Why no ballast in F1?
Discussion
in touring cars it's
A cos of a gazillion different specs:
lpg turbo
diseasel
fwd
rwd
h pattern box
sequential box
btc spec
plus it's basically about entertainment and knocking into each other (well btcc second hand car championship anyway - less so wtcc)
f1 is more about 'technology'.
in my opinion it's bad enough that f1 has 'fake' pitstops for different tyre formulations.
i think alan gow making things happen in btcc is appropriate. i think f1 ought to just be left to who's the 'cleverest' even if that results in boreain and borecelona.
A cos of a gazillion different specs:
lpg turbo
diseasel
fwd
rwd
h pattern box
sequential box
btc spec
plus it's basically about entertainment and knocking into each other (well btcc second hand car championship anyway - less so wtcc)
f1 is more about 'technology'.
in my opinion it's bad enough that f1 has 'fake' pitstops for different tyre formulations.
i think alan gow making things happen in btcc is appropriate. i think f1 ought to just be left to who's the 'cleverest' even if that results in boreain and borecelona.
In Touring Cars it works as added weight can be overcome (to a degree) with good and/or bully boy driving. The mechanical dynamics are very different.
In F1, it would be impossible as drivers would drive more strategically than they do at the moment - deliberately going for, say 4th place, even dropping from third or higher, as the benefits of less weight at the next race may be better for them. The ultimate case scenario would be where none of them actually want to win a particular race!
In F1, it would be impossible as drivers would drive more strategically than they do at the moment - deliberately going for, say 4th place, even dropping from third or higher, as the benefits of less weight at the next race may be better for them. The ultimate case scenario would be where none of them actually want to win a particular race!
touring fan said:
jellison said:
Cos any series advocating Ballast is fundamentally WRONG.
Dont forget that F1 already has a ballast rule, in respect of their driver ballast. So is that fundamentally wrong too?
freedman said:
touring fan said:
jellison said:
Cos any series advocating Ballast is fundamentally WRONG.
Dont forget that F1 already has a ballast rule, in respect of their driver ballast. So is that fundamentally wrong too?
Edited by touring fan on Monday 17th May 15:41
touring fan said:
freedman said:
touring fan said:
jellison said:
Cos any series advocating Ballast is fundamentally WRONG.
Dont forget that F1 already has a ballast rule, in respect of their driver ballast. So is that fundamentally wrong too?
Edited by touring fan on Monday 17th May 15:41
One rule is to ensure the cars all run to the same minimum weight
The other on epenalises someone because they win a race by making them heavier than the opposition
freedman said:
Err, of course its entirely different
One rule is to ensure the cars all run to the same minimum weight
The other on epenalises someone because they win a race by making them heavier than the opposition
I think you may have misunderstood me. Both, in their own way, are penalty ballasts. One rule is to ensure the cars all run to the same minimum weight
The other on epenalises someone because they win a race by making them heavier than the opposition
One is a penalty ballast for having a lightweight driver (or car) and the other is a penalty ballast for success.
For decades F1 never had such a ballast regulation, or a minimum weight for the driver or car, but it was introduced in order to equalise the competition.
So, what I was getting at, is that F1 has forms of ballasts and performance equalisations - so its difficult to take a purist view that there should be no such thing in F1 when it already happens (to an extent).
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that its right or wrong that performance ballast regulations should be introduced. Just that there already exists some such artificial methods.
sheps said:
Touring cars yes.
This is formula one. The best of this, the best of that etc.
Penalising drivers/teams/designers for winning and doing a good job is wrong imho.
Now that it's no longer the best of this & that i.e. engines all have to be the same size and number of cylinders then a bit more tinkering to even it out would make it a better spectacle?This is formula one. The best of this, the best of that etc.
Penalising drivers/teams/designers for winning and doing a good job is wrong imho.
touring fan said:
freedman said:
touring fan said:
jellison said:
Cos any series advocating Ballast is fundamentally WRONG.
Dont forget that F1 already has a ballast rule, in respect of their driver ballast. So is that fundamentally wrong too?
Edited by touring fan on Monday 17th May 15:41
F1 cars have had to meet a minimum weight limit since at least the mid 60s (IIRC) although the policing of this was only tightened up in the mid 80s following the introduction of Carbon Fibre and Brundle's accident in Monaco in 1982 (or 83?). He turned his Tyrrell over which revealed two holes in the floor. These were found to be drains for water tanks that were filled prior to qualifying in order to meet the scrutinising and then emptied during the first few laps, giving a lighter car for qualifying. Back then, the only time cars were checked was at the beginning of a session.
All teams today, build cars underweight but bring them up to spec with ballast. This enables them to dictate the best part of the car to put the ballast, which will be different at each track.
clonmult said:
briSk said:
f1 is more about 'technology'.
More about technology, but no way is it bleeding edge any more. Way too much regulation restricting what they can/cannot do on the car.F1 is about making money first, racing is a distant second, and technology third.
as a mere 'observer' it does seem strange how much money is made and spent even with the techical regs being stringent!
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff