F1 : Back to the Future?
Discussion
We have racing teams dropping like flies at the moment; selling out, retiring, etc. mainly due to the effects of a recession. But some of you may agree that the long term thoughts that this will provoke might just be a good thing.
To race an F1 in this era requires almost unimaginable amounts of technology and hard cash and we all have to ask ourselves if this is what we want when we talk about motorsport. Have we reached a point where the engineers are winning the races and not the drivers? How much “assistance” is justified to the driver to give him the frequently tiny edge required to win?
Consider this: if we sat two identical Jaguar C Type racers from the fifties on the grid at Silverstone and put Stirling Moss, now in his eighth decade in one, and Lewis Hamilton in the other, and gave them say, ten laps, I think the outcome would be extremely interesting and doubtless surprising. The reason for that would not be simply due to superior ability on the part of one driver or the other, but because one was trained as an independent driver, i.e. the soon as the clutch is popped, you are on your own, the other wholly dependent on a task force of mechanical and electronic engineers working while he is driving the car.
The question is, would it not be far more sporting and certainly more interesting to leave the preparation of the car to the engineers to get it dead right before the race and have it sitting at the start ready for the driver to take over from there and be wholly responsible for the racing on his own, devoid of ongoing assistance and adjustment?
Last year the FIA rules were changed to limit engine design now to a V8 configuration of 2.4 Litres with a rev limit of 19000 RPM. One has to ask if this is a step in the right direction or if it is, in many respects retrograde. The engine that is remembered fondly and was a domineering force for many years was the Cosworth DFV developed in the sixties, bearing a remarkable resemblance to the current FIA configuration. Is this coincidence or is it the perhaps unconscious desire to return to a more simplistic, traditional and therefore sporting format between car and driver?
Modern F1 engines owe their phenomenal power outputs to two things, the development of hydraulic valve “springs” enabling rev limits to reach the dizzy heights of 20000 RPM, and the attendant metallurgical advances required to develop the kind of materials that can withstand the accompanying stresses at these kinds of output. So what can we do to return to the more sporting era, but not throw the advances back to the stone age, and correspondingly bring budgets back down from the stratospheric heights they have reached?
I would suggest a compromise. The danger with the current regulations is that all engines are going to be virtually identical. The past few years have seen some absolutely magnificent engine configurations being developed such as the V10s and 12s. I think teams should be permitted to retain that kind of variety of design but remove the electronic wireless and computer control leaving the driver much more responsible and “in charge” during the race. Leave in the modern mechanicals but go back to mechanical injection; no ECUs. Get rid of the sequential transmissions and go back to manual ‘boxes where the driver has to use a gear lever, clutch and rev counter to get the changes just right.
The removal of traction control this year made for some very interesting driving and tended to sort the men from the boys, particularly in the wet; I believe the above proposals would enhance this even further and give us some tremendously entertaining driving that could truly be considered to be motor sport. Bear in mind that the whole idea of racing is not for the benefit of the development engineers, although clearly without them there would be very little sport, but for the spectators and fans all over the world who sponsor the sport by attending it and buying new vehicles inspired by the companies who race them.
The FIA seriously needs to consider the true meaning of the sport as it relates more to driving and less to development technology.
To race an F1 in this era requires almost unimaginable amounts of technology and hard cash and we all have to ask ourselves if this is what we want when we talk about motorsport. Have we reached a point where the engineers are winning the races and not the drivers? How much “assistance” is justified to the driver to give him the frequently tiny edge required to win?
Consider this: if we sat two identical Jaguar C Type racers from the fifties on the grid at Silverstone and put Stirling Moss, now in his eighth decade in one, and Lewis Hamilton in the other, and gave them say, ten laps, I think the outcome would be extremely interesting and doubtless surprising. The reason for that would not be simply due to superior ability on the part of one driver or the other, but because one was trained as an independent driver, i.e. the soon as the clutch is popped, you are on your own, the other wholly dependent on a task force of mechanical and electronic engineers working while he is driving the car.
The question is, would it not be far more sporting and certainly more interesting to leave the preparation of the car to the engineers to get it dead right before the race and have it sitting at the start ready for the driver to take over from there and be wholly responsible for the racing on his own, devoid of ongoing assistance and adjustment?
Last year the FIA rules were changed to limit engine design now to a V8 configuration of 2.4 Litres with a rev limit of 19000 RPM. One has to ask if this is a step in the right direction or if it is, in many respects retrograde. The engine that is remembered fondly and was a domineering force for many years was the Cosworth DFV developed in the sixties, bearing a remarkable resemblance to the current FIA configuration. Is this coincidence or is it the perhaps unconscious desire to return to a more simplistic, traditional and therefore sporting format between car and driver?
Modern F1 engines owe their phenomenal power outputs to two things, the development of hydraulic valve “springs” enabling rev limits to reach the dizzy heights of 20000 RPM, and the attendant metallurgical advances required to develop the kind of materials that can withstand the accompanying stresses at these kinds of output. So what can we do to return to the more sporting era, but not throw the advances back to the stone age, and correspondingly bring budgets back down from the stratospheric heights they have reached?
I would suggest a compromise. The danger with the current regulations is that all engines are going to be virtually identical. The past few years have seen some absolutely magnificent engine configurations being developed such as the V10s and 12s. I think teams should be permitted to retain that kind of variety of design but remove the electronic wireless and computer control leaving the driver much more responsible and “in charge” during the race. Leave in the modern mechanicals but go back to mechanical injection; no ECUs. Get rid of the sequential transmissions and go back to manual ‘boxes where the driver has to use a gear lever, clutch and rev counter to get the changes just right.
The removal of traction control this year made for some very interesting driving and tended to sort the men from the boys, particularly in the wet; I believe the above proposals would enhance this even further and give us some tremendously entertaining driving that could truly be considered to be motor sport. Bear in mind that the whole idea of racing is not for the benefit of the development engineers, although clearly without them there would be very little sport, but for the spectators and fans all over the world who sponsor the sport by attending it and buying new vehicles inspired by the companies who race them.
The FIA seriously needs to consider the true meaning of the sport as it relates more to driving and less to development technology.
The engineers have always won the races or at least produced the cars good enough to fight for the win with a less talented driver, go back to any era and you will see that is true. Why do you think Fangio swapped teams so often? He went after the best car for that season.
As said, Lewis would tear Stirling a new one, drivers are so highly trained in their discipline compared to Moss's era that it's impossible and unfair to try and cross reference their skills. You can see how training and results have developed in other sports disciplines to see that.
The DFV was popular because it was cheap, reliable, available and powerful in a era of expensive, unreliable, unavailable and underpowered alternatives, the opposition offerings in relative terms really were dogs on the most part.
It is Pneumatics that act as the engine springs, not hydraulics.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think going back to mechanical injection and no ECU's is good idea, just from the greeny aspects its a none starter. I work with that technology every day and it's a complete nightmare to keep going compared to modern equipment. We should be using racing to develop the technology, not go backwards. Banning refuelling is a great step in that direction and we might see yet more development on fuel efficiency as a result, something they already do of course but this will tip the investment in that area a little more.
As said, Lewis would tear Stirling a new one, drivers are so highly trained in their discipline compared to Moss's era that it's impossible and unfair to try and cross reference their skills. You can see how training and results have developed in other sports disciplines to see that.
The DFV was popular because it was cheap, reliable, available and powerful in a era of expensive, unreliable, unavailable and underpowered alternatives, the opposition offerings in relative terms really were dogs on the most part.
It is Pneumatics that act as the engine springs, not hydraulics.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think going back to mechanical injection and no ECU's is good idea, just from the greeny aspects its a none starter. I work with that technology every day and it's a complete nightmare to keep going compared to modern equipment. We should be using racing to develop the technology, not go backwards. Banning refuelling is a great step in that direction and we might see yet more development on fuel efficiency as a result, something they already do of course but this will tip the investment in that area a little more.
Formula One teams' budgets are the way they are because that's what their sponsors or owners are willing to spend. The only way you can reduce their budgets is to cap them and I don't think that's desirable.
As for engineers as well as drivers winning the races, that has always been the case. Motorsport is a team sport. That's just the way it is and it isn't going to change.
As for engineers as well as drivers winning the races, that has always been the case. Motorsport is a team sport. That's just the way it is and it isn't going to change.
Edited by SamHH on Sunday 14th December 23:44
johnfelstead said:
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think going back to mechanical injection and no ECU's is good idea, just from the greeny aspects its a none starter. I work with that technology every day and it's a complete nightmare to keep going compared to modern equipment. We should be using racing to develop the technology, not go backwards. Banning refuelling is a great step in that direction and we might see yet more development on fuel efficiency as a result, something they already do of course but this will tip the investment in that area a little more.
From what I gather the OP is trying to serve more than the sole purpose of having the ultimate technological formula. He's saying one can make something entertaining and interesting by limiting tech, keeping things cheap, and forcing drivers to use skills that are relevant to being a complete driver. It would revive more traditional and accessible forms of craftsmanship.Alex said:
zac510 said:
You're right, Lewis would hose Sir Stirling (no offence to the great man).
Not when Stirling was in his prime.If you could bring a young Sterling Moss forward in time and put him and Lewis in an old Merc SLR Lewis would still cream him.
Imagine how slow that thing would feel compared to an F1 car! Just watch Hakkinen driving that C63 on the absolute LIMIT on Top Gear the other week saying that "what's happening now is very slow". As John said, it's all about training too - bring a Sprinter forward in time and they'll get wallopped. Sports move forward, fast.
Anyway, that's the last I'm going to say about it - I'm not going to get drawn into an argument that will never be settled.
MrKipling43 said:
Alex said:
zac510 said:
You're right, Lewis would hose Sir Stirling (no offence to the great man).
Not when Stirling was in his prime.If you could bring a young Sterling Moss forward in time and put him and Lewis in an old Merc SLR Lewis would still cream him.
Imagine how slow that thing would feel compared to an F1 car! Just watch Hakkinen driving that C63 on the absolute LIMIT on Top Gear the other week saying that "what's happening now is very slow". As John said, it's all about training too - bring a Sprinter forward in time and they'll get wallopped. Sports move forward, fast.
Anyway, that's the last I'm going to say about it - I'm not going to get drawn into an argument that will never be settled.
F1 is about technological advancement. If you want to go back to basics, skinny tyres, no aero, no injection, etc, then I suggest you get yourself into British Club Racing. Formula Ford, Formula Vee etc are all running the kind of regs you suggest for what is the pinnacle of motor sport.
Formula Vee Class B last year had to run points and condensor FFS. Sounds right up your street.
Formula Vee Class B last year had to run points and condensor FFS. Sounds right up your street.
MrKipling43 said:
Alex said:
zac510 said:
You're right, Lewis would hose Sir Stirling (no offence to the great man).
Not when Stirling was in his prime.If you could bring a young Sterling Moss forward in time and put him and Lewis in an old Merc SLR Lewis would still cream him.
Hamilton would be a fish out of water in an old car with old technology brakes, steering, gearboxes, tyres and having to four wheel drift techniques etc....all second nature to Moss when in his prime.
Galileo said:
F1 is about technological advancement. If you want to go back to basics, skinny tyres, no aero, no injection, etc, then I suggest you get yourself into British Club Racing. Formula Ford, Formula Vee etc are all running the kind of regs you suggest for what is the pinnacle of motor sport.
Formula Vee Class B last year had to run points and condensor FFS. Sounds right up your street.
Spot on, Leave F1 as it is, the pinnacle, the pinnacle of everything, technology, drivers, speed, skill, money. It is what most drivers aspire to do, not to spend all their young lives working their nuts off, pissing money away just to then get in to a slightly bigger Formula Ford.... There is so much motorsports out there to keep you entertained, go and watch that.Formula Vee Class B last year had to run points and condensor FFS. Sounds right up your street.
F1 might have beeen the fastest thing out there on a road course during the past two years, but it's not clear that it's been the most technolgically advanced series . What's the difference if they use an H-box instead of the sequential things? Both are less efficient than a CVT. Then there are the outlawed metals, so their brakes and engines aren't cutting edge. And the tires? They're ancient. So, if the teams aren't allowed to use the best solutions possible, what does it matter whether they use one less advanced piece of tech or another? If one could add more drama or interest, then it should be used for that reason.
If reins aren't put on tech and speed you'll advance yourself right out of being a driver's championship...or interesting.
If reins aren't put on tech and speed you'll advance yourself right out of being a driver's championship...or interesting.
Didn't Fangio beat M. Schumacher in an old Merc around the Nurburgring a few years ago? I can't find any youtubidence of it so perhaps I am wrong.
I would think Moss's familiarity with the car would compensate, at least in part, for Hamilton's fitness and reactions. If you could bring young Moss forward in time, how would he do if you brought him as a small kid so he grew up learning to drive the modern stuff? Or send 4 year old Lewis back to 1946
I would think Moss's familiarity with the car would compensate, at least in part, for Hamilton's fitness and reactions. If you could bring young Moss forward in time, how would he do if you brought him as a small kid so he grew up learning to drive the modern stuff? Or send 4 year old Lewis back to 1946
johnfelstead said:
The engineers have always won the races or at least produced the cars good enough to fight for the win with a less talented driver, go back to any era and you will see that is true. Why do you think Fangio swapped teams so often? He went after the best car for that season.
As said, Lewis would tear Stirling a new one, drivers are so highly trained in their discipline compared to Moss's era that it's impossible and unfair to try and cross reference their skills. You can see how training and results have developed in other sports disciplines to see that.
The DFV was popular because it was cheap, reliable, available and powerful in a era of expensive, unreliable, unavailable and underpowered alternatives, the opposition offerings in relative terms really were dogs on the most part.
It is Pneumatics that act as the engine springs, not hydraulics.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think going back to mechanical injection and no ECU's is good idea, just from the greeny aspects its a none starter. I work with that technology every day and it's a complete nightmare to keep going compared to modern equipment. We should be using racing to develop the technology, not go backwards. Banning refuelling is a great step in that direction and we might see yet more development on fuel efficiency as a result, something they already do of course but this will tip the investment in that area a little more.
Firstly I will apologise for the error in reference to hydraulic/pneumatic valve springs; I was actually writing 3 different pieces at the time, one about oil, hence the Freudian slip. They are indeed operated by air.As said, Lewis would tear Stirling a new one, drivers are so highly trained in their discipline compared to Moss's era that it's impossible and unfair to try and cross reference their skills. You can see how training and results have developed in other sports disciplines to see that.
The DFV was popular because it was cheap, reliable, available and powerful in a era of expensive, unreliable, unavailable and underpowered alternatives, the opposition offerings in relative terms really were dogs on the most part.
It is Pneumatics that act as the engine springs, not hydraulics.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think going back to mechanical injection and no ECU's is good idea, just from the greeny aspects its a none starter. I work with that technology every day and it's a complete nightmare to keep going compared to modern equipment. We should be using racing to develop the technology, not go backwards. Banning refuelling is a great step in that direction and we might see yet more development on fuel efficiency as a result, something they already do of course but this will tip the investment in that area a little more.
Secondly, I did not write this piece to start an argument, nor insult anyone, so please show a little respect for ideas, because that is what this is about.
To turn things around, you sir, are most definitely in cloud cuckoo land if you think that F1 or indeed any other form of international car racing is in a position where it can blunder on regardless and do what it wants, or rather what the FIA tells it to do. At no point have I suggested that technology should go backwards. What a great many of you seem to miss is the fact that I did not imply Stirling would manage to beat Lewis an a modern F1 car: I distinctly said a fifties Jaguar C Type, the LeMans winner of the era. Lewis has never raced in a vehicle like this, and has never been trained to. Those of you old enough or lucky enough to have driven or owned one can vouch for the "peculiarities" of the Moss 'box in these cars. I think it would take Lewis or any other young driver a considerable time to master that alone. Conversely Stirling would probably have difficulty with the paddle shifts and, as someone has already suggested, the G force in a modern car.
But the intention of the post was not to debate who is the greatest driver, it was to point out in technical terms the double edged sword that is the massive expense of maintaining F1 in its present form combined with the fact that the sport is in danger of losing its appeal due to too much technical involvement during the race, and not enough independent driver responsibility.
I totally disagree that we should be using F1 to develop technology: that is not what it is for, you are puting the cart before the horse. Motorsport is just that, a sport. The essence of this should be competition between drivers in well prepared cars. The technology gained from this process is the advantage, but it should never be allowed to dominate or spoil the sport.
The green aspect of this as far as fuel emission is concerned is a whitewash and a political joke. There are a handful of F1 cars in the whole world and these only race on a few occasions throughout the year. It is ludicrous to suggest that this makes a difference in any way whatever to the environement. There is no comparison between the way the fuel system is set up in a normal road car and that of a racing car.
The current F1 cars are so sophisticated they are in danger of becoming clones and desperately boring; the level of technology plays a major part in this.
jith said:
I totally disagree that we should be using F1 to develop technology: that is not what it is for, you are puting the cart before the horse. Motorsport is just that, a sport. The essence of this should be competition between drivers in well prepared cars. The technology gained from this process is the advantage, but it should never be allowed to dominate or spoil the sport.
Spot-on.......
Current F1 cars are going backwards technically already, they have banned systems you have seen in use on everyday cars for a decade, so you are getting what you want as it is. I think that's a mistake, it would be far more interesting to have the technology at least on a par with a current road car. You can do that without altering negatively the spectacle.
Even in a C type, i would put Lewis ahead of Sterling in a race distance if they were both at their prime, but as said it's a pointless exercise to even contemplate that kind of comparison. These modern F1 drivers can drive anything, or at least the good ones can, just because they understand how to drive a modern car doesn't preclude them from having the skills and fitness to drive lesser cars just as well.
Even in a C type, i would put Lewis ahead of Sterling in a race distance if they were both at their prime, but as said it's a pointless exercise to even contemplate that kind of comparison. These modern F1 drivers can drive anything, or at least the good ones can, just because they understand how to drive a modern car doesn't preclude them from having the skills and fitness to drive lesser cars just as well.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff