2000s the big story and the big problem with Formula One was overtaking. It was said there was no other problem with Formula One except overtaking, and various things had been tried and talked about before finally it was decided that we should actually do some proper work.
Some very interesting results came out of it and many of them were not intuitive as well. The paddock is full of amateur aerodynamicists, amateur overtaking experts and car wake experts, and actually when you get into the experimentation you find that things were not actually as you expected.
The brief going into the project was that you wanted it all in the floor, all ground effects, and take the wings off the car -- even now everybody says that. A lot of the pieces tried were around those themes and we also had the Central Downwash Wing [a concept to split the rear wing into two sections].
The first interesting thing that came out was that the Central Downwash Wing actually acted negatively on the following car and made it worse, but not far off that was having no rear wing at all. The best thing was to have a rear wing as we did, but refine it by having it narrower and higher. The reason is that the flow structures and the two vortices at the top of the two endplates are very strong energisers of fresh flow to re-energise the wake, whereas if you have no rear wing you end up with a very messy wake that hangs around. These two vortices bring in fresh air from the sides and dispel the low energy wake that's there. So actually you need a strong rear wing and, adjusting a few parameters, you can make it even more effective. That was unexpected.
The second point is to work on the front wing of the following car because it is the first part of the car to see the replenished wake. We found that an important aspect is to have a disabled centre section of the front wing, so that it is working just off the outboard ends low down. Those were the two major findings.
The thing that is forgotten is that there were two outputs from the OWG. The other half of the story was to halve the downforce. We actually ran some tests in the simulator with a car following and attempting overtakes around Barcelona. The reference point was that the following car needed two seconds per lap [of performance advantage over the car in front] to overtake and the objective was to get to one second per lap. We achieved that, and half a second came from the geometry [of the wings] and the other half came from the halving of the downforce.
Things are better than they were in the mid-2000s because we've brought in things like the DRS, which in my opinion, and I can't prove this, doesn't work on its own but works in combination with cars being able to follow each other. You need to follow in the previous turn to take advantage of DRS and make it work for you. It doesn't work as a standalone.
The other thing we've got is a big difference between different cars on different tyres at different states -- that's been far more prevalent in the Pirelli era. We also got rid of refuelling, which was a big discourager of overtaking at the end of the day because you're better to overtake with fuel strategy than doing it the hard way on the track.
We're not in a terrible place at the moment, but it is getting worse and in the last three years we have seen an aggressive reduction in the amount of overtaking and an increase in the level of complaints we get from drivers that they couldn't follow or get near the car in front. That isn't a surprise to me because we are at that point in the aerodynamic cycle where it is time for a reset and to go back down to a fresh lower level of downforce, as we have done over the last 20 years.
We have periodically reset the aero to stay within a certain window and at the moment we are at a historic highs of downforce, so it would be time to go lower and that would give a benefit in car following and recover where we were in 2013.
But we seem to be going the other way [for 2017]! We don't agree with that at Mercedes for a range of reasons, including the overtaking aspect. We think racing is not improved by constantly increasing aerodynamic downforce, you need to have the right balance between mechanical grip, aerodynamic grip, horsepower, weight -- those sorts of things need to be in a certain territory to encourage close racing. If you allow the aero performance to get completely unbalanced then you reduce the spectacle.
From here: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/15182571/paddy...Some very interesting results came out of it and many of them were not intuitive as well. The paddock is full of amateur aerodynamicists, amateur overtaking experts and car wake experts, and actually when you get into the experimentation you find that things were not actually as you expected.
The brief going into the project was that you wanted it all in the floor, all ground effects, and take the wings off the car -- even now everybody says that. A lot of the pieces tried were around those themes and we also had the Central Downwash Wing [a concept to split the rear wing into two sections].
The first interesting thing that came out was that the Central Downwash Wing actually acted negatively on the following car and made it worse, but not far off that was having no rear wing at all. The best thing was to have a rear wing as we did, but refine it by having it narrower and higher. The reason is that the flow structures and the two vortices at the top of the two endplates are very strong energisers of fresh flow to re-energise the wake, whereas if you have no rear wing you end up with a very messy wake that hangs around. These two vortices bring in fresh air from the sides and dispel the low energy wake that's there. So actually you need a strong rear wing and, adjusting a few parameters, you can make it even more effective. That was unexpected.
The second point is to work on the front wing of the following car because it is the first part of the car to see the replenished wake. We found that an important aspect is to have a disabled centre section of the front wing, so that it is working just off the outboard ends low down. Those were the two major findings.
The thing that is forgotten is that there were two outputs from the OWG. The other half of the story was to halve the downforce. We actually ran some tests in the simulator with a car following and attempting overtakes around Barcelona. The reference point was that the following car needed two seconds per lap [of performance advantage over the car in front] to overtake and the objective was to get to one second per lap. We achieved that, and half a second came from the geometry [of the wings] and the other half came from the halving of the downforce.
Things are better than they were in the mid-2000s because we've brought in things like the DRS, which in my opinion, and I can't prove this, doesn't work on its own but works in combination with cars being able to follow each other. You need to follow in the previous turn to take advantage of DRS and make it work for you. It doesn't work as a standalone.
The other thing we've got is a big difference between different cars on different tyres at different states -- that's been far more prevalent in the Pirelli era. We also got rid of refuelling, which was a big discourager of overtaking at the end of the day because you're better to overtake with fuel strategy than doing it the hard way on the track.
We're not in a terrible place at the moment, but it is getting worse and in the last three years we have seen an aggressive reduction in the amount of overtaking and an increase in the level of complaints we get from drivers that they couldn't follow or get near the car in front. That isn't a surprise to me because we are at that point in the aerodynamic cycle where it is time for a reset and to go back down to a fresh lower level of downforce, as we have done over the last 20 years.
We have periodically reset the aero to stay within a certain window and at the moment we are at a historic highs of downforce, so it would be time to go lower and that would give a benefit in car following and recover where we were in 2013.
But we seem to be going the other way [for 2017]! We don't agree with that at Mercedes for a range of reasons, including the overtaking aspect. We think racing is not improved by constantly increasing aerodynamic downforce, you need to have the right balance between mechanical grip, aerodynamic grip, horsepower, weight -- those sorts of things need to be in a certain territory to encourage close racing. If you allow the aero performance to get completely unbalanced then you reduce the spectacle.
Time will tell if the new cars for 2017 will suffer the fate predicted by Paddy.
Pat Symonds sat on the same group and is certain that the new cars bear identical flaws to the current crop. His view is that until overtaking becomes an essential part of winning, nothing will change and yet Paddy's team and the other big-Buck spenders will always tend to veto serious change. Bernie wanted to try reversing elements of the grid, or time ballasting the grid - in fact anything to liven up the show and make it exciting to a younger audience. Having the fastest car / driver start at the front of the grid, tends to stifle racing for the cars following.
At some point, I think in the not too distant future, F1 will eventually address this issue as casual TV viewers disappear behind a paywall. The first question that needs to be addressed is, does F1 exist to find the best driver? Or does F1 exist to reward the team with the biggest budget who employ the greatest number of engineers.
If the efficiency of engineering output were indexed, my guess is that Force India would win the WCC and Ferrari be the chumps at the bottom - but who gives a dam? As long as Mercedes, Fiat, Renault and Red Bull can promote their products the strategy group seems very happy to maintain the status quo.
At some point, I think in the not too distant future, F1 will eventually address this issue as casual TV viewers disappear behind a paywall. The first question that needs to be addressed is, does F1 exist to find the best driver? Or does F1 exist to reward the team with the biggest budget who employ the greatest number of engineers.
If the efficiency of engineering output were indexed, my guess is that Force India would win the WCC and Ferrari be the chumps at the bottom - but who gives a dam? As long as Mercedes, Fiat, Renault and Red Bull can promote their products the strategy group seems very happy to maintain the status quo.
PaulGuitar said,
As to the V12, I think it is perhaps the sheer pitch of the engine note that makes it particularly exciting. I think with the engines, revs have a lot to do with the problem with the current units. They just don’t sound as if they are making much of an effort, whereas as the V12’s and also very much the V10’s sounded like they were working so hard they might explode at any moment!
If anyone has seen the short film Rendezvous you will appreciate just how important engine noise is.
Turn the volume off and you are aware of a camera car driving through Paris at normal speeds - the road markings become the brain's main reference. Turn up the over-dubbed Ferrari sound track and the film takes on a completely different character.
Watch an F1 race in isolation and the sound track is OK, watch GP2 beforehand and you immediately know an important element is missing, thus reducing the feeling of heightened excitement, to an otherwise boring race.
As to the V12, I think it is perhaps the sheer pitch of the engine note that makes it particularly exciting. I think with the engines, revs have a lot to do with the problem with the current units. They just don’t sound as if they are making much of an effort, whereas as the V12’s and also very much the V10’s sounded like they were working so hard they might explode at any moment!
If anyone has seen the short film Rendezvous you will appreciate just how important engine noise is.
Turn the volume off and you are aware of a camera car driving through Paris at normal speeds - the road markings become the brain's main reference. Turn up the over-dubbed Ferrari sound track and the film takes on a completely different character.
Watch an F1 race in isolation and the sound track is OK, watch GP2 beforehand and you immediately know an important element is missing, thus reducing the feeling of heightened excitement, to an otherwise boring race.
Dr Z said:
Derek Smith said:
I have an idea on how to improve the sport. It addresses the most obvious problem after costs: aerodynamics. The disturbed air behind a car gives rise to reduced grip and braking and also to increased tyre wear. It also requires computer game style solutions like DRS.
Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.
There should be an increase in requirements year on year.
Didn't we have high noses and adjustable front wings to make the car less sensitive to turbulence in 2010? What's more, we also had tyres that didn't degrade as much as the Pirellis or as much as they did in 2009...I don't recall that we had particularly close racing then.
A lot of the current chassis rules were borne out of the findings of the Overtaking Working Group back in the mid noughties...we have turbulence still, but this year I have observed that a faster car can follow another car fine.
I got my idea from the OWG report. The criticisms of the various attempts at providing a solution were fascinating.I have an idea on how to improve the sport. It addresses the most obvious problem after costs: aerodynamics. The disturbed air behind a car gives rise to reduced grip and braking and also to increased tyre wear. It also requires computer game style solutions like DRS.
Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.
There should be an increase in requirements year on year.
Didn't we have high noses and adjustable front wings to make the car less sensitive to turbulence in 2010? What's more, we also had tyres that didn't degrade as much as the Pirellis or as much as they did in 2009...I don't recall that we had particularly close racing then.
A lot of the current chassis rules were borne out of the findings of the Overtaking Working Group back in the mid noughties...we have turbulence still, but this year I have observed that a faster car can follow another car fine.
Back in the days of no wings, the cars followed very closely, getting advantages greater than the DRS gives nowadays. Moss, I think, once said that a following driver kept knocking him out of gear. There was the Italian GP that had a dozen or so cars fighting for the lead. Gethin won the race, his only victory, but then it was the fastest and closest GP finish, so if you are going to win one, that's the one to win.
There was any number of passes in the final few laps.
If the airflow is controlled (as it probably is, but to the detriment of following drivers) to an extent then it would allow cars to follow one-another closely without detriment to tyres or to their ability to brake then I think it would allow for more passes. A significant problem seems to be that cars cannot follow another through the 'final' corner.
It would not, of course, be a final solution. There isn't one. But there might be three or four which, taken together, will give closer racing.
There is a danger of thinking that the 'old days' were better when they were just different. However, we can learn from the good points.
Lack of overtaking has been a problem for a number of seasons. The 87 British GP had just one, and it was probably the most exciting race I've ever seen.
I've had chats with nerds about what we like about F1. There were opposites and remarkably few agreements about what was vital. However, what we agreed about was that it was more than just the racing.
The sport needs to be professional. It needs to be the pinnacle. It needs to be F1. If there are to be changes then they must be beneficial, and not just a whim of those in charge, and certainly not returned to the norm after a race. This gives the impression, possibly correct, of panic. Or, perhaps, that it is fancy wrapping for the purposes of sale.
One change that I would have rejected a few years ago is a standard engine. The advantage that Merc have is irritating, but not unprecedented. It might be nice to see the occasional magic moment to put a backmarker on the front row of the grid. Or, perhaps, standard aero. But then the latter is against the ethos of the sport, while the former was the norm for me when watching F1 in the 60s and 70s. Great days.
However, at the moment, the sport is exciting and as good as it ever was. We've got a contest, and a cracking one, at the front and some brilliant racking for the next slots.
I'm a bit worried about next season but then I was worried about the current formula.
For me there's not an awful lot wrong with the sport that anno domini won't solve.
But simplifying aero won't hurt.
Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 9th August 21:14
Derek Smith said:
Dr Z said:
Derek Smith said:
I have an idea on how to improve the sport. It addresses the most obvious problem after costs: aerodynamics. The disturbed air behind a car gives rise to reduced grip and braking and also to increased tyre wear. It also requires computer game style solutions like DRS.
Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.
There should be an increase in requirements year on year.
Didn't we have high noses and adjustable front wings to make the car less sensitive to turbulence in 2010? What's more, we also had tyres that didn't degrade as much as the Pirellis or as much as they did in 2009...I don't recall that we had particularly close racing then. Have a requirement to stablise airflow behind the cars. Measurement could be taken in a wind tunnel at, for instance, three heights behind the car at three distances.
There should be an increase in requirements year on year.
A lot of the current chassis rules were borne out of the findings of the Overtaking Working Group back in the mid noughties...we have turbulence still, but this year I have observed that a faster car can follow another car fine.
Back in the days of no wings, the cars followed very closely, getting advantages greater than the DRS gives nowadays. Moss, I think, once said that a following driver kept knocking him out of gear. There was the Italian GP that had a dozen or so cars fighting for the lead. Gethin won the race, his only victory, but then it was the fastest and closest GP finish, so if you are going to win one, that's the one to win.
There was any number of passes in the final few laps.
If the airflow is controlled (as it probably is, but to the detriment of following drivers) to an extent then it would allow cars to follow one-another closely without detriment to tyres or to their ability to brake then I think it would allow for more passes. A significant problem seems to be that cars cannot follow another through the 'final' corner.
<snip>
I'm a bit worried about next season but then I was worried about the current formula.
For me there's not an awful lot wrong with the sport that anno domini won't solve.
But simplifying aero won't hurt.
If we go back to the days of no wings, the cars will be very slow and you will have people like Alonso complaining that it’s not as physically demanding to drive, although I’m certain that Hamilton hasn’t been complaining as much as Alonso. All that winning must’ve been something to do with it. You will also get some fan quarters getting a bit moany about the speed too.
To have a good balance of speed and spectacular handling cars, you need the wings and aerodynamics. There is only so much having fat tyres can give you. However, one example I will give from this year that illustrates my point nicely. Raikkonen following Verstappen in Hungary and vice versa. If what is being said about a car unable to follow close is true, and simply looking at the wake profiles of the cars in the wet, it must be impossible to follow as close as they both did. But we all saw that Raikkonen was able to follow Verstappen very very close, following the real time gaps in the F1 app, he was always in the 0.1s to 0.5s range. Then it’s up to the driver to make the pass, simple as that. A driver then complaining that he couldn’t follow too close etc, I take it as a case of a bad workman blaming his tools.
This illustrates that with the current cars, having sufficient mechanical grip is able to overcome the aerodynamic inefficiencies brought by following in the wake of another car. The way some fans (not aimed at you, btw) frame this issue, you would think that a driver following close is about to fall off the road due to the aero wake from the car in front!
Next year the tyres are getting fatter, but we’re also having much bigger diffusers and the OWG recommended tall wings are being discarded in favour of the apparently more aesthetically pleasing low arched back wings. This is somewhat worrying as I suspect the wake profile will be a lot worse for a car following...happy to be proved wrong though.
I will take this wake:
Or even this:
Over this:
Any day of the week.
However, I think a survey needs to be put out to all F1 fans to determine what they want from the sport, so the sport can align itself with fan interest
The options would be:
- Fast cars
- Spectacular handling/noise
- Lots of wheel to wheel racing/overtakes.
Perhaps this unspecified words are "for team mates on similar tyre strategies". We have seen this aspect, time and again, most notably from the Mercedes.
The problem of the Pirelli era has been that if you close-follow, you lose front-end grip and destroy the tyres. The third compound choice has helped mitigate this aspect this season.
If Lewis takes the engine penalties at Spa, you will probably see him pass several driver / tyre / chassis combinations right up to arriving behind Nico on Primes while he has switched to Options. I promise that he will not get past.
It is a given that it will be Nico's win, excluding wet weather, contact etc etc.
The problem of the Pirelli era has been that if you close-follow, you lose front-end grip and destroy the tyres. The third compound choice has helped mitigate this aspect this season.
If Lewis takes the engine penalties at Spa, you will probably see him pass several driver / tyre / chassis combinations right up to arriving behind Nico on Primes while he has switched to Options. I promise that he will not get past.
It is a given that it will be Nico's win, excluding wet weather, contact etc etc.
Dr Z said:
You gave a pretty balanced view for someone following the sport for as long as you do!
Thanks. I think.Dr Z said:
- Fast cars
- Spectacular handling/noise
- Lots of wheel to wheel racing/overtakes.
1/ The circuits
The odd thing is that sometimes the races were not exceptionally exciting but the layout made them memorable. Spa, Canada and Monza were prominent, as was Silverstone, but we were all British and it was decided that we might be biased.
2/ Underdog doing well
That was a biggy, especially if they'd put in a sterling performance over the weekend. They didn't have to win, but scoring points - so in the top six in those days - was a requisite.
3/ Rain/changeable conditions
Now that was the interesting one. It was described as 'the great leveler' but what it actually does is to give good drivers a better chance if they drive an inferior car. Yet the cars went slower, one race taking nearly two hours. It was felt that the More skilled/braver drivers were rewarded for their abilities/stupidity.
Given that in our group there was a range of who/what we supported the commonality of the races we picked was remarkable. That said, we were all nerdish fans of F1, somewhat demonstrative during races, and as we watched races together, those that gave rise to lots of excitement perhaps reinforced the memory.
I like the slow build up, so that I can see one car closing on another, or perhaps wondering if tyres were going to last. A race that falls into three parts - the start and first few laps, the cars sorting themselves into order and settling of tactics, the push towards the end - has me entranced. A few overtakes, especially when I know that a driver has to overtake to stand a chance as, perhaps, a win or podium, gets me going.
I think our list of three points can be summed up as just the one: a race should be memorable.
Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 14th August 09:42
I have some suggestions I'm not sure how doable they are.
1) Ban tyre warmers for the tyres in the pits, you can have them at the Tyres you start on but that's it (you can have them on Wets & Inters due to safety) then we'd see which drivers had the skill to switch on their tyres.
2) No Blue Flags unless it's the last 5 laps of the race, the rest of the time you have to work your way around the backmarkers.
3) Let the tyres wear out I think some of the best racing this year has come from the variations in compounds & wear with the current crop if tyres last a whole race then we get back to one stop bore fests.
4) 14,000 rpm cap
5) If you start a race behind a safety car you can't pit for at least 10 laps once the safety car has come in, this will eliminate the practice of the race starting then everyone diving for the pits which will encourage the teams/drivers to get the safety car in sooner.
6) Take a look at Indycars where they have an Aero Package that allows drivers to get up behind each other which will always prote overtaking.
7) This is my personal pet hate, TRACK LIMITS if you put four wheels outside of the circuits white lines you lose your lap time in Qualifying & it's a three strikes & you're touring the pitlane during the race.
8) Get those filming F1 to show how truly fast these guys are moving around the Circuit I'm mainly involved in Road Racing & it always amazes new clients how fast the racing is when they watch it live I know they have to slow the rate down but I think some of the spectacle is lost.
I think the sound would be less of an issue if the sport was more of a spectacle the sound would be less of an issue, I agree it is an issue, WSB have raised the DB level for this year & it's better the fans are enjoying it too.
1) Ban tyre warmers for the tyres in the pits, you can have them at the Tyres you start on but that's it (you can have them on Wets & Inters due to safety) then we'd see which drivers had the skill to switch on their tyres.
2) No Blue Flags unless it's the last 5 laps of the race, the rest of the time you have to work your way around the backmarkers.
3) Let the tyres wear out I think some of the best racing this year has come from the variations in compounds & wear with the current crop if tyres last a whole race then we get back to one stop bore fests.
4) 14,000 rpm cap
5) If you start a race behind a safety car you can't pit for at least 10 laps once the safety car has come in, this will eliminate the practice of the race starting then everyone diving for the pits which will encourage the teams/drivers to get the safety car in sooner.
6) Take a look at Indycars where they have an Aero Package that allows drivers to get up behind each other which will always prote overtaking.
7) This is my personal pet hate, TRACK LIMITS if you put four wheels outside of the circuits white lines you lose your lap time in Qualifying & it's a three strikes & you're touring the pitlane during the race.
8) Get those filming F1 to show how truly fast these guys are moving around the Circuit I'm mainly involved in Road Racing & it always amazes new clients how fast the racing is when they watch it live I know they have to slow the rate down but I think some of the spectacle is lost.
I think the sound would be less of an issue if the sport was more of a spectacle the sound would be less of an issue, I agree it is an issue, WSB have raised the DB level for this year & it's better the fans are enjoying it too.
ZX10R NIN said:
6) Take a look at Indycars where they have an Aero Package that allows drivers to get up behind each other which will always prote overtaking.
Scott Dixon will vehemently disagree with you: http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/verizon-indyc...It's worth point out that Indycars has push-to-pass which contributes a lot to the racing and better prime tyres.
ZX10R NIN said:
2) No Blue Flags unless it's the last 5 laps of the race, the rest of the time you have to work your way around the backmarkers.
I liked Ken Tyrrell. However, he was of the same mind as you and we had races ruined by drivers not being aware of what was going on round them. Monaco was sometimes a queue of cars behind someone who didn't want to be lapped. Andrea de Cesaris was notorious for blocking a rack track. Mind you, he was famous for crashing into other cars as well. Ironically his best race, at Monaco, was ruined while he was trying to overtake Alonso. Converted the pit lane to christianity. He crashed right in front of me at Bridge at the British GP. Hit both walls in the tunnel. Despite being against blue flags when it started, I've come around to them now. GP started as point to point and so cars didn't have to pass and repass those in it for the fun of it.
It's important to understand that the switch to turbo-hybrid power units with both kinetic and heat energy regeneration systems was driven by the engine manufacturers themselves.
Their intention was to use F1 to accelerate the development of power units which are both much more efficient and much less polluting than traditional high-revving petrol engines, hence the restrictions on both the total amount of fuel and the rate of flow.
It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the need for fuel saving during races will decrease as the power units develop and their efficiency increases.
Their intention was to use F1 to accelerate the development of power units which are both much more efficient and much less polluting than traditional high-revving petrol engines, hence the restrictions on both the total amount of fuel and the rate of flow.
It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the need for fuel saving during races will decrease as the power units develop and their efficiency increases.
ZX10R NIN said:
1) Ban tyre warmers for the tyres in the pits, you can have them at the Tyres you start on but that's it (you can have them on Wets & Inters due to safety) then we'd see which drivers had the skill to switch on their tyres.
To a large degree you have this already - even with the warmers they still need a fair amound of "switching on" required. About the only real difference you would see is large numbers of drivers crashing on the pit exit at Yas Marina IMO.ZX10R NIN said:
2) No Blue Flags unless it's the last 5 laps of the race, the rest of the time you have to work your way around the backmarkers.
A tricky one this - I vehermently disliked blue flags when they were first introduced as I felt that the ability to negotiate back markers was an interesting differentiator amongst some of the "top" drivers. In 2016-vintage F1 though I do think that they do more good than harm. With overtaking being so relatively difficult it could ruin some genuine "for position" battles. Also pretty much all of the top teams have varying degrees of relationship with one or more small teams and could apply some unsporting pressure to encourage them to block a rival. It's a little unformed but I've got an idea whereby a circuit would have one or more "blue flag zones" where drivers being lapped could be instructed to take a different line to allow a lapping car past (probably the straights?) and then it would be a much simpler/safer situation. That might be utter b
ks though!ZX10R NIN said:
3) Let the tyres wear out I think some of the best racing this year has come from the variations in compounds & wear with the current crop if tyres last a whole race then we get back to one stop bore fests.
Agreed - although I think for the most part this is what the current tires do. "The Cliff" certainly seems to be very rare thing these days and the tires just seem to get progressively worse.ZX10R NIN said:
4) 14,000 rpm cap
I don't have a problem with this exactly, but I can't for the life of me work out why. The cap is already 15k rpm I believe and lowering it by 1k rpm won't make much difference surely?ZX10R NIN said:
5) If you start a race behind a safety car you can't pit for at least 10 laps once the safety car has come in, this will eliminate the practice of the race starting then everyone diving for the pits which will encourage the teams/drivers to get the safety car in sooner.
There's a couple of problems with this:1. You can't predict when a safety car period will end and 10 laps is an awfully long time afterwards. If the track is drying rapidly (as some do) you could utterly kill a set in less than that which wouldn't be particularly safe. Either that or everyone would just tip-toe around for 10 laps trying not to shred their wets and that would be an incredibly dull waste of 10 racing laps before everyone piles in to the pits just like before.
2. You would also have to allow people to pit for things like damage, punctures, etc so then you'd have to have a list of permitted reasons to stop and measures to prevent it being abused etc and then you would have a red-tape nightmare similar to the team radio debacle.
3. It's not the teams/drivers who choose when the SC comes in - in fact you are often hearing them chomping at the bit on the radio feeds for it to go in. It's Charlie Whiting/Race Control that makes that call.
On the whole I agree that some of the SC-starts we've had have been nuts but I'm at least inclined to see what happens next year as Pirelli have reportedly been working to make the full wets better than their current chocolate-fireguard levels of usefulness.
ZX10R NIN said:
7) This is my personal pet hate, TRACK LIMITS if you put four wheels outside of the circuits white lines you lose your lap time in Qualifying & it's a three strikes & you're touring the pitlane during the race.
Agreed - although (and I admit I've lost track now) isn't this what the latest version of the track limits rule is?ZX10R NIN said:
8) Get those filming F1 to show how truly fast these guys are moving around the Circuit I'm mainly involved in Road Racing & it always amazes new clients how fast the racing is when they watch it live I know they have to slow the rate down but I think some of the spectacle is lost.
The problem is that the brief of most of the camera work will be to get the car in shot and in clear focus as much as possible in order to maximise TV exposure for the sponsors and in order to do that you end up blunting the sense of speed. And without the sponsors willing to cough up for that exposure F1 wouldn't exist. Also while the "wow" factor of the cars zipping past is high it does pale after the 2nd or 3rd time IMO and you can miss out on nuances of line and driving style really easily.ZX10R NIN said:
I think the sound would be less of an issue if the sport was more of a spectacle the sound would be less of an issue, I agree it is an issue, WSB have raised the DB level for this year & it's better the fans are enjoying it too.
The sound is a massively controversial topic - I must say that although I did enjoy the sound of the pre-hybrid cars it was never high on my list of reasons why I watched the sport so the wailing an gnashing of teeth about it over the last couple of years has largely left me baffled. Each to their own though and I can understand that it might have been a much larger issue for others and that's fair enough. If there is one thing I've learnt though it's that everyone has their favorite sound and you'll never please them all. I agree with you though - the better the ret of the "show" is then you'll reduce the moaning about the sound.ZX10R NIN said:
Forgot to add that every team would have to start the race with full tanks so the fuel saving that they do at the moment would be eradicated.
It wouldn't make a massive difference (other than fuel as ballast) because of the fuel flow limit there will still be fuel saving but its not a massive issue now because engine and fuel technology have come on leaps and bounds in the past 18months or so. WEC and that has fuel flow limits - last year in Germany a Porsche was penalised for exceeding the fuel flow limit; in its first year the drivers hated having to lift and coast Engineers always find a way around regulations.
So say you are determined to somehow force the drivers to run at full throttle for the entire race and perform no fuel saving, by mandating a minimum amount of fuel for the start of the race and a maximum for the end of the race (i.e. you must start with 200kg and finish with no more than 1kg).
With fuel costing so much time per lap, the engineers will build the engines to essentially dump fuel overboard for the first few laps in order to get the weight down for the remainder of the race.
You'd end up having to invent some convoluted telemetry system demanding drivers have WOT for a certain percentage of each lap. It'd end up getting a bit silly with people bouncing off walls because their delta wasn't high enough as they'd had to slow in traffic.
So say you are determined to somehow force the drivers to run at full throttle for the entire race and perform no fuel saving, by mandating a minimum amount of fuel for the start of the race and a maximum for the end of the race (i.e. you must start with 200kg and finish with no more than 1kg).
With fuel costing so much time per lap, the engineers will build the engines to essentially dump fuel overboard for the first few laps in order to get the weight down for the remainder of the race.
You'd end up having to invent some convoluted telemetry system demanding drivers have WOT for a certain percentage of each lap. It'd end up getting a bit silly with people bouncing off walls because their delta wasn't high enough as they'd had to slow in traffic.
KaraK said:
ZX10R NIN said:
1) Ban tyre warmers for the tyres in the pits, you can have them at the Tyres you start on but that's it (you can have them on Wets & Inters due to safety) then we'd see which drivers had the skill to switch on their tyres.
To a large degree you have this already - even with the warmers they still need a fair amound of "switching on" required. About the only real difference you would see is large numbers of drivers crashing on the pit exit at Yas Marina IMO.KaraK said:
ZX10R NIN said:
2) No Blue Flags unless it's the last 5 laps of the race, the rest of the time you have to work your way around the backmarkers.
A tricky one this - I vehermently disliked blue flags when they were first introduced as I felt that the ability to negotiate back markers was an interesting differentiator amongst some of the "top" drivers. In 2016-vintage F1 though I do think that they do more good than harm. With overtaking being so relatively difficult it could ruin some genuine "for position" battles. Also pretty much all of the top teams have varying degrees of relationship with one or more small teams and could apply some unsporting pressure to encourage them to block a rival. It's a little unformed but I've got an idea whereby a circuit would have one or more "blue flag zones" where drivers being lapped could be instructed to take a different line to allow a lapping car past (probably the straights?) and then it would be a much simpler/safer situation. That might be utter b
ks though!ZX10R NIN said:
3) Let the tyres wear out I think some of the best racing this year has come from the variations in compounds & wear with the current crop if tyres last a whole race then we get back to one stop bore fests.
Agreed - although I think for the most part this is what the current tires do. "The Cliff" certainly seems to be very rare thing these days and the tires just seem to get progressively worse.ZX10R NIN said:
4) 14,000 rpm cap
I don't have a problem with this exactly, but I can't for the life of me work out why. The cap is already 15k rpm I believe and lowering it by 1k rpm won't make much difference surely?ZX10R NIN said:
5) If you start a race behind a safety car you can't pit for at least 10 laps once the safety car has come in, this will eliminate the practice of the race starting then everyone diving for the pits which will encourage the teams/drivers to get the safety car in sooner.
There's a couple of problems with this:1. You can't predict when a safety car period will end and 10 laps is an awfully long time afterwards. If the track is drying rapidly (as some do) you could utterly kill a set in less than that which wouldn't be particularly safe. Either that or everyone would just tip-toe around for 10 laps trying not to shred their wets and that would be an incredibly dull waste of 10 racing laps before everyone piles in to the pits just like before.
2. You would also have to allow people to pit for things like damage, punctures, etc so then you'd have to have a list of permitted reasons to stop and measures to prevent it being abused etc and then you would have a red-tape nightmare similar to the team radio debacle.
3. It's not the teams/drivers who choose when the SC comes in - in fact you are often hearing them chomping at the bit on the radio feeds for it to go in. It's Charlie Whiting/Race Control that makes that call.
On the whole I agree that some of the SC-starts we've had have been nuts but I'm at least inclined to see what happens next year as Pirelli have reportedly been working to make the full wets better than their current chocolate-fireguard levels of usefulness.
ZX10R NIN said:
7) This is my personal pet hate, TRACK LIMITS if you put four wheels outside of the circuits white lines you lose your lap time in Qualifying & it's a three strikes & you're touring the pitlane during the race.
Agreed - although (and I admit I've lost track now) isn't this what the latest version of the track limits rule is?ZX10R NIN said:
8) Get those filming F1 to show how truly fast these guys are moving around the Circuit I'm mainly involved in Road Racing & it always amazes new clients how fast the racing is when they watch it live I know they have to slow the rate down but I think some of the spectacle is lost.
The problem is that the brief of most of the camera work will be to get the car in shot and in clear focus as much as possible in order to maximise TV exposure for the sponsors and in order to do that you end up blunting the sense of speed. And without the sponsors willing to cough up for that exposure F1 wouldn't exist. Also while the "wow" factor of the cars zipping past is high it does pale after the 2nd or 3rd time IMO and you can miss out on nuances of line and driving style really easily.ZX10R NIN said:
I think the sound would be less of an issue if the sport was more of a spectacle the sound would be less of an issue, I agree it is an issue, WSB have raised the DB level for this year & it's better the fans are enjoying it too.
The sound is a massively controversial topic - I must say that although I did enjoy the sound of the pre-hybrid cars it was never high on my list of reasons why I watched the sport so the wailing an gnashing of teeth about it over the last couple of years has largely left me baffled. Each to their own though and I can understand that it might have been a much larger issue for others and that's fair enough. If there is one thing I've learnt though it's that everyone has their favorite sound and you'll never please them all. I agree with you though - the better the ret of the "show" is then you'll reduce the moaning about the sound.I don't think you'd get a lot of drivers having half spins but within 1 or 2 test days they'd have worked it out how far they can push the tyres, but they'd be that time when they might just forget themselves, also after a safety car you don't see drivers spearing off so I don't think it should be to much of an issue.
Starting Under The Safety Car
Okay I see some of your points but if someone is pitting after the safety car because of damage then that's fine but they'd only be doing that after the safety car has come in & they've had an accident somewhere on the circuit, not because they want to put Inters on but in the interests of fairness let's say you can't pit for 5 Laps after the safety car has come in.
Blue Flags
I like your idea of blue flag zones, mainly on the straights so those being passed lose less time if they're caught anywhere else then it's down to the person lapping to get it done earlier if they can.
Track Limits
No they try & work it out on a corner by corner basis, I find it amazing that they get away with the argument "we didn't gain an advantage" it's so simple these are supposed to be the best drivers in the world how is it that they can't stay in the confines of the track?
TV Footage
I do understand that they can't show it a full speed but pick a section or corner & at points during the race show the true speed of the cars.
Full Tanks
Yes I know the engineers will want to burn fuel & then run lean but if someone goes the other way & is running fully rich catching a guy that is now running lean it adds to the spectacle.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff