F1 Drivers views on lack of Traction Control in 2008

[paulrandall]

would like to hear your comments on the topic.



MOD EDIT - we'll just have discussions on here thanks.

[BoRED S2upid]

Im a big fan of getting rid of TC in 2008 it will make the drivers earn their money by driving rather than just being pilots. Also very interested to see what this regenerative energy melarkey is all about next year that could be interesting.

[paulrandall]

I think removing TC will make races a lot more enjoyable.

Yeah, i plan to look into KERS development in a later stage on FWon.co.uk

Edited by paulrandall on Wednesday 9th January 12:26

[Pork_n_Beem]

My background is in electronic systems, i know these systems can outperform a human and have been able to do this for many years.

The stuff we see on road cars is very basic and can generally be improved on by a good driver BUT the systems do exists that easily outperform even Schumacher.

I equate electronic systems as i do with drug taking in cycling and athetics.

There is no question they are performance enhancing - but so what.... we want to support the best driver not the best software engineer.

I think there is NO place for electronic driver aids in Motorsport, i also include e-diffs, ABS.

I am OK with ECU's for engine ignition and mixture control & (power steering and power brakes using non software control systems)

Sits back and waits for H&S brigade

[jamieboy]

Pork_n_Beem said:

we want to support the best driver not the best software engineer.

The best driver would be (more or less) nowhere if they didn't have the best aerodynamicists, the best engine-engineers, and in years gone by the best tyre scientists (or whatever) behind them. I've never understood why software engineers are singled out.

edit to remove 'rolleyes' icon.

Edited by jamieboy on Wednesday 9th January 12:54

[paulrandall]

I think its because those other things are 'mechanical' e.g mechanical grip, power etc.

Electronics has brought it into the 21st Century, something that past F1 cars wouldn't have had.

Again, you could argue that Aero, Tyres and Engines have been improved by things like Wind Tunnels, CFD etc.

Edit * Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD *

Edited by paulrandall on Wednesday 9th January 13:03

[Tres_Bien]

paulrandall said:

I think its because those other things are 'mechanical' e.g mechanical grip, power etc.

Electronics has brought it into the 21st Century, something that past F1 cars wouldn't have had.

Again, you could argue that Aero, Tyres and Engines have been improved by things like Wind Tunnels, CFD etc.

Edit * Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD *

Edited by paulrandall on Wednesday 9th January 13:03

Yep, absolutely.

The "other things" serve to increase the performance of the car, TC and it's electronic brethren serve to increase *access* to that performance at the expense of differentiating between the drivers abilities; even from corner to corner, where one driver may be quicker than another and then vice versa at the next.

I do appreciate that they are aids available to all and that the driving cream still rises but they have served to reduce or paper over the errors, the chance of something going wrong, the momentary lack of concentration. The excitement basically.

[MartinMGBGTSV8]

I think that driver aids as opposed to car performance improving engineering should be banned from F1. As a previous poster said, you give the cream more of a chance to rise to the top and you increase the possibility of drivers making mistakes, which makes the spectacle more interesting to watch.

[jamieboy]

Tres_Bien said:

The "other things" serve to increase the performance of the car, TC and it's electronic brethren serve to increase *access* to that performance at the expense of differentiating between the drivers abilities; even from corner to corner, where one driver may be quicker than another and then vice versa at the next.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see much practical difference between a fancy wing (or a grippier tyre) that allows one car to go round a corner faster than another and a bit of TC that allows one car to go round a corner faster than another.

I guess it depends where you draw the line between 'increasing the performance' and 'accessing the performance'. If any single thing on a car allows a given driver to drive it more quickly than he he could without it, then I'd say that thing had increased the overall performance.

[paulrandall]

I think the FIA see this problem (and are trying to cut down on spending in F1) hence the 10 year limit on engines, reduction of time allowed in the wind tunnel, and cutting down of CFD also.

However, does this not limit what the teams can do, as teams like BMW want to show what they can acheive.

I all think this reduction in cost is for the 'customer cars' scheme i.e. Prodrive, which i think would be a bad mistake in F1. For example, would Prodrive take team orders from McLaren in key situations to keep the deal sweet?

Maybe another topic for my blog

Edited by paulrandall on Wednesday 9th January 15:01

[paulrandall]

No probs

[Tres_Bien]

jamieboy said:

I guess it depends where you draw the line between 'increasing the performance' and 'accessing the performance'. If any single thing on a car allows a given driver to drive it more quickly than he he could without it, then I'd say that thing had increased the overall performance.

Yeah, i agree that "increasing" and "accessing" performance are intertwined as the latter is as much an "increase" as outright bhp, grip, aero or whatever.

It's just...i don't know...making something easier to exploit means that more people can do something to an equal degree, or at least close the gap. (Theoretically.)

It's an element of "car control" that has had the drivers influence and input reduced. And that levels the playing field that little bit more. Personally I want to watch the drivers and to a much lesser degree the cars technical ability (visually the perceptible difference of a car doing 140mph round a corner and 160 is very little). I want to watch the likes of Gilles see-sawing at the wheel keeping a bucking bronco under control and beating the car if not the opposition. I'm trying not to put my rose tinted spectacles on but I guess I like the risk (not of physical harm to the drivers but in the broader term of unpredictability) and see that gradually being eked out of F1.

[MrKipling43]

My prediction: it will make no difference whatsoever to the spectator.

Edited by MrKipling43 on Wednesday 9th January 17:48

[Mr_Thyroid]

Is this the end for wet races? They're a bunch of little girls as it is, will they refuse to race in the rain without their TC teddy bears?

Edited by Mr_Thyroid on Thursday 10th January 18:32

[corozin]

I think it's fair to say that from the articles I've seen so far about it the drivers are on thier own on this one. The general consensus across the media, websites and F1 writers seems to be that these guys are paid huge sums of money to be the very best and that they should stop whinging and prove it.

If you don't like it you don't have to get in the car; there are plenty of racing drivers ready to take your place.

For my part I think modern F1 drivers are getting it easy. In the 1970's a lot of them used to eat bad food, smoke tabs, shag birds, party till 6am and still make the startline at 1am on Sunday ready to race hard in the wet, in cars without TC, ABS, power steering or flappypaddle boxes.

Hell, in the 50's and 60's they did it without seatbelts too, although it is also true to say that vacancies for drivers seeking an F1 seat used to become free a lot more often back then.



p.s. The second sentence in paragraph 3 clearly doesn't apply to Kimi. He clearly knows a good party when he sees one

Edited by corozin on Wednesday 9th January 20:01

[Pork_n_Beem]

jamieboy said:

Pork_n_Beem said:

we want to support the best driver not the best software engineer.

The best driver would be (more or less) nowhere if they didn't have the best aerodynamicists, the best engine-engineers, and in years gone by the best tyre scientists (or whatever) behind them. I've never understood why software engineers are singled out.

edit to remove 'rolleyes' icon.

Edited by jamieboy on Wednesday 9th January 12:54

OK - what i am trying to say is.... yes let teams build different cars, thats healthy and you will get good ones and bad ones BUT, the driver has to be totally in control of the vehicle.
I single out software because it is used to intercept the driver inputs and replace them with a better set of inputs to get the optimum outputs.
Aerodynamics, tyres, snooty motors dont do this.
Also fixed systems like suspension and diffs can become variable ones, again software driven, i agree fixed aerodynamics are still an emerging technology but won't be for long. Fixed suspension and diffs have been around for ages and are pretty well known.

[Heebeegeetee]

i think people are getting too excited about this. The best drivers have one thing in common - they're always the best. I don't think i can recall any rule change made in the past suddenly screwing any one driver in particular. So the best will still win and the Ralfs of the grid will still crash.

You need to remember, that as cars became more technical, so the demands on drivers to understand these systems and know how to work with them and the engineers who design them grew and grew, so maybe with less technical cars, drivers will have an easier time rather than a harder time.

What might happen is that the cars will be less forgiving of mistakes, and so will punish the driver who loses concentration in the latter stages of the race. Out of the top drivers i predict that only Kimi will be the one to be caught out, but then i was totally and utterly wrong in my predictions for Kimi last year. Hey ho. And if he does trip up, i don't think he'll do it more than once.