F1 has become farcical hasnt it

F1 has become farcical hasnt it

Author
Discussion

MissChief

5,089 posts

112 months

Monday 12th August
quotequote all
Nampahc Niloc said:
rdjohn said:
Eric Mc said:
Chapman died in 1982. Donnely’s
crash was in 1990.
His philosophy lived on. Ballasting a light car was preferable to building a strong one.

My opinion is that a minimum weight and FIA crash testing the tub are essential parts of regulations. A view not shared by the OP.
To be fair to the OP he said he wanted to keep the safety requirements.
Minimum weight also helps the drivers too. Previously drivers were told to keep their weight down regularly and were often weighed by the teams at every race. Drivers like Hulkenberg were constantly starving to keep the weight down and you just need to look at photos of Justin Wilson (RIP) when he was racing to not be at a disadvantage compared to shorter drivers.

Eric Mc

106,981 posts

209 months

Monday 12th August
quotequote all
rdjohn said:
Eric Mc said:
Chapman died in 1982. Donnely’s
crash was in 1990.
His philosophy lived on. Ballasting a light car was preferable to building a strong one.

My opinion is that a minimum weight and FIA crash testing the tub are essential parts of regulations. A view not shared by the OP.
Have you got evidence for that? All racing car designers do their best to minimise weight wherever possible. Chapman had a reputation, especially from the early 1960s to the early 1970s that his cars were more frail and fragile than the competitors. By the 1980s you heard a lot less complaints about Lotuses being dangerously light. I seriously doubt that a 1990 car, which had no design input from Chapman at all (he'd been dead 8 years) was built using Chapmanesque techniques.

simonrockman

5,799 posts

199 months

Monday 12th August
quotequote all
I don't think I could disagree more with the contention that F1 has become farcical. Indeed I've enjoyed this season so much I'm going to Monza.

rdjohn

3,563 posts

139 months

Monday 12th August
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Have you got evidence for that? All racing car designers do their best to minimise weight wherever possible. Chapman had a reputation, especially from the early 1960s to the early 1970s that his cars were more frail and fragile than the competitors. By the 1980s you heard a lot less complaints about Lotuses being dangerously light. I seriously doubt that a 1990 car, which had no design input from Chapman at all (he'd been dead 8 years) was built using Chapmanesque techniques.
http://www.motorsportretro.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/MD3.jpg

Eric, it is hard not to look at this picture and think that whoever designed the tub, did not pay due regard to potential impact forces. For the tub to fragment in this way suggests that it lacked sufficient carbon fibre, resin, or both. That would only have been done to save weight.

Since compulsory FIA crash testing of the tub, we frequently whiteness drivers walking away from the most horrific looking crashes.

bordseye

Original Poster:

1,390 posts

136 months

Monday 12th August
quotequote all
Nobody would want to return to the bad old days of drivers dying every year but that can be covered by the crash testing. A minimum weight as well isnt necessary.

What I had in mind harks back to the Lotus 11 ( was that the model) which won against much bigger and more powerful sporstcars because it was light and minimalist. I'd like to see designers have a much greater range of design options - at present they are shoehorned into one standard set up only differening by the design of the fins and the bargeboards.

Vaud

32,821 posts

99 months

Monday 12th August
quotequote all
bordseye said:
Nobody would want to return to the bad old days of drivers dying every year but that can be covered by the crash testing.
Respectfully disagree.

Crash testing is part of it.

Avoiding crashes is the other part. Open rules would no doubt drive up power, aero and probably ground effect. Which drives up energy in crashes - both gforce and velocity of debris, etc.

Which would also in turn move spectators further away from the action.

Be careful what we wish for. If cars were reaching 250+mph we would see more fatalities; crash structures can only go so far. Humans are squidgy and fragile.

MissChief

5,089 posts

112 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
Vaud said:
bordseye said:
Nobody would want to return to the bad old days of drivers dying every year but that can be covered by the crash testing.
Respectfully disagree.

Crash testing is part of it.

Avoiding crashes is the other part. Open rules would no doubt drive up power, aero and probably ground effect. Which drives up energy in crashes - both gforce and velocity of debris, etc.

Which would also in turn move spectators further away from the action.

Be careful what we wish for. If cars were reaching 250+mph we would see more fatalities; crash structures can only go so far. Humans are squidgy and fragile.
The FIA have consistently sought to Stop overall lap times dropping too far and the usual method of doing so is to reduce cornering speed. They do that but cutting available downforce in the regulations and the recent change to low, wide wings and larger tyres was the complete opposite to their usual way of writing the regulations. Surprise surprise it has in some situations had an effect of making it much harder to follow, as anyone with half a brain said it would.

bordseye

Original Poster:

1,390 posts

136 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
Vaud said:
Respectfully disagree.

Crash testing is part of it.

Avoiding crashes is the other part. Open rules would no doubt drive up power, aero and probably ground effect. Which drives up energy in crashes - both gforce and velocity of debris, etc.

Which would also in turn move spectators further away from the action.

Be careful what we wish for. If cars were reaching 250+mph we would see more fatalities; crash structures can only go so far. Humans are squidgy and fragile.
Fair point. Its easy to see that being an issue - even with road cars , many now have more power than can be safely used.

My inclination would be to ban wings and reduce cornering speed that way. Maybe add to it by the old trick of having a small diameter opening for the engine air intake. Maybe the cleanest and simplest would be to just reduce the fuel allowance since fuel = power.

For me, F1 is a team sport all about technology and engineering. The drivers are very much secondary. So I would like to reduce the rules that are stifling innovation and give designers much greater freedom to take a different line


Edited by bordseye on Tuesday 13th August 13:33

StevieBee

7,816 posts

199 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
bordseye said:
I'd like to see designers have a much greater range of design options - at present they are shoehorned into one standard set up only differening by the design of the fins and the bargeboards.
The problem with wider design freedoms is they end up creating a field far more widely dispersed. It may generate interesting engineering solutions but often at the expense of good racing.



MissChief

5,089 posts

112 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
The problem with wider design freedoms is they end up creating a field far more widely dispersed. It may generate interesting engineering solutions but often at the expense of good racing.
This. Otherwise you end up with a completely dominant car as Mercedes in 2014 and everyone else miles behind.

Evangelion

5,112 posts

122 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
At last! I'm no longer the only person on here who wants to ban wings.

And don't just replace them with ground effect either. IMO downforce is the worst thing ever to happen to F1. It's even worse than turning all the cars into mobile advertising signs, but I suppose there's little one can do about that in these days of rising costs.

(Admittedly, teams managed in the days before sponsorship was allowed, but F1 was vastly different then.)

Vaud

32,821 posts

99 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
Evangelion said:
At last! I'm no longer the only person on here who wants to ban wings.

And don't just replace them with ground effect either. IMO downforce is the worst thing ever to happen to F1. It's even worse than turning all the cars into mobile advertising signs, but I suppose there's little one can do about that in these days of rising costs.

(Admittedly, teams managed in the days before sponsorship was allowed, but F1 was vastly different then.)
The problem is that you would need to do it all formulae, as you can't have the optics of F2/F3 being faster than F1.

entropy

3,778 posts

147 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
MissChief said:
StevieBee said:
The problem with wider design freedoms is they end up creating a field far more widely dispersed. It may generate interesting engineering solutions but often at the expense of good racing.
This. Otherwise you end up with a completely dominant car as Mercedes in 2014 and everyone else miles behind.
Hmm... not sure engines are a good example. Ferrari are more or less on par with Merc now.

I was thinking of grounds effect which Williams would have gone on to dominate had it not been banned and it happened exactly with active suspension. Again introduced by Lotus but better development from Williams; best teams with money and resources could develop it eg. Benetton started running flappy paddles in 1993!

Then again the aero possibilities seemed limitless in the 1970s, some crazy front wing/spoiler designs but at the top of my head doesn't seem to be a team that defined that era.

ash73

16,308 posts

165 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
Evangelion said:
At last! I'm no longer the only person on here who wants to ban wings.

And don't just replace them with ground effect either. IMO downforce is the worst thing ever to happen to F1. It's even worse than turning all the cars into mobile advertising signs, but I suppose there's little one can do about that in these days of rising costs.

(Admittedly, teams managed in the days before sponsorship was allowed, but F1 was vastly different then.)
The problem is they must be the fastest.

Ground effect is the answer, always has been. Plus decent tyres and refuelling.

The biggest problem is new circuits are designed around the cars, so you don't just have to fix the cars.

Not sure if the sport will die out before people eventually understand, but the last couple of races have been fun anyhow.

hoffman66

11 posts

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
Been watching a few interviews with Frank Dernie on the web, he talks openly about the active system, how it was basically a modified version of a system designed for ambulances, just turned around!

It was not big budget initially, and they wanted to do it earlier to compensate for the flat bottom cars being so unstable, active was designed primarily to keep the car in a state of height it could work at.

Only later, when the guy who designed the electronics for them, then said he wanted to keep it, did Dernie and Williams go their own ways in terms of electronics and deigned their own ECU and control systems to go with it, in case this guy flogged it to others.

And in other interviews Blundell talks about them literally asking what can we try, what can we do? in the later car.

Eric Mc

106,981 posts

209 months

Tuesday 13th August
quotequote all
rdjohn said:
http://www.motorsportretro.com/wp-content/uploads/...

Eric, it is hard not to look at this picture and think that whoever designed the tub, did not pay due regard to potential impact forces. For the tub to fragment in this way suggests that it lacked sufficient carbon fibre, resin, or both. That would only have been done to save weight.

Since compulsory FIA crash testing of the tub, we frequently whiteness drivers walking away from the most horrific looking crashes.
Any different to other cars of that era?

bordseye

Original Poster:

1,390 posts

136 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
Vaud said:
The problem is that you would need to do it all formulae, as you can't have the optics of F2/F3 being faster than F1.
Why not? Does anyopne watch or follow F2 and F3 - tbh I didnt know that they still existed. Just like Formula E and formula W - of no significance.

The whole debate depends on how you see F1. Are you only interested , as Sky seems to be, in drivers competing. If so then the answer is to have one standard car design and draw lotteries at each race for car allocation to the drivers. Then at the end of the season you know who is the fastest or paybe luckiest driver there.

To me that would be an enormous yawn fest. I'm interested in the technology and the competition between teams. The tam champonship not the driver one. And I would like to see inventive wide ranging designs giving a chance to the teams with small resources. Disrupters.

The issue with the present situation is that big budget wins. So the small budget teams have no chance. You arent going to see McLaren or Williams or Force India or even Alfa winning the champonship

Vaud

32,821 posts

99 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
bordseye said:
Why not? Does anyopne watch or follow F2 and F3 - tbh I didnt know that they still existed. Just like Formula E and formula W - of no significance.
Really? I don't watch them but I am aware that there are decent feeder series that provided many of the current crop of drivers. And that some block called Mick Schumacher is racing...


bordseye said:
The whole debate depends on how you see F1. Are you only interested , as Sky seems to be, in drivers competing. If so then the answer is to have one standard car design and draw lotteries at each race for car allocation to the drivers. Then at the end of the season you know who is the fastest or paybe luckiest driver there.

To me that would be an enormous yawn fest. I'm interested in the technology and the competition between teams. The tam champonship not the driver one. And I would like to see inventive wide ranging designs giving a chance to the teams with small resources. Disrupters.

The issue with the present situation is that big budget wins. So the small budget teams have no chance. You arent going to see McLaren or Williams or Force India or even Alfa winning the champonship
This is true. Personally I don't have an "ideal" of F1. For me it has been a series of F1 generations, each with it's flaws.

I don't want a stock series.

I'm interested in the technology and the competition between teams, but I also want the driver to be a factor. I'll dig out an older post if I can find it with my suggestions.

StevieBee

7,816 posts

199 months

Wednesday 14th August
quotequote all
bordseye said:
Why not? Does anyopne watch or follow F2 and F3 - tbh I didnt know that they still existed. Just like Formula E and formula W - of no significance.
I'm genuinely not being confrontational but I have to say that your belief that F2 and F3 no longer existed and that Formula E and W Series are of no significance demonstrates a serious lack of understanding as to how the whole mechanics of global motorsport operates today. Formula E is of huge significance. At some stage in the future, Formula E and Formula 1 will in some way shape or form, merge into one. W Series has just completed its first season, and I have to say, very successfully. When was the last time the winner of an F3 or F2 championship was interviewed in Breakfast TV?

bordseye said:
The whole debate depends on how you see F1. Are you only interested , as Sky seems to be, in drivers competing. If so then the answer is to have one standard car design and draw lotteries at each race for car allocation to the drivers. Then at the end of the season you know who is the fastest or paybe luckiest driver there.
What you've described is how the W Series operates that you roundly dismissed as being of no significance. Each driver gets a different car and a different team of mechanics at each race. Perhaps give that a watch next year. You may prefer it to F1.

The majority of viewers are motivated by the support of a driver or drivers. The sport itself is geared around the constructors championship. That's it's DNA in that motorsport evolved for the benefit of participants. Others liked to watch and natural affiliations towards those driving evolved stronger than towards the teams (Ferrari being the exception to the rule).

bordseye said:
I'm interested in the technology and the competition between teams. The tam champonship not the driver one. And I would like to see inventive wide ranging designs giving a chance to the teams with small resources. Disrupters.
With you on the 'disrupter' notion. But the means to achieve this would destroy the closeness of racing that we have now. As I mentioned a few posts back, design flexibility leads to widely dispersed fields. You don't have to go back that far to find races finishing with the last third of the field five or more laps behind the winners.

bordseye said:
The issue with the present situation is that big budget wins. So the small budget teams have no chance. You arent going to see McLaren or Williams or Force India or even Alfa winning the champonship
But you might! And that's part of the intrigue. Who would have thought Leicester City could have ever won the premiership against hugely better funded teams? Part of the interest in sport is 'believing' and then sometimes 'seeing' the little guys succeed. Doesn't happen often (in any sport) but is magical when it does. It's these races that tend to linger in the memories the most. Pannis winning in Monaco in the Ligier, Button in the BAR Honda in Hungary, Hill almost taking the win in the Arrows also at Hungary....Even Maldonado in Spain. If these sort of results became the norm I rather think that some of the sparkle would be lost.

Budget is of course a factor but is not the be all and end all it first appears. I mentioned previously that Red Bull operate on half the budget of Mercedes yet is not beyond the realms of possibility that they could win this year's title (slim but not yet impossible). Mercedes have less money that Ferrari. Toyota spent ten years and $1billion to achieve nothing other than a few podiums.

Edited by StevieBee on Wednesday 14th August 12:57

bordseye

Original Poster:

1,390 posts

136 months

Thursday
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
I'm genuinely not being confrontational but I have to say that your belief that F2 and F3 no longer existed and that Formula E and W Series are of no significance demonstrates a serious lack of understanding as to how the whole mechanics of global motorsport operates today. Formula E is of huge significance. At some stage in the future, Formula E and Formula 1 will in some way shape or form, merge into one. W Series has just completed its first season, and I have to say, very successfully. When was the last time the winner of an F3 or F2 championship was interviewed in Breakfast TV?
I could give a sexis answer but I guess the real answer is when an F2 or F3 championship was newsworthy. Which is my point, I guess.

StevieBee said:
What you've described is how the W Series operates that you roundly dismissed as being of no significance. Each driver gets a different car and a different team of mechanics at each race. Perhaps give that a watch next year. You may prefer it to F1.
As I said, what interest me is the technology not the drivers.

StevieBee said:
The majority of viewers are motivated by the support of a driver or drivers. The sport itself is geared around the constructors championship. That's it's DNA in that motorsport evolved for the benefit of participants. Others liked to watch and natural affiliations towards those driving evolved stronger than towards the teams (Ferrari being the exception to the rule).
The modern sport evolved when teams of enthusiasts got together to build a car and race it - drivers like jockeys in horse racing were hired and fired according to their results. Enzo in particular regarded them simply as employees.

StevieBee said:
With you on the 'disrupter' notion. But the means to achieve this would destroy the closeness of racing that we have now. As I mentioned a few posts back, design flexibility leads to widely dispersed fields. You don't have to go back that far to find races finishing with the last third of the field five or more laps behind the winners.
So? Winning is everything. I dont see any practical difference between the present situation with half the field being lapped and half the field being lapped twice or three times.

bordseye said:
The issue with the present situation is that big budget wins. So the small budget teams have no chance. You arent going to see McLaren or Williams or Force India or even Alfa winning the champonship
StevieBee said:
But you might! And that's part of the intrigue. Who would have thought Leicester City could have ever won the premiership against hugely better funded teams? Part of the interest in sport is 'believing' and then sometimes 'seeing' the little guys succeed. Doesn't happen often (in any sport) but is magical when it does. It's these races that tend to linger in the memories the most. Pannis winning in Monaco in the Ligier, Button in the BAR Honda in Hungary, Hill almost taking the win in the Arrows also at Hungary....Even Maldonado in Spain. If these sort of results became the norm I rather think that some of the sparkle would be lost.

Budget is of course a factor but is not the be all and end all it first appears. I mentioned previously that Red Bull operate on half the budget of Mercedes yet is not beyond the realms of possibility that they could win this year's title (slim but not yet impossible). Mercedes have less money that Ferrari. Toyota spent ten years and $1billion to achieve nothing other than a few podiums.
Dont hold your breath waiting for a motoring Leicester City Sevie. Its quite possible to have a big budget and not win - Ferrari are proving that at the moment as did Toyota and Honda and BMW. But IMO it isnt possible to have a small budget and win.

Maybe we should have two championships - a driver one run on the same basis as formula w and a car builder one run on open rules but with a fixed budget.