Has F1 failed in its purpose?
Discussion
Here we go, thought I will start a new thread, and not derail the McLaren thread with any more posts there. To set the context:
I'm not arguing that in F1 it's then developed on hard, but that development will be very much aimed at it's use in F1 and is likely making it less useful outside that environment.
for example, turbo energy recovery for a road car has to work over a huge range, from highway cruise to full out WOT stuff, so a single fixed turbine without any form of variable geometry or the like is simply not going to cut it, yet F1 has banned anything like variable geometry or multiple stage turbo's.
this is a shame, because one of the major stumbling blocks to variable turbo's is making one that can stand the heat, and if the F1 guys could use them, then I bet they would come up with something that would be viable - and thus develop something that could be used on road cars.
Scuffers said:
Dr Z said:
My opinion is simply that yes, to a large degree, involvement in F1 is a marketing exercise for the big manufacturers. I was reading an interview of Andy Cowell (Mercedes HPP), where he mentioned that having little or no prior experience in a turbo compound setup as required by the current F1 regs, his team had to call on the expertise of the Daimler truck division to help design concepts for the F1 PU at an early stage of development. So, the translation here is actually going in the other direction. But, equally you cannot discount that the lessons learned in F1 with respect to materials etc can be translated to a road car easier than from another "alien" industry. A certain tech might as well be invented and used in the aerospace industry in the first instance, but you cannot deny that the translation that happens to apply that tech to F1 makes it easier to also translate it to the road car industry. If one cannot accept this simple premise, then I suggest this whole discussion is futile.
exactly, the tech flow is from other applications INTO F1 these days.I'm not arguing that in F1 it's then developed on hard, but that development will be very much aimed at it's use in F1 and is likely making it less useful outside that environment.
for example, turbo energy recovery for a road car has to work over a huge range, from highway cruise to full out WOT stuff, so a single fixed turbine without any form of variable geometry or the like is simply not going to cut it, yet F1 has banned anything like variable geometry or multiple stage turbo's.
this is a shame, because one of the major stumbling blocks to variable turbo's is making one that can stand the heat, and if the F1 guys could use them, then I bet they would come up with something that would be viable - and thus develop something that could be used on road cars.
Dr Z said:
And that brings us nicely to this point: F1 needs to figure out what it wants to be, as I certainly feel that the current regulations are half-hearted and confused in it's road relevance. A good argument can be made that WEC is more road relevant than F1 in its current guise. Can F1 in all its glory, exist without the big manufacturer presence? If not, then we already have our answer. How will the 70s look without Ford? What about the 80s without Honda? 90s without Renault?
Formula One's relationship with the manufacturers is symbiotic, so in order to attract them, it has to in some way pander to their marketing deparments. Because, ultimately the racing departments justify their spending to the manufacturer's board with reference to the marketing depts and road relevance. Having attracted the manufacturers, F1 also has to uphold the spirit of racing, however diluted it may be. Fans demand to see the top drivers going wheel to wheel, and fighting for the championship. They like to see good racing, which means more closely matched cars. This is anathema to innovation, which is also one of the requirements of better road relevance.
So, on the one hand, F1 (or FIA more specifically) is trying to limit innovation to encourage quicker convergence between teams to help increase the spectacle. On the other hand, F1 is trying to attract manufacturers by promising more road relevance, so the racing departments of the manufacturers can somehow justify their existence. Unfortunately, it has failed on both counts.
But on the latter point, the FIA is also having to balance the manufacturers and teams own individual agenda and power struggle. Remember when Renault were pushing for the inline-4 turbo regulations and Ferrari didn't like it, because it wasn't very 'road relevant' to them, suggesting the V6? The current regulations are the result of that mess. And the endless suggestions of gimmicks such as the DRS, artificial tyre degradation or that newly proposed qualification system to "improve the show" trying to patch up failure of FIA to increase the spectacle. These are just papering over bleeding big canyons, I'm afraid.
Formula One's relationship with the manufacturers is symbiotic, so in order to attract them, it has to in some way pander to their marketing deparments. Because, ultimately the racing departments justify their spending to the manufacturer's board with reference to the marketing depts and road relevance. Having attracted the manufacturers, F1 also has to uphold the spirit of racing, however diluted it may be. Fans demand to see the top drivers going wheel to wheel, and fighting for the championship. They like to see good racing, which means more closely matched cars. This is anathema to innovation, which is also one of the requirements of better road relevance.
So, on the one hand, F1 (or FIA more specifically) is trying to limit innovation to encourage quicker convergence between teams to help increase the spectacle. On the other hand, F1 is trying to attract manufacturers by promising more road relevance, so the racing departments of the manufacturers can somehow justify their existence. Unfortunately, it has failed on both counts.
But on the latter point, the FIA is also having to balance the manufacturers and teams own individual agenda and power struggle. Remember when Renault were pushing for the inline-4 turbo regulations and Ferrari didn't like it, because it wasn't very 'road relevant' to them, suggesting the V6? The current regulations are the result of that mess. And the endless suggestions of gimmicks such as the DRS, artificial tyre degradation or that newly proposed qualification system to "improve the show" trying to patch up failure of FIA to increase the spectacle. These are just papering over bleeding big canyons, I'm afraid.
Scuffers said:
this is where the argument falls apart for me.
it would be very easy to mandate a cheap production engine for F1, hell, a nice GM LS9 would do the job, and sound pretty good, or even the Merc SLR engine, both would cost peanuts and be capable of the same kind of power they have now.
so, the choice is a £25M a year engine or one that would be <£100K
where's the argument?
So you don't believe F1 needs manufacturers? Clearly they will not be interested in cheap production engines. it would be very easy to mandate a cheap production engine for F1, hell, a nice GM LS9 would do the job, and sound pretty good, or even the Merc SLR engine, both would cost peanuts and be capable of the same kind of power they have now.
so, the choice is a £25M a year engine or one that would be <£100K
where's the argument?
Vaud said:
PW said:
If it has, no one here can do anything about it, even if by some miracle everyone reached an agreement.
F1 seems to have turned into something that people endure on Sunday afternoon so that they have something to complain about for every waking hour between races.
Not for me. It's flawed but I love it still. I enjoy most races!F1 seems to have turned into something that people endure on Sunday afternoon so that they have something to complain about for every waking hour between races.
The problem that I see is that FIA never try to address the cause of the decreased spectacle. I'm not talking about dominance of a team--this has happened twice since I started following the sport diligently (RBR and Merc), and I do not see it as a problem as it is natural for teams to dominate when big regulation changes happen and/or when big manufacturers with loads to spent are involved. I believe that manufacturer involvement is important for F1 as it makes the sport one of the 'heavy weight' category.
The problem is when drivers complain that they cannot follow cars closely to do an overtake, as they suffer big understeer due to turbulence/dirty air and the tyres destroy themselves. This means that you need very big performance differential between cars for overtakes to happen. But these overtakes are too easy, due to the higher performance differential. You don't get to see real bravery on the brakes between drivers often.
It seems to me that all of these issues are caused by too much dependence on front wing related aero? Tyres being unable to take the abuse is an artificial restriction, that was brought in to limit cars from going faster and to put cars out of position by making them pit. Remember the W04 that was mega in qualifying but destroyed its tyres? Remember the RB9 that caused extreme deformation of the tyres due to the lateral loads it put on while cornering and hence suffered extreme degradation? It was exciting at first because of the randomness of the whole thing, but you start to realise that it really is artificial and unfairly punishing the better cars. But if I understand it right, the type of aero that we have is what is making all these issues, which the tyres are trying to solve.
It also seems to me that FIA are inventing rules arbitrarily to simply put the faster cars out of position in an effort to encourage more overtaking. The latest qualifying rules is a perfect example of that. But what they IMO fail to realise is that, the overtakes are too easy anyway for the faster cars because of the big performance differential. Oh and, they have DRS which makes it doubly easier. It's too gimmicky. The DRS was a recognition of this aero problem, but the solution is not attacking the cause but simply papering over the cracks.
Another thing I observe is that the manufacturers have too much power in the governance of the sport and they basically hold the sport to ransom, if they don't have their way. I find this unacceptable.
In saying all of this, I really don't know what a real solution will look like, as aero is what individual teams have the most influence over. So, trying to limit it seems counter productive.
kambites said:
The first stage of answering that question would be coming to some sort of consensus about what its purpose is.
If I have to define this, it would go along the lines of: Be the premier motor sport category in the world, attracting the top drivers and providing entertainment to fans. You often hear term 'pinnacle of motor sport' gets bandied about, and in my understanding it means that it is the fastest motorsport category, testing the limits of man and machine. You look up a circuit that F1 goes to and the fastest lap will have been set by an F1 car: that would satisfy a lot of the criteria. I'm not sure being a technological showcase is F1s ultimate aim, but it can be a secondary effect of regulations agreed to by the stakeholders. I'm sure a lot of folk on both sides of the debate would find this agreeable. But one might disagree based on historical views of grand prix racing but modern F1 is far removed from that in a lot of ways.
I came across something good, that I wanted to post up but since downforce was brought up...
As it stands, I believe F1 is on the right track with regards to the grip/power balance. Check out this comparison of the 2013 vs 2015 pole laps at the Abu Dhabi GP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FT3LfqRzUw
Webber did a 1:39:96, and Rosberg did 1:40:24. Only a few tenths difference but that RB9 looks absolutely on rails compared to the W06. You could see the W06 pushing out in several corners as the power comes in, could see Rosberg really working the wheel to get the car in to the corners. But this car was the class of the field! Even Vettel's race lap record set in 2009 looks very serene in comparison.
As it stands, I believe F1 is on the right track with regards to the grip/power balance. Check out this comparison of the 2013 vs 2015 pole laps at the Abu Dhabi GP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FT3LfqRzUw
Webber did a 1:39:96, and Rosberg did 1:40:24. Only a few tenths difference but that RB9 looks absolutely on rails compared to the W06. You could see the W06 pushing out in several corners as the power comes in, could see Rosberg really working the wheel to get the car in to the corners. But this car was the class of the field! Even Vettel's race lap record set in 2009 looks very serene in comparison.
Edited by Dr Z on Sunday 6th March 16:54
Derek Smith said:
F1 hasn't got a purpose as such. It has no responsibility to be entertaining. It need not bother with helping out the motor industry. Football makes no sense, nor does golf. Why should F1, out of all sports, have a purpose? You might as well ask what the point of bird watching is.
It needs to be entertaining to attract the viewing public and so the sponsors, but it could run without that aspect. It used to. But at the base line, it can do what it wants.
I don't agree with the football or golf analogy--they could be analogous to motorsport in general but not to F1. Now, I don't follow either of the sports you mention but I guess F1 could be equated to the premiership? If the premiership doesn't have the best teams within the country with the most talented/best players in it, would it still garner such a worldwide following and would it therefore be any different to a lesser club level competition?It needs to be entertaining to attract the viewing public and so the sponsors, but it could run without that aspect. It used to. But at the base line, it can do what it wants.
The argument that F1 can somehow exist in an aimless, purposeless, vacuum of sorts, completely divorced from any concern for fan entertainment or car manufacturer involvement betrays a flippant naivety about professional motorsport in general and modern F1 in particular.
F1 simply cannot exist in such a hypothetical vacuum while still retaining its gravitas and top dog status within motorsport. It would be no more than a glorified open wheeled clubbie meet like that mini race you went to. Whilst it may have existed like that back in the day, when it was probably in competition with other series for mainstream media coverage time, unlike now. It has stamped all over the others, and if it disappears up itself now, it is in danger of becoming irrelevant and therefore cease to exist as a professional motorsport category.
And what of other categories such as Formula Renault 3.5 or GP2 that lead to F1? They too will become irrelevant, in losing their purpose. The whole food chain collapses. I know that life goes on and stuff. But this is an existential crisis for a modern F1 fan. I readily agree that motorsport or any sport in general doesn't need to or indeed, have a 'purpose' as such.
NuddyRap said:
<snip>Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
<snip>
Interesting if somewhat depressing, machiavellian take on it, thanks. One hopes that characters such as Ron Dennis and Frank Williams who are racers at heart won't have to sell out, to keep going.<snip>
But if I may comment on one point you made as regards sprint racing:
NuddyRap said:
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
Has F1 ever been a flat out sprint race? I would suggest, right from the old days of Grand Prix racing to modern F1, that has never been the case. There has always been a level of conservation going on to varying degrees whether they may be fuel, tyres or engine performance. You could argue that previous conservationist racing (let's call it Grand Prix racing) was due to limitations in technology, but now technology has come on to a point that it is no longer possible and hence, artificial restrictions have to be brought in place. However, I would argue that the current fuel efficiency formula is pushing the teams (or atleast the engine manufacturers) in ways they were never pushed before and hence providing a natural limitation akin to previous eras. Well, you only get four engines for the whole season: in previous eras that will have been unthinkable but now it is possible. It is still a race, when teams are pushing the performance envelope within what is possible. F1 is still top dog, when the next category below can't see which way a current F1 car went. Whoever can build a bullet proof engine that consumes the least amount of the allocated fuel whilst still being faster than the rest, wins. This formula will mature when everyone can do what Mercedes HPP can do, and then the rule makers will have to think up something else that might provide that limitation. I would argue that this is in keeping with the ethos of Grand Prix racing. Fans clamouring for something akin to sprint racing are essentially asking for F1 to turn in to something it is not. I'm afraid, it will then lose its identity and more importantly, will lose its connection to it's own history. I don't believe that is healthy or warranted.
If you ask a group of F1 fans, many will look up on the V10 engine era as the best F1 had ever been. Indeed, the current F1 drivers who had driven those cars will agree that it required great human endurance to handle those machines. Many lap records were set in that era suggesting that was when F1 was its fastest. But have a look at those races: the Grand Prix racing will still remain. For example, the race lap record at the Melbourne GP circuit was set by Schumacher during the 2004 season, at lap 29 of the 58 lap race. He led every single lap of the race, but set the fastest lap only at lap 29. What was he doing for the remaining laps, if not conserving and going slower than he had to or ought to? This is the essence of F1 racing, IMO. It straddles the lines between endurance and sprint races. It will have periods when you are flat out and periods when you are conserving. Whoever gets the balance right for the prevailing conditions of the day, gets over the line first.
Derek Smith said:
Dr Z said:
Has F1 ever been a flat out sprint race?
When refuelling was banned, one of the team managers said that he was pleased as the sport had become three sprint races in one.A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but with more than a grain of truth.
Derek Smith said:
In fact, from memory, most cars didn't go flat out all the time. The first third, normally, would be to establish positions and then all the drivers did in the main was to go faster than their nearest competitor. This was fun when it was a teammate.
Vettel normally tried for fastest lap 3 or so from the end. This was often considerably faster than anyone was going at the time so belying the suggesting they were flat out all the time.
There were the occasional races though . . .
This seems right, now! My original point stands then...I tried to look at lap time data for the different cars for the 2004 Australian GP but couldn't find it. Vettel normally tried for fastest lap 3 or so from the end. This was often considerably faster than anyone was going at the time so belying the suggesting they were flat out all the time.
There were the occasional races though . . .
2004 Melbourne GP Pit Stop data
The link above reports that Schumacher 3-stopped for that race, suggesting he was trying to deploy the maximum available pace in his car. The lap record at lap 29, suggests this. After refuelling, he should have continued to set a faster lap on or before lap 45 when he stopped again, when the fuel load is likely to have been at it's lowest. But clearly he didn't. Race report suggests that Barrichello was pushing him quite hard in the early stages and had some issues with his car in the latter stages of the race so not challenging him for the race win. Schumacher then cruises the rest of the race.
The reason I kind of picked on it was, if I can show that the drivers were not going flat out at all times, having a bit of a margin during the perceived zenith of Formula 1, then it stands to reason that, flat out racing or being at the limit at all times was never part of the DNA in the first place.
As an aside, the race winning time difference between 2004 and 2015 races suggests that Schumacher in his F2004 would have likely lapped Hamilton in his W06, an astonishing FOUR times. Yet, you look at the full race classification ( 2004 and 2015) and the gaps between cars in the finishing order doesn't look all that different. We know that the F2004 dominated, just as the W06 dominated. Refuelling is not the answer, and I was glad when it was off the table for the 2017 regulation changes.
Edited by Dr Z on Sunday 13th March 16:40
Interesting comments from Charlie reported by Sky concerning driver input in to changes introduced to improve the show.
I think they get a lot of say. We have, as you know, technical and sporting working group meetings, to which a driver is always invited. The take-up is very low, but they are invited and they get the agendas and the minutes of the meetings. There is a seat on the FIA Circuits Commission for a Formula One driver but again attendance is not as high as one might like.
They do get an opportunity every race weekend to sit, in this room for example, later this evening to discuss whatever they want to. We don't just talk about what’s happened on the track today, they talk about all sorts of things.
That’s another perfect opportunity to discuss anything they wish. I’m always happy to talk to them. We had a meeting in Barcelona, as you know, quite a few drivers actually turned up for it, which was nice. Lewis was invited but he didn’t come.I wonder if drivers have any kind of consensus on how to improve the spectacle. The few comments put out some drivers certainly doesn't appear that way.
Another thing I was wondering, we saw some signs of performance convergence starting to happen in the Australian GP. Is it the right time to bring wholesale changes to the formula in 2017? Surely, you would want convergence to happen so much that you go deep into diminishing returns? Surely, big changes for next year only increases the chances of another team dominating?
Charlie Whiting said:
I think they get a lot of say. We have, as you know, technical and sporting working group meetings, to which a driver is always invited. The take-up is very low, but they are invited and they get the agendas and the minutes of the meetings. There is a seat on the FIA Circuits Commission for a Formula One driver but again attendance is not as high as one might like.
They do get an opportunity every race weekend to sit, in this room for example, later this evening to discuss whatever they want to. We don't just talk about what’s happened on the track today, they talk about all sorts of things.
That’s another perfect opportunity to discuss anything they wish. I’m always happy to talk to them. We had a meeting in Barcelona, as you know, quite a few drivers actually turned up for it, which was nice. Lewis was invited but he didn’t come.
Another thing I was wondering, we saw some signs of performance convergence starting to happen in the Australian GP. Is it the right time to bring wholesale changes to the formula in 2017? Surely, you would want convergence to happen so much that you go deep into diminishing returns? Surely, big changes for next year only increases the chances of another team dominating?
London424 said:
The drivers have just released a statement...quite punchy!
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35882820
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/71264784...
Wow, that's a pretty big ask! Impressed that drivers have come to a consensus on this, with JB and Seb putting their name to it. Cynic in me says nothing will come of it.http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35882820
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/71264784...
Tootles, interesting to hear a fan's view from the Murray Walker era as you put it. Where to start! I don't think many of your ideas will work in today's climate. The world has moved on, I'm afraid.
In other news, the F1 Commission are to decide today, whether to revert to pre-2016 qualifying format or not. A few voices including Pirelli would like a tweaked format with Q1 and Q2 in the elimination style with longer session times to enable teams to react better rather than sitting helpless in the garage as the clock ticks down, and reverting to the old style Q3.
The only way I see this working is that teams will have to be given an extra set of Q3 qualifying tyre or else, I can see teams who used up two sets to get to Q3 will only do one run, like Ferrari did last race. I really hope they will think it through before foisting another muddled set of rules on us.
This goes back to the governance problem that F1 faces and the constant power struggle between the constructors/teams and the FIA or Bernie. Jon Noble in one of his articles questioned why these trials were not done in the remaining races after the championship was done and dusted last year. I think it's a valid point. However, I think these changes are being trialled now simply as a knee-jerk reaction to reduce perceived Mercedes dominance by Bernie. No thought behind it. It makes Bernie/FIA and the whole F1 governance structure, stupid and a laughing stock.
In other news, the F1 Commission are to decide today, whether to revert to pre-2016 qualifying format or not. A few voices including Pirelli would like a tweaked format with Q1 and Q2 in the elimination style with longer session times to enable teams to react better rather than sitting helpless in the garage as the clock ticks down, and reverting to the old style Q3.
The only way I see this working is that teams will have to be given an extra set of Q3 qualifying tyre or else, I can see teams who used up two sets to get to Q3 will only do one run, like Ferrari did last race. I really hope they will think it through before foisting another muddled set of rules on us.
This goes back to the governance problem that F1 faces and the constant power struggle between the constructors/teams and the FIA or Bernie. Jon Noble in one of his articles questioned why these trials were not done in the remaining races after the championship was done and dusted last year. I think it's a valid point. However, I think these changes are being trialled now simply as a knee-jerk reaction to reduce perceived Mercedes dominance by Bernie. No thought behind it. It makes Bernie/FIA and the whole F1 governance structure, stupid and a laughing stock.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-forced-to-kee...
So, they couldn't fix the problem nor even address it. Cynic in me suggests that this is a political move by the Bernie/Todt alliance to wrestle back control from the constructors/manufacturers.
So, they couldn't fix the problem nor even address it. Cynic in me suggests that this is a political move by the Bernie/Todt alliance to wrestle back control from the constructors/manufacturers.
Coppice, that's probably the most somebody has put an effort to come up with some ideas to make the spectacle better, in this thread. Let's see if it is coherent and actually viable.
2) Define fast. And define 'hard to drive at the limit'. I don't know if you realise, they are both related (if I get where you're coming from). A very hard car to drive at the limit will also be a very slow car. Then you get people complaining that their grandma can drive faster or that F1 isn't a pinnacle of motorsport anymore, as the lower categories are faster. Of course, a hard car to drive at the limit would be good to demonstrate driver skill at the limit. But a car that is easier to drive at the limit will be naturally faster. Teams will always look to make their car do the latter, and not the former. Loudness is subjective, and I prefer musicality to brutality in the loudness scale. So, agree to disagree.
3) OK, no overtaking via strategy--how you achieve it is elaborated in the fourth/fifth points, so let's go there:
4) Right, you want tyres that last a whole race. I assume you'd also require these hypothetical tyres to take all manner of abuse without giving up the ghost, allowing the drivers to push to the car's max potential. By giving teams tyres like this, you invariably diminish driver influence on the race result. Let me explain. Suppose there are two front running teams, say Ferrari and Mercedes whose cars are 0.2s/lap apart in ultimate performance, with Mercedes faster than Ferrari. At the start of the race both Ferrari and Mercedes are pushing to their limit and by 10 laps we will have a Mercedes 1-2 with a gap of 2 seconds to a Ferrari 3-4. The only fight you are likely to have is between team mates, and you are much less likely to see that. In this hypothetical race you will have a nicely ordered procession according to the performance of the cars.
Driver influence has less of an effect on car performance after a certain threshold. You certainly see that in the current formula at the front. All top drivers can drive to within a tenth of each other. If you make the cars harder to drive on the limit, you also make them slower, but increase the effect of driver influence. But teams will always try to minimise driver influence to get a nicely managed 1-2 for the constructor's championship.
5) In total agreement there, but for different reasons which I have outlined in previous posts in this thread.
6&7) I guess these two points are related. Would you welcome manufacturers to the sport, and if you do, you have a massive issue of policing their budgets. If the big guns are banned from the sport, you would still get whoever can spend the most, end up being at the front. This imbalance is impossible to correct. I appreciate that the top spenders don't necessarily win, but asking teams like McLaren or Williams to stick to an arbitrary budget that panders to the lowest common denominator will be very difficult to do, and they'll simply leave or find ways around it. This includes our beloved Ferrari, btw.
8) Agree.
coppice said:
What some need to grasp is that F1 is not about just entertaining racing - you can get that from any number of sources from BTCC up - but something far more complex and addictive.
The first thing it needs to be is not a stand alone sport but the pinnacle of the sport ; I am shocked how many fans equate motor sport with F1 alone and how few are aware about the rest. So I would push for European championships at F2/GP2 and F3 level which are run separately(and accessibly to the normal fan) and not as a support act to Grands Prix. Why Europe ? Simple- we make the cars , produce most of the drivers and constitute most of the TV audience.
Second- F1 cars need to be very fast , very loud and very hard to drive at the limit.I want to see and hear cars which ,in Pete Lyons' words, 'make me take a step back from the fencing when they go past'. I want driver skills to focus on the mechanics of driving - steering and changing gear etc and not multi tasking on an iphone disguised as a racing car.
Third- overtaking - hard but possible and without the need for the oxymoronic 'overtaking in the pits '.
Fourth- tyres - I don't care what brand they are and I care even less about their compound . Their role is to last a race without falling in bits. Pit stops are to change a puncture .
Fifth no refuelling- pit stops ruin most single seater racing . Fine for sports cars and NASCAR.And Indy 500.
Sixth - 26 car grids - and I care not a damn if major manufacturers are in out. I like to see the red cars as they are a lot of the sport's DNA but the sport should always be bigger than the manufacturers .
Seventh -Affordability ;the current budgets are grotesque.They are unsustainable and fixed budgets may be the only way out - bloody difficult though .
Eighth - and by far the most important. The sport has been pimped around to the highest bidder by a cynically avaracious management for years. They have got obscenely rich and fans have been progressively more ripped off by the shower who run F1 . I am sick of it- most of us are sick of it . Let's change it from a rapacious business masquerading as a sport to a sport run in a business like way.
1) I think it will be nice to go to an F3 or GP2 meet, separate from a F1 weekend. Easy enough to do, I guess. Done.The first thing it needs to be is not a stand alone sport but the pinnacle of the sport ; I am shocked how many fans equate motor sport with F1 alone and how few are aware about the rest. So I would push for European championships at F2/GP2 and F3 level which are run separately(and accessibly to the normal fan) and not as a support act to Grands Prix. Why Europe ? Simple- we make the cars , produce most of the drivers and constitute most of the TV audience.
Second- F1 cars need to be very fast , very loud and very hard to drive at the limit.I want to see and hear cars which ,in Pete Lyons' words, 'make me take a step back from the fencing when they go past'. I want driver skills to focus on the mechanics of driving - steering and changing gear etc and not multi tasking on an iphone disguised as a racing car.
Third- overtaking - hard but possible and without the need for the oxymoronic 'overtaking in the pits '.
Fourth- tyres - I don't care what brand they are and I care even less about their compound . Their role is to last a race without falling in bits. Pit stops are to change a puncture .
Fifth no refuelling- pit stops ruin most single seater racing . Fine for sports cars and NASCAR.And Indy 500.
Sixth - 26 car grids - and I care not a damn if major manufacturers are in out. I like to see the red cars as they are a lot of the sport's DNA but the sport should always be bigger than the manufacturers .
Seventh -Affordability ;the current budgets are grotesque.They are unsustainable and fixed budgets may be the only way out - bloody difficult though .
Eighth - and by far the most important. The sport has been pimped around to the highest bidder by a cynically avaracious management for years. They have got obscenely rich and fans have been progressively more ripped off by the shower who run F1 . I am sick of it- most of us are sick of it . Let's change it from a rapacious business masquerading as a sport to a sport run in a business like way.
2) Define fast. And define 'hard to drive at the limit'. I don't know if you realise, they are both related (if I get where you're coming from). A very hard car to drive at the limit will also be a very slow car. Then you get people complaining that their grandma can drive faster or that F1 isn't a pinnacle of motorsport anymore, as the lower categories are faster. Of course, a hard car to drive at the limit would be good to demonstrate driver skill at the limit. But a car that is easier to drive at the limit will be naturally faster. Teams will always look to make their car do the latter, and not the former. Loudness is subjective, and I prefer musicality to brutality in the loudness scale. So, agree to disagree.
3) OK, no overtaking via strategy--how you achieve it is elaborated in the fourth/fifth points, so let's go there:
4) Right, you want tyres that last a whole race. I assume you'd also require these hypothetical tyres to take all manner of abuse without giving up the ghost, allowing the drivers to push to the car's max potential. By giving teams tyres like this, you invariably diminish driver influence on the race result. Let me explain. Suppose there are two front running teams, say Ferrari and Mercedes whose cars are 0.2s/lap apart in ultimate performance, with Mercedes faster than Ferrari. At the start of the race both Ferrari and Mercedes are pushing to their limit and by 10 laps we will have a Mercedes 1-2 with a gap of 2 seconds to a Ferrari 3-4. The only fight you are likely to have is between team mates, and you are much less likely to see that. In this hypothetical race you will have a nicely ordered procession according to the performance of the cars.
Driver influence has less of an effect on car performance after a certain threshold. You certainly see that in the current formula at the front. All top drivers can drive to within a tenth of each other. If you make the cars harder to drive on the limit, you also make them slower, but increase the effect of driver influence. But teams will always try to minimise driver influence to get a nicely managed 1-2 for the constructor's championship.
5) In total agreement there, but for different reasons which I have outlined in previous posts in this thread.
6&7) I guess these two points are related. Would you welcome manufacturers to the sport, and if you do, you have a massive issue of policing their budgets. If the big guns are banned from the sport, you would still get whoever can spend the most, end up being at the front. This imbalance is impossible to correct. I appreciate that the top spenders don't necessarily win, but asking teams like McLaren or Williams to stick to an arbitrary budget that panders to the lowest common denominator will be very difficult to do, and they'll simply leave or find ways around it. This includes our beloved Ferrari, btw.
8) Agree.
TL;DR version: Formula 1 is complex. It is difficult to increase the effect of driver performance to have a real effect on the race when car performance is often the deciding factor.
Suppose that you do an experiment where you get myself, some amateur racers and a bunch of F1 drivers ranging from the top to back of the grid, to do a few hot laps around a 90 sec/lap circuit in the same car/same conditions. You're likely to get data like this:
These top level athletes are so sensitive to miniscule performance differences between cars that a car that is hard to drive for an amateur may not be very hard at all for an F1 driver. A car that is hard to drive for an F1 driver will be very very hard to drive for an amateur and impossible to drive for someone like me, indeed. But I think I get your sentiment. It has been expressed by Webber, Button and Alonso in recent times when they talk about the sheer physical effort and mental recalibration required to pilot an F1 car from the 3.0L V10 era that they are all so fond of. I have also read where they talk about how big of a jump it was, to go from a lower category to F1 back then, which is not the case now. The performance jump is still there but rookies coming through in recent times have said that the difference is more in terms of going from a relatively simple to complex operation procedures of the cars (eg. going from working with 2 engineers to 50!).
Whilst I think the cars can be complex to operate (it’s the pinnacle of motorsport after all), there needs to be a reduction in the number of procedures and sequences the driver has to input/remember during the race, so they can devote more of their mental capacity to concentrate on driving/racing. We also need to get back to the speeds achieved during that 3.0L V10 era, but keep it so that there is more power than grip available (NB: I didn’t say reduce the downforce, but simply more power than grip). From where we stand now, this can be achieved and indeed original plans to change the regulations for 2017 might have actually done this, if it weren’t for the constant political wrangling between all parties concerned especially between Pirelli and some constructors. And this brings us to the idea of tyres that can last a whole race.
I have only been seriously following the sport from around Brazilian GP 2009 on, but I have noticed a trend in getting the drivers to be more involved in operating and driving the car more autonomously, and in reducing driver aids. I think the rationale behind this move is this:
If you see my hypothetical graph above, we’re talking about 0.1-0.7s difference from the top F1 driver to the back of the grid, ‘pay driver’ in pure driving performance alone (assuming all other aspects are kept constant). It’s a small difference, but still quite appreciable. But this is not all, in this lovely sport of Formula 1. We throw another larger variable into the equation, namely the cars themselves. The performance difference between a top car and the back of the grid car can be anything from 1 second to 4-5 seconds. This can allow the natural variability inherent in driver performance to overcome car performance deficit, but only to a certain extent.
Take last season, where the Mercedes W06 was consistently faster than the Ferrari SF15-T in the range of 0.2s-0.9s in the races. Because, Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel and Raikkonen are all top drivers, the inherent variability within these four drivers, likely in the region of 0-0.2s will be unable to overcome the performance deficit of the Ferrari in comparison to Mercedes. Rosberg and Hamilton or indeed the team will have to underperform significantly and the Ferrari drivers have to extract the maximum potential in the SF15-T for Ferrari to beat one or both W06s. And we are assuming everything else is equal--we haven’t got to the tyres yet! So teams will try to minimise or control the effect of variables that can have an effect on car performance. The more control that teams have on car performance, the less effect the driver can have on it. You have basically hit the ceiling.
If we do give all of them tyres that last a whole race and doesn’t lose grip, you’ll have a Mercedes 1-2 with a Ferrari 3-4 all year long because you are cancelling the effect of a variable that can magnify driver performance differences, and you are therefore preventing drivers from overcoming car performance differences. But the governing body have a trick up their sleeve: if we can control tyre performance, we can control car performance.
This is what Pirelli were mandated to do, I think. By introducing variability in tyre compounds and forcing the drivers to use at least two compounds per race, they hoped to magnify driver performance and also car performance during different phases of the race. We have multiple tyre compounds that have their own characteristic in how durable they are and how fast they can go. What if a driver in a lesser car is able to deploy more of the performance potential available in a particular tyre or in a particular track condition? Or if the designers/engineers were able to design their car so that their car is kind to a faster tyre: they could potentially go faster for longer. And what if a driver is able to exploit this car characteristic better in a lesser car than another in a faster car? We have just given the smaller teams a fighting chance. It went horribly wrong for a couple of seasons, with no real predictability (Maldonado winning comes to mind!) but I think they might be on the right track now.
However, the problem of dirty air/hot exhaust air causing degradation still remains, preventing drivers from following closely, in addition to the turbulence causing significant reduction in downforce produced by the following car. Interestingly, during the last race I saw Verstappen following Sainz Jnr very closely for many many laps, then spun, smoked his tyres and still was delivering big lap times to catch up to Sainz once more, and Magnussen pretty much did the whole race on one set of tyres, so may be these tyres are getting better? I don’t know, but then again I also saw Rosberg dared not come within 1 second of Raikkonen in the early part of the race, presumably to not destroy his tyres and therefore not be able to do the stint lengths desired to make tyre strategy work. I also note, Verstappen was on Medium and Rosberg was on Super Softs...maybe this durability differs for different tyre compounds? It’s a mystery to me at the moment.
But, if you fuel correct lap times for a current car in clear air in the 2nd/3rd stints they are still not doing the maximum they can because the tyre degrades faster the harder they push, so in order to eke out a certain stint length they have to drive below the maximum performance of the car. If you allow drivers to push to the maximum potential of their cars, you also invariably magnify the effect of car performance and therefore let it be the deciding factor on the race result. This is what we’re trying to avoid, because fans do not like to see an ordered procession according to car performance. Looking up last year’s drivers championship standings will be a stark reminder of what can happen if car performance can be a deciding factor.
With regards to turbulence, I was reading a paper (see below) that suggested that the flow coming off the rear wing is fairly laminar but it is the interaction between the flow coming off the rear diffuser and rear wing is what that causes turbulence. What if we get rid of the diffuser? We lose downforce and perhaps reduce this problem of turbulence, but I think teams may be resistant to it. The rear diffuser size has been reduced massively from back in 2009 to now, but I think it has been set to increase for the 2017 regulations, IIRC. The paper also suggests that all those 2007/2008 winglets also can cause turbulence.
I’m no aerodynamicist or engineer, but what if we get rid of the rear diffuser? And get the exhaust pointing like a periscope way above tyre height? Would it improve ability to follow closely? Any aerodynamicist or engineer would like to enlighten?
Investigation of turbulence created by Formula One cars with the aid of Numerical Fluid Dynamics and optimization of overtaking potential [PDF file]
coppice said:
Re difficulty of driving - neither you (Probably )nor I (certainly ) could drive even a DFV engined F1 car as quickly as an amateur racer , they couldn't drive as quickly as a back of the grid F1 driver (or a decent F3 driver) and they couldn't drive to within the tenths that really count of a Senna or a Rindt. So that's my sort of my analogue take on 'difficult' .
Oh...I see that we are expanding the sample of humans who find an F1 car difficult from, what I thought were F1 drivers to include drivers from joe public to amateur racers to the top F1 drivers. Suppose that you do an experiment where you get myself, some amateur racers and a bunch of F1 drivers ranging from the top to back of the grid, to do a few hot laps around a 90 sec/lap circuit in the same car/same conditions. You're likely to get data like this:
These top level athletes are so sensitive to miniscule performance differences between cars that a car that is hard to drive for an amateur may not be very hard at all for an F1 driver. A car that is hard to drive for an F1 driver will be very very hard to drive for an amateur and impossible to drive for someone like me, indeed. But I think I get your sentiment. It has been expressed by Webber, Button and Alonso in recent times when they talk about the sheer physical effort and mental recalibration required to pilot an F1 car from the 3.0L V10 era that they are all so fond of. I have also read where they talk about how big of a jump it was, to go from a lower category to F1 back then, which is not the case now. The performance jump is still there but rookies coming through in recent times have said that the difference is more in terms of going from a relatively simple to complex operation procedures of the cars (eg. going from working with 2 engineers to 50!).
Whilst I think the cars can be complex to operate (it’s the pinnacle of motorsport after all), there needs to be a reduction in the number of procedures and sequences the driver has to input/remember during the race, so they can devote more of their mental capacity to concentrate on driving/racing. We also need to get back to the speeds achieved during that 3.0L V10 era, but keep it so that there is more power than grip available (NB: I didn’t say reduce the downforce, but simply more power than grip). From where we stand now, this can be achieved and indeed original plans to change the regulations for 2017 might have actually done this, if it weren’t for the constant political wrangling between all parties concerned especially between Pirelli and some constructors. And this brings us to the idea of tyres that can last a whole race.
I have only been seriously following the sport from around Brazilian GP 2009 on, but I have noticed a trend in getting the drivers to be more involved in operating and driving the car more autonomously, and in reducing driver aids. I think the rationale behind this move is this:
If you see my hypothetical graph above, we’re talking about 0.1-0.7s difference from the top F1 driver to the back of the grid, ‘pay driver’ in pure driving performance alone (assuming all other aspects are kept constant). It’s a small difference, but still quite appreciable. But this is not all, in this lovely sport of Formula 1. We throw another larger variable into the equation, namely the cars themselves. The performance difference between a top car and the back of the grid car can be anything from 1 second to 4-5 seconds. This can allow the natural variability inherent in driver performance to overcome car performance deficit, but only to a certain extent.
Take last season, where the Mercedes W06 was consistently faster than the Ferrari SF15-T in the range of 0.2s-0.9s in the races. Because, Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel and Raikkonen are all top drivers, the inherent variability within these four drivers, likely in the region of 0-0.2s will be unable to overcome the performance deficit of the Ferrari in comparison to Mercedes. Rosberg and Hamilton or indeed the team will have to underperform significantly and the Ferrari drivers have to extract the maximum potential in the SF15-T for Ferrari to beat one or both W06s. And we are assuming everything else is equal--we haven’t got to the tyres yet! So teams will try to minimise or control the effect of variables that can have an effect on car performance. The more control that teams have on car performance, the less effect the driver can have on it. You have basically hit the ceiling.
If we do give all of them tyres that last a whole race and doesn’t lose grip, you’ll have a Mercedes 1-2 with a Ferrari 3-4 all year long because you are cancelling the effect of a variable that can magnify driver performance differences, and you are therefore preventing drivers from overcoming car performance differences. But the governing body have a trick up their sleeve: if we can control tyre performance, we can control car performance.
This is what Pirelli were mandated to do, I think. By introducing variability in tyre compounds and forcing the drivers to use at least two compounds per race, they hoped to magnify driver performance and also car performance during different phases of the race. We have multiple tyre compounds that have their own characteristic in how durable they are and how fast they can go. What if a driver in a lesser car is able to deploy more of the performance potential available in a particular tyre or in a particular track condition? Or if the designers/engineers were able to design their car so that their car is kind to a faster tyre: they could potentially go faster for longer. And what if a driver is able to exploit this car characteristic better in a lesser car than another in a faster car? We have just given the smaller teams a fighting chance. It went horribly wrong for a couple of seasons, with no real predictability (Maldonado winning comes to mind!) but I think they might be on the right track now.
However, the problem of dirty air/hot exhaust air causing degradation still remains, preventing drivers from following closely, in addition to the turbulence causing significant reduction in downforce produced by the following car. Interestingly, during the last race I saw Verstappen following Sainz Jnr very closely for many many laps, then spun, smoked his tyres and still was delivering big lap times to catch up to Sainz once more, and Magnussen pretty much did the whole race on one set of tyres, so may be these tyres are getting better? I don’t know, but then again I also saw Rosberg dared not come within 1 second of Raikkonen in the early part of the race, presumably to not destroy his tyres and therefore not be able to do the stint lengths desired to make tyre strategy work. I also note, Verstappen was on Medium and Rosberg was on Super Softs...maybe this durability differs for different tyre compounds? It’s a mystery to me at the moment.
But, if you fuel correct lap times for a current car in clear air in the 2nd/3rd stints they are still not doing the maximum they can because the tyre degrades faster the harder they push, so in order to eke out a certain stint length they have to drive below the maximum performance of the car. If you allow drivers to push to the maximum potential of their cars, you also invariably magnify the effect of car performance and therefore let it be the deciding factor on the race result. This is what we’re trying to avoid, because fans do not like to see an ordered procession according to car performance. Looking up last year’s drivers championship standings will be a stark reminder of what can happen if car performance can be a deciding factor.
With regards to turbulence, I was reading a paper (see below) that suggested that the flow coming off the rear wing is fairly laminar but it is the interaction between the flow coming off the rear diffuser and rear wing is what that causes turbulence. What if we get rid of the diffuser? We lose downforce and perhaps reduce this problem of turbulence, but I think teams may be resistant to it. The rear diffuser size has been reduced massively from back in 2009 to now, but I think it has been set to increase for the 2017 regulations, IIRC. The paper also suggests that all those 2007/2008 winglets also can cause turbulence.
I’m no aerodynamicist or engineer, but what if we get rid of the rear diffuser? And get the exhaust pointing like a periscope way above tyre height? Would it improve ability to follow closely? Any aerodynamicist or engineer would like to enlighten?
Investigation of turbulence created by Formula One cars with the aid of Numerical Fluid Dynamics and optimization of overtaking potential [PDF file]
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff