F1 has become farcical hasnt it

[E30M3ZONE]

Vaud said:

And possibly too fast for the drivers (g forces, etc)

Would definitely be too fast for the driver which effectively means the driver is now the limiting factor and the cars are reverse engineered to stay within a window of performance. Therefore not Formula 1 as we know it. Last 4 races have still been entertaining in their own way if you can manage to pretend DRS isn't happening.

[CanAm]

Derek Smith said:

CanAm said:

MissChief said:

Lots of stuff.......

It might have escaped your attention that in the race in question, Hungary 2019, only four cars finished on the lead lap and many were lapped twice.

A lap is a poor measurement. They were lapping at 1.20 towards the end of the race.
....etc....

I was referring to MissChiefs quote:-
"1995 British GP. Five cars finished on the lead lap. The last points paying position, 6th, was a lap down! Farcical"

Lap times were about 10 seconds higher than this year's Hungarian GP

[Evangelion]

Several posters said:

Lots of people on here have short memories

This is true. For long periods in the past, cars never stopped for new tyres unless they had a puncture (which effectively ended their race as pit stops were many times longer than now). Indeed, Jim Clark could make a set of tyres last for several races.

I don't think it''s beyonf the capability of the tyre companies, to produce tyres now that last an entire race, (I can make a set last for several thousand miles.)

[MissChief]

CanAm said:

Derek Smith said:

CanAm said:

MissChief said:

Lots of stuff.......

It might have escaped your attention that in the race in question, Hungary 2019, only four cars finished on the lead lap and many were lapped twice.

A lap is a poor measurement. They were lapping at 1.20 towards the end of the race.
....etc....

I was referring to MissChiefs quote:-
"1995 British GP. Five cars finished on the lead lap. The last points paying position, 6th, was a lap down! Farcical"

Lap times were about 10 seconds higher than this year's Hungarian GP

Hamilton was chasing down Verstappen and certainly wasn't babying his car or Engine in order to do so. It's not unexpected that cars with large gaps will comparatively slow down to save tyre life and engine use when there's no risk in doing so. Just as they used to do in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's.

[glazbagun]

Evangelion said:

Several posters said:

Lots of people on here have short memories

This is true. For long periods in the past, cars never stopped for new tyres unless they had a puncture (which effectively ended their race as pit stops were many times longer than now). Indeed, Jim Clark could make a set of tyres last for several races.

I don't think it''s beyonf the capability of the tyre companies, to produce tyres now that last an entire race, (I can make a set last for several thousand miles.)

Our artificially short lived tyres are a result of an attempt to enliven the sport. Otherwise Monaco would be a single procession after the first two corners, and most other races would be the fastest drivers pulling away from the slower ones and never meeting on track in a near repeat of qualifying. That's actually an awesome thing in itself, but as entertainment it doesn't work for large audiences.

[Evangelion]

At least it would mean that drivers pass each other on the track, rather than in the pits.


(Although currently they take the p1ss so much with track limits, that much of the action takes place off the track anyway.)

[nickfrog]

bordseye said:

Most of the responses have been reasonable arguments but this one is nonsense. I've been watching F1 since the tail end of Vanwall racing, right through the likes of BRM and Lotus up to the present day. Not to mention local club circuit racing. le Mans etc. How long have you been into F1?

Current F1 is entirely false. In the early days, it was all about engineering and driver ability / courage. There was real innovation such as the move to rear engines, ground effect, and we even had a period of competition between teams with different sized engines. Tyres were free. Fuel stops allowed.

So what do we have now? A set of rules designed to be so tight that only those with a mega budget can engineer in a tiny advantage. The result is cars that cannot overtakes so we have false overtaking assistance with DRS. No competition between tyre companies and instead tyres engineered to fail safely after not much use.

How can this be the pinacle of motor sport

And dont get me started on le Mans and the farce of prototypes which arent remotely prototypes

You contradictions and lack of rationale tell me that you don't like current F1 as it's not like it was when you were young. The mortality rate has somewhat decreased in the interim while it's still essentially about engineering/innovation and driver talent. I can't remember a rear engine F1.

[Mark-C]

CanAm said:

You are reading far too much into what you think I like or dislike from one flippant comment and my username. I merely thought it ironic that MissChief should quote such results from the past directly after such a finish in the latest race.

And I am well aware of the results and one-sidedness of the Can-Am Series (1966-74 only); but weren't the cars fantastic!?

Best sounding racing cars ever

[CanAm]

Mark-C said:

CanAm said:

You are reading far too much into what you think I like or dislike from one flippant comment and my username. I merely thought it ironic that MissChief should quote such results from the past directly after such a finish in the latest race.

And I am well aware of the results and one-sidedness of the Can-Am Series (1966-74 only); but weren't the cars fantastic!?

Best sounding racing cars ever

I'll drink to that too.

[bordseye]

heebeegeetee said:

I mean, I can't help thinking that strictly speaking, to meet the OP's standards, Formula E is the real Formula One.

I dont know where you get that one from! To the contrary, here would be my basic rules for a new F1 competition:

1/ max £20m budget for the season for a team of 2 cars
2/ max 100kg of pump 95 octane per race
3/ cars with open wheels but passing the existing crash and safety tests
4/ any tyres available for general sale to the public.
5/ no blue flags
6/ no mass vehicle manufacturers allowed except to manufacture and sell engines to the teams.
7/ no other rules except those relating to the conduct of the race.

Bound to be lots of holes in these off the top of my head rules but they are intended to help techical innovation by what Enzo used to call the garagistas - the likes of Williams, McLaren, Cooper etc So maybe we would see 4wd - why not. maybe ABS or active suspension or 6 wheels. What we wouldnt be seeing is cars winning because their little fins on the bargeboards give them a half second advantage over anyone else. How interesting are those bits?

And whilst redesigning F1 how about le Mans.

1/ only 95 octane fuel allowed
2/ any road tyres sold to the public
3 prototypes must be made in a minimum batch of 5o cars with at least 30 sold to the public and must be capable of use on public roads without major structural alternations.
4/ road car class must be of a car made in 1000 min, sold to the public, with no more alterations than are rquired for safety when racing. These cars must be driven to the circuit on public roads.

The idea here is to get back to cars that mean something to the potential buyer.

Now that lot should give the schoolkids that infest this forum something to be rude about.

[Vaud]

I'll provide constructive feedback later, but the overriding point is that it would not be the peak Formula. It would be a formula.

You would have to neuter all of the lower Formula as well.

[NewUsername]

bordseye said:

heebeegeetee said:

I mean, I can't help thinking that strictly speaking, to meet the OP's standards, Formula E is the real Formula One.

I dont know where you get that one from! To the contrary, here would be my basic rules for a new F1 competition:

1/ max £20m budget for the season for a team of 2 cars
2/ max 100kg of pump 95 octane per race
3/ cars with open wheels but passing the existing crash and safety tests
4/ any tyres available for general sale to the public.
5/ no blue flags
6/ no mass vehicle manufacturers allowed except to manufacture and sell engines to the teams.
7/ no other rules except those relating to the conduct of the race.

Bound to be lots of holes in these off the top of my head rules but they are intended to help techical innovation by what Enzo used to call the garagistas - the likes of Williams, McLaren, Cooper etc So maybe we would see 4wd - why not. maybe ABS or active suspension or 6 wheels. What we wouldnt be seeing is cars winning because their little fins on the bargeboards give them a half second advantage over anyone else. How interesting are those bits?

And whilst redesigning F1 how about le Mans.

1/ only 95 octane fuel allowed
2/ any road tyres sold to the public
3 prototypes must be made in a minimum batch of 5o cars with at least 30 sold to the public and must be capable of use on public roads without major structural alternations.
4/ road car class must be of a car made in 1000 min, sold to the public, with no more alterations than are rquired for safety when racing. These cars must be driven to the circuit on public roads.

The idea here is to get back to cars that mean something to the potential buyer.

Now that lot should give the schoolkids that infest this forum something to be rude about.

You'd just get the team with the best idea dominating if you open up the rules too much

Given you claim to have followed it for so long you have a very patchy memory of it

[StevieBee]

bordseye said:

And whilst redesigning F1 how about le Mans.

1/ only 95 octane fuel allowed
2/ any road tyres sold to the public
3 prototypes must be made in a minimum batch of 5o cars with at least 30 sold to the public and must be capable of use on public roads without major structural alternations.
4/ road car class must be of a car made in 1000 min, sold to the public, with no more alterations than are rquired for safety when racing. These cars must be driven to the circuit on public roads.

I'm pretty certain no road car tyre is capable of sustaining the sort of use they'd experience at LeMans. Even those made for the Veyron have a very limited life if used at full pelt.

Homologation requirement was dropped from Prototypes as it was becoming too expensive and manufactures started to take the pee a little (Van sub-assemblies on the batch of 917s). But they are road legal. Toyota could have fitted road tyres to Alonso's car and he could driven it back to the factory. Gordon Murray said that his big regret with the McLaren F1 was they should have driven from the factory to LeMans and back after the race.

[Vaud]

bordseye said:

To the contrary, here would be my basic rules for a new F1 competition:

1/ max £20m budget for the season for a team of 2 cars
2/ max 100kg of pump 95 octane per race
3/ cars with open wheels but passing the existing crash and safety tests
4/ any tyres available for general sale to the public.
5/ no blue flags
6/ no mass vehicle manufacturers allowed except to manufacture and sell engines to the teams.
7/ no other rules except those relating to the conduct of the race.

Some constructive observations:


1/ Too low for the pinnacle of the sport but a good intention to reduce budgets and encourage entries.

2/ Why 95? Why not 98 or 100 as I can buy those at the pump? Why 100kg? If there are no other design rules, why not encourage a fuel war as well as a tyre war and allow exotic fuels?

3/ Would need a few definitions, but yes, ok

4/ OK, but they will be pricey. Like 20k a set+. Do you want a tyre war, engine war and design war?

5/ Not sure why, they aren't a big issue. With the inevitable massive differences from back to front given your open regs, you would need them at least at street circuits

6/ So goodbye Ferrari after all they have invested in the sport. They were garagistas after all... I thought wanted the likes of the original garagistas?

7/ So an aero and driver aid war. And engines. The aero and power would probably push the limits of the drivers physically for G forces and with a massive increase in corner energy some very big and probably fatal accidents. The test design brief of an unfettered F1 car by Red Bull showed the ludicrous speeds of ground effect and advanced chassis design.

You would have a series that went like this:

Year one : chaos. Massive design and engine differences from front to back. "Manufacturers" still winning as they would provide technology at low cost to the team they want to back. "B teams" running 2019 hybrid engines (but only just as they consume so much of the budget)

Year two : some convergence of design thinking. Some team exiting as they are too far behind, even with the low budget.

Year three: as two, but probably down to 3 engine manufacturers at best. Maybe a grid of 24+ cars and still massive gaps.

And a sport that would be fundamentally very confusing to the public, who would not understand why Mick Schumacher with no F1 experience in an ultra fast Red Bull derived ground effect car is lapping Lewis Hamilton, by then the 100 race winner and 8x WDC.

So maybe if you want a WCC formula?

[MissChief]

People talk about massively open rules like 'Fit the whole car in this box' and away you go but such rules would be prohibitively expensive with only manufacturer backed teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and perhaps Red Bull dominating. As they do now. They have the resources to pump millions into development whereas Racing Point, Williams, McLaren etc struggling to keep up. It would be like it is now. But much, much worse because one team could make a car that dominates similar to Mercedes did for the first year of the Hybrid engines. But if they don't allow their drivers to race then seeing Lewis come home first, Bottas second by 30 seconds and everyone else a lap or more down is not something people will watch. It just won't work.

[TobyTR]

Derek Smith said:

I've not known a season like this one. We've had four exciting races on the trot. We should not forget Baku. It was what was grandly called a 'classic' race because it had a beginning, middle phase, and an end. And what an end. Pathos in abundance.

Five thoroughly enjoyable races in a whole season is remarkable, let along five by (a bit over) half way.

The myth of the utter dominance of Merc has been put to rest. They are in a battle.

Hungry was fabulous. Lots of action all down the field. A fluffed pit stop would cost two or three places so a real team effort. LH, despite having the fastest car, unable to overtake RB. Brake wear a problem. A call for new tyres at just the right moment. Or maybe not. If RB had called in MV on the following lap, could he have stayed ahead? We'll never know.

We had the two cars in the lead ignoring engine management and going for it for 20 laps. The last time I saw that was Mansell at Silverstone back in the Williams/Honda days. This race was what everyone says racing used to be like all the time. Such races were infrequent, so much so that a nerd can remember them all.

Was Hungry the best race of the season? The thing is that there are four other races vying for that position.

I've followed GP racing since 1966. That's a fair few weeks now. I would say that, at the moment, it is a challenger for best ever. And yet we still have lots of races to go.

Pure luxury.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Derek. We've had four entertaining races - on tracks that more-often-than-not deliver - out of 12 races so far this season. Mercedes have scored 7 1-2 finishes out of 12 so far, and Mercedes have won 10 out of the 12 races... That's not a season-long battle.

We only have to look back to 2007 Monaco, 2006 Imola, 2005 Japan, 2005 Imola, 2004 Brazilian, 2004 British, 2004 French, 2000 Belgian etc etc to see two cars in the lead ignoring engine management and going at it for over 20+ laps, it happened a fair amount back then because the regs, relatively low cost of the engines and the budgets allowed them to.

It's still way way behind 2012 in terms of ranking in potential best seasons ever. And way behind others too. We've had four entertaining decent races. Thankfully, 2019 is the best season we've had of the hybrid era so far. But there's more to be done.

DRS is well passed it's expiry date now and needs to be consigned to the bin for good when the cars aero are further reduced (hopefully by more than 10%). Hateful contraption and robs everyone of more decent prolonged battles.

[CanAm]

StevieBee said:

I'm pretty certain no road car tyre is capable of sustaining the sort of use they'd experience at LeMans. Even those made for the Veyron have a very limited life if used at full pelt.

Homologation requirement was dropped from Prototypes as it was becoming too expensive and manufactures started to take the pee a little (Van sub-assemblies on the batch of 917s). But they are road legal. Toyota could have fitted road tyres to Alonso's car and he could driven it back to the factory. Gordon Murray said that his big regret with the McLaren F1 was they should have driven from the factory to LeMans and back after the race.

The Porsche 917s weren't Prototypes, they were Group 4 Sports cars.
Until 1968, Prototypes ( Ford GT MkII, &Mk IV, Ferrari P4 etc) had no engine capacity limit or homologation requirement. For 1968 a 3 litre limit was imposed on them, hence Ford running the the P68, and Le Mans being won by the old MK Is, which by now had been homologated as Group 4 Sports cars.

The Porsche 908, Ferrari 312, Alfas and Matras etc were 3 litre prototypes with no homologation requirement.

[Sa Calobra]

JayK12 said:

I've got back into F1 this year and the last four races including yesterdays were awesome.

Yep. Tyres are a MASSIVE factor op. It's a technical sport.

Maybe Nascar is your area, get those buds out

[Jon39]

E30M3ZONE said:

..... if you can manage to pretend DRS isn't happening.

Obviously DRS is an artificial overtaking aid, to benefit the car which is following.

Let us consider two cars with almost identical lap times. After a pass has been achieved, it might be expected that the car which has just been overtaken would then have the advantage on the following lap and be able to regain the original position.

It rarely seems to work like that though. Why is that?

[Vaud]

Jon39 said:

Obviously DRS is an artificial overtaking aid, to benefit the car which is following.

Let us consider two cars with almost identical lap times. After a pass has been achieved, it might be expected that the car which has just been overtaken would then have the advantage on the following lap and be able to regain the original position.

It rarely seems to work like that though. Why is that?

Two cars have differing aero and an ability to produce / cope with dirty air?