How to make F1 more exciting
Discussion
I agree that Spa was the most 'interesting' race of the season so far but i feel that one very important issue has been overlooked...
Only a few races ago Ralf Schumacher came very close to losing his life due to the 'promotors' refusal to stop a race in the event of a clearly dangerous situation. Lap after lap the field was led through piles of debris behind the pace car. Ralfs accident was probably caused by the same situation several laps earlier!
And in Spa they did the same thing over and over again resulting in Jenson Buttons massive 200mph blow-out!
What is the point in all these safety systems if the people who run the races are only interested in trying to put on a show to the detriment of safety?
After all, which is the most exciting lap of EVERY race with the most overtaking... it's not a re-start behind the pace car, it's the proper start off the grid!
Only a few races ago Ralf Schumacher came very close to losing his life due to the 'promotors' refusal to stop a race in the event of a clearly dangerous situation. Lap after lap the field was led through piles of debris behind the pace car. Ralfs accident was probably caused by the same situation several laps earlier!
And in Spa they did the same thing over and over again resulting in Jenson Buttons massive 200mph blow-out!
What is the point in all these safety systems if the people who run the races are only interested in trying to put on a show to the detriment of safety?
After all, which is the most exciting lap of EVERY race with the most overtaking... it's not a re-start behind the pace car, it's the proper start off the grid!
steviebee said:
The biggest thing F1 can do is for those involved to realise that it does not exist for their own ends. It is a spectator sport.
That ethos will be very hard to change because they don't see it that way, and never have done.
It all started with drivers wanting to compete against eachother, then gradually changed to nations trying to beat eachother (in Hitler's era). Finally we ended up with fierce team rivalry, and throughout these stages spectators simply didn't matter. The entire focus has always been on winning, not entertaining.
Seems to me it's gone full circle. Surely they now realise that they couldn't even think about F1 without TV money, and that makes them entertainers, like it or not.
Resistance naturally comes from unwillingness to dumb down the sport with artificial gimmicks - there are enough of those already. So what should they do?
Simplify it - go back to slicks, steel discs, and somehow get rid of launch and traction control. And, dare I say it, don't get too obsessed with safety - the cars are marvellously safe now, but the circuits are being ruined.
McNab - I actually think that there were times in the past when those involved in F1 DID think of the bigger picture, rather than their own limited self interests.
An example - in 1967 Lotus had exclusive use of the new and powerful Ford DFV Cosworth 3 litre engine. They had worked closely with Ford and Cosworth to develop the engine and demonstrated during the 1967 season that, once reliability was established, it would be THE engine in F1. They were firm favourites to walk the 1968 championship (what a combination they wouild have - Chapman, Cosworth and Clark). However, the head of motor sport at Ford, Walter Hayes approached Chapman and suggested the exclusive use of the DFV for 1968 and the expected total domination "would not be a good thing for the sport". He suggested that Chapman allow other teams use the DFV. Chapman could have said no, but he didn't. He knew Hayes was correct.
Lotus did win the championship in 1968, although with Hill, not Clark. By 1970, however, virtually every team on the grid, apart from Ferrari and Matra, were using the Cosworth DFV.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 1st September 16:12
An example - in 1967 Lotus had exclusive use of the new and powerful Ford DFV Cosworth 3 litre engine. They had worked closely with Ford and Cosworth to develop the engine and demonstrated during the 1967 season that, once reliability was established, it would be THE engine in F1. They were firm favourites to walk the 1968 championship (what a combination they wouild have - Chapman, Cosworth and Clark). However, the head of motor sport at Ford, Walter Hayes approached Chapman and suggested the exclusive use of the DFV for 1968 and the expected total domination "would not be a good thing for the sport". He suggested that Chapman allow other teams use the DFV. Chapman could have said no, but he didn't. He knew Hayes was correct.
Lotus did win the championship in 1968, although with Hill, not Clark. By 1970, however, virtually every team on the grid, apart from Ferrari and Matra, were using the Cosworth DFV.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 1st September 16:12
boxbush said:
Or how about one wheel at the back and one at the front and call it something like Moto GP
You think your soooooo clever dont ya
Your right Moto GP is quality motorsport where men display real talent for the crowds and only just fit their balls in their leathers. (this is not to say F1 drivers are rubbish, but that you just cant tell).Well, I've read a number of different accounts of the meeting between Chapman and Hayes and they all recount the story along those lines. In fact, I understood it that Lotus had a contract guaranteeing their exclusive use of the DFV and that Hayes had to ASK Chapman if he would relinquish the exclusivity.
If you've heard or read differently, letus know.
If you've heard or read differently, letus know.
McNab said:
Simplify it - go back to slicks, steel discs, and somehow get rid of launch and traction control. And, dare I say it, don't get too obsessed with safety - the cars are marvellously safe now, but the circuits are being ruined.
What about getting rid of wings ?
I think they are the single most influential accessory to slowing the racing down and if they were gone we would start to see a lot more car control even if they have all the electronics under the sun.
Just look at how long they stay out on the track with either wing gone, especially the rear wing, they don't normally make it back to the pits.
Are they afraid of losing their advertising billboard ?!
That is exactly the excuse they have used - which is quite pathetic to my mind. If they insist on wings, maybe they should be non aerofoil shaped with no downforce effect. I would prefer if they were taken off completely though.
The main problem I can see with removing wings is how it would effect lower formulae. Most single seat racing cars now feature wings - with the odd exception (such as Formula Ford). That means a driver would be getting used to more and more aerodynamic grip until he sat in a wingless F1 car. It would be a bit of ashock to the system.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 2nd September 08:15
The main problem I can see with removing wings is how it would effect lower formulae. Most single seat racing cars now feature wings - with the odd exception (such as Formula Ford). That means a driver would be getting used to more and more aerodynamic grip until he sat in a wingless F1 car. It would be a bit of ashock to the system.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 2nd September 08:15
Wings also create more than 1g of drag at most circuits too. This is the same as driving the car up a vertical hill.
Things would go beyond dangerous if they were simply removed without a big reduction in power.
I actually think that some of the aero proposals are not too bad - something like a 25% reduction in downforce with only a 4% decrease in drag should keep most people happy.
It is beyond me why under car aerodynamics are still so legislated against however. If the downforce came from under the car, the front wing would be used simply to clean the airflow from the car in front and - hey presto - we have F1 cars that can follow each other again.
Very simplified view I know, but I'm sure that there's some technical merit in there somewhere.
Things would go beyond dangerous if they were simply removed without a big reduction in power.
I actually think that some of the aero proposals are not too bad - something like a 25% reduction in downforce with only a 4% decrease in drag should keep most people happy.
It is beyond me why under car aerodynamics are still so legislated against however. If the downforce came from under the car, the front wing would be used simply to clean the airflow from the car in front and - hey presto - we have F1 cars that can follow each other again.
Very simplified view I know, but I'm sure that there's some technical merit in there somewhere.
I think what everyone wants is overtaking/racing on the track, so to my mind the answer is simple: no pit stops allowed (for fuel or tyres).
Lets have some of the technical development aimed at making the cars more fuel efficient and able to make a set of tyres last full race - these measures on their own should slow them down anyway.
Lets have some of the technical development aimed at making the cars more fuel efficient and able to make a set of tyres last full race - these measures on their own should slow them down anyway.
daydreamer said:
It is beyond me why under car aerodynamics are still so legislated against however. If the downforce came from under the car, the front wing would be used simply to clean the airflow from the car in front and - hey presto - we have F1 cars that can follow each other again.
I thought the issue with under-car downforce generation was that it disappears very quickly if the car lifts at all, and you end up with cars flying about.
No doubt wrong, but never let that get in the way of an opinion.
That is a problem when downforce is generated under the car. It was partcularly a problem in the early 80s when running over a kerb could damage a sliding skirt, thereby dramatically reducing the downforce on the car. The driver would not find out that downforce was gone until he tried to negotiate the next corner at high speed - and flew off the road. Obviously, wing damage can have the same effct but damage to a wing is usually pretty obvious and the driver usually slows accordingly.
There is no reason why bhp could not be reduced in line with limited or no downforce. In 1967, GP cars had no wings or any other aerodynamic devices and 450 bhp engines. They were still capable of 180 mph on the straights but were a real handfull in the corners - lots of sliding and opposite lock etc. They also had softer springs so were very dynamic to watch.I'd like to see 1967 F1 philosophy in a modern carbon fibre "safety" tub.
There is no reason why bhp could not be reduced in line with limited or no downforce. In 1967, GP cars had no wings or any other aerodynamic devices and 450 bhp engines. They were still capable of 180 mph on the straights but were a real handfull in the corners - lots of sliding and opposite lock etc. They also had softer springs so were very dynamic to watch.I'd like to see 1967 F1 philosophy in a modern carbon fibre "safety" tub.
underbody aerodynamics is a whole new ballgame and I have seen the result of losing this effect on a road going 360 that was travelling at a good clip (220+) on a track going through turn one at Phillip Island where they hold the MotoGP and the car slid sideways ever so slightly and all the downforce disappeared and the car spun off the track.
A 360 generates more downforce than a 355CH which has a wing but due to the design of undercar aeros is susceptible to this effect, fixed in later CS models by adding the wing.
All this says to me is that if the rear wing is removed there will be a lot more danger but AI think that within a very short period of time this would sort out the real drivers from the video game brigade who rely on all these aids to keep the car on the track.
And speaking of tracks, if the wings go there would have to be no major bumps or hills on the track or we would see a return to the early 60s leaping of cars for many metres in the air, exciting but bloody dangerous.
As for the lower formulae, they should remove the wings there as well so the drivers gain a higher level of car control so it isn't such a shock tothe system when they get to F1
A 360 generates more downforce than a 355CH which has a wing but due to the design of undercar aeros is susceptible to this effect, fixed in later CS models by adding the wing.
All this says to me is that if the rear wing is removed there will be a lot more danger but AI think that within a very short period of time this would sort out the real drivers from the video game brigade who rely on all these aids to keep the car on the track.
And speaking of tracks, if the wings go there would have to be no major bumps or hills on the track or we would see a return to the early 60s leaping of cars for many metres in the air, exciting but bloody dangerous.
As for the lower formulae, they should remove the wings there as well so the drivers gain a higher level of car control so it isn't such a shock tothe system when they get to F1
Have you seen pictures of Nikki Lauda jumping the 1975 Ferrari 312T3 at the old Nurburgring? By 1975 F1 cars had quite substantial wings. However, I reckon that even modern F1 cars would get airborne at the Flugplatz.
Underfloor aerodynamics was first explored by Auto Union in the 1930s. They fitted their autobahn record breaking cars (based on the GP cars) with flexible sliding skirts around 1936/37 to try and improve airflow under the car. It didn't prevent Rosemeyer being killed when his Auto Union took off at 240 mph and flew into the trees.
The idea was revisited in the 1970s mainly through the work done at Lotus and modern underfloor aerodynamics has evolved out of that initial work in 1976 to 1978.
Underfloor aerodynamics was first explored by Auto Union in the 1930s. They fitted their autobahn record breaking cars (based on the GP cars) with flexible sliding skirts around 1936/37 to try and improve airflow under the car. It didn't prevent Rosemeyer being killed when his Auto Union took off at 240 mph and flew into the trees.
The idea was revisited in the 1970s mainly through the work done at Lotus and modern underfloor aerodynamics has evolved out of that initial work in 1976 to 1978.
Reducing downforce would also have a knock on effect on braking distances. Downforce presses the wheels down onto the track and reduces the potential for lock up under braking.
I don't think they should go back to steel disks though. From a safety point of view, better brakes are a plus. From a racing point of view, I think big brakes generate a lot of potential for excitement in the tight corners, especially for drivers of the more aggressive Senna/Mansell school.
I don't think getting rid of the wings would be a good idea, especially if they continue with grooved tyres and limit tyre changes over a weekend to further reduce mechanical grip and cut tyre costs. What they need to do on aero is legislate how much turbulence comes out of the back end of the cars to allow for more slipstreaming and less destabilisation of following cars. It sounds like that's what the current reforms are trying to do, but it doesn't deal with the problem of how much teams are spending on wind tunnels and whether or not the rules should change to keep costs in check. Allowing ground effects would just aggravate the costs problem and, assuming it generated even more downforce, further increase cornering speeds . Higher cornering speeds coupled with a decrease in horsepower in moving to 2.4 V8s (assuming that goes through) would, at least in the short term, further reduce the differential between straight line and cornering speeds... and therefore likely reduce overtaking.
F1 has almost always had a problem with domination by one team or another... for a time. From a commercial point of view, all of the constructors and car makers are in the game to produce a better car, win and dominate. Better racing seems to come from a tighter legislated formula which allows for less constructor differentiation, but then the constructors lose interest and invest less because there's less for them to gain, especially where the car maker is simply an engine provider. A lot of Ferrari's current domination, in my view, comes simply from the continuity of the chassis/engine/driver package (plus lots of investment). Over the years, Williams, McLaren, Renault/Benetton/Ligier, BAR/Tyrell etc. have speculatively swapped engine/chassis partners an awful lot - sometimes to benefit, sometimes to gain. That lack of continuity hurts development and dissipates engineering know how.
Business does not always think long term (management needs to have results and have them fast) and they like to speculate on quick gains. Ferrari has a long term interest in being seen as a racing brand. This is not necessarily true of the other manufacturing principals.
From the business point of view of the teams, the drivers come and go. Yes, they are important to marketing and, yes, you want a skilled driver who can "add value", but at the end of the day if the designers could engineer the drivers out of the equation, a lot of them would. That's why you hear Pat Symonds of Renault saying things like "Identical cars racing each other does not mean more overtaking." Now this seems at odds with what a lot of you (and me) think. So why is he saying that? What he means by this is that in a lot of designers' views, racing should be about desinging, not driving. More basically, he may be saying that the drivers are expensive, unreliable, prima donna crybabies who are the weakest link when it comes to getting the most out of his brilliant design. Seeing as how teams cannot bind drivers to a contract for life (unless they back up their side of the deal with an offer they can't refuse like Ferrari did for Schumacher), drivers come and go.
F1 is much more of a business than it was back in the 60's and 70's. This has made a lot of people very rich and these people control the change. There are now sponsors to please and these people are interested in brand image and promotion and the car their brand appears on winning and dominating rather than pushing for a racing formula that makes for the best spectacle.
I don't think they should go back to steel disks though. From a safety point of view, better brakes are a plus. From a racing point of view, I think big brakes generate a lot of potential for excitement in the tight corners, especially for drivers of the more aggressive Senna/Mansell school.
I don't think getting rid of the wings would be a good idea, especially if they continue with grooved tyres and limit tyre changes over a weekend to further reduce mechanical grip and cut tyre costs. What they need to do on aero is legislate how much turbulence comes out of the back end of the cars to allow for more slipstreaming and less destabilisation of following cars. It sounds like that's what the current reforms are trying to do, but it doesn't deal with the problem of how much teams are spending on wind tunnels and whether or not the rules should change to keep costs in check. Allowing ground effects would just aggravate the costs problem and, assuming it generated even more downforce, further increase cornering speeds . Higher cornering speeds coupled with a decrease in horsepower in moving to 2.4 V8s (assuming that goes through) would, at least in the short term, further reduce the differential between straight line and cornering speeds... and therefore likely reduce overtaking.
F1 has almost always had a problem with domination by one team or another... for a time. From a commercial point of view, all of the constructors and car makers are in the game to produce a better car, win and dominate. Better racing seems to come from a tighter legislated formula which allows for less constructor differentiation, but then the constructors lose interest and invest less because there's less for them to gain, especially where the car maker is simply an engine provider. A lot of Ferrari's current domination, in my view, comes simply from the continuity of the chassis/engine/driver package (plus lots of investment). Over the years, Williams, McLaren, Renault/Benetton/Ligier, BAR/Tyrell etc. have speculatively swapped engine/chassis partners an awful lot - sometimes to benefit, sometimes to gain. That lack of continuity hurts development and dissipates engineering know how.
Business does not always think long term (management needs to have results and have them fast) and they like to speculate on quick gains. Ferrari has a long term interest in being seen as a racing brand. This is not necessarily true of the other manufacturing principals.
From the business point of view of the teams, the drivers come and go. Yes, they are important to marketing and, yes, you want a skilled driver who can "add value", but at the end of the day if the designers could engineer the drivers out of the equation, a lot of them would. That's why you hear Pat Symonds of Renault saying things like "Identical cars racing each other does not mean more overtaking." Now this seems at odds with what a lot of you (and me) think. So why is he saying that? What he means by this is that in a lot of designers' views, racing should be about desinging, not driving. More basically, he may be saying that the drivers are expensive, unreliable, prima donna crybabies who are the weakest link when it comes to getting the most out of his brilliant design. Seeing as how teams cannot bind drivers to a contract for life (unless they back up their side of the deal with an offer they can't refuse like Ferrari did for Schumacher), drivers come and go.
F1 is much more of a business than it was back in the 60's and 70's. This has made a lot of people very rich and these people control the change. There are now sponsors to please and these people are interested in brand image and promotion and the car their brand appears on winning and dominating rather than pushing for a racing formula that makes for the best spectacle.
tvrforever said:
On a more serious note :-
1) ban pit <-> driver radio (or at the very least make it free to all to listen to in real time - removing the secrecy bit)
Most sensible and quickest "fix" suggested so far. I appreciate that F1 is a team sport, but it does sometimes seem that the pit dictate the actions of the driver.
Steve
Eric Mc said:No Eric, you're bound to be right.
If you've heard or read differently, letus know.
Re wings, I don't think you can turn the clock back completely. I found this interesting:
www.atlasf1.com/2001/aus/preview/gray.html
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff