How do we fix F1?
Discussion
mko9 said:
NightDriver said:
mko9 - F1 cars are already extremely efficient. When you get to the point that your engine is producing the maximum power for its size and engine speed you need to then minimise losses. Reducing friction and increasing efficiency is a huge part of the design process, is you can reduce the internal friction inside an engine/transmission your getting yourself free power - the best kind of power! 
You apparently don't understand the definition of efficiency. Or are you going to start quoting me hp/L figures? Fuel efficiency is, surprisingly enough, an measure efficiency. I am going to stick by my original arguement, and say third Bagman's suggestion for no refueling.To do what your talking about, reducing fuel consumption, you simply drop the rev limit - the slower the engine runs the less fuel is used.
The only issue I would have with banning refueling is that at the moment it breaks the race up nicely, if it was to be outlawed then if the race becomes a precession from lap 10, it will stay like that until the end which would be really boring. At least with reuelling the it can mix the race up a bit and it gets some drivers pushing very hard mid race to make the most of situation.
starts on pole and is either last to finish or first to DNF for any reason.
jellison said:
Bagman said:
odyssey2200 said:
Bagman said:
jellison said:
Bagman - you are a VERY Wise Man
Very kind of you to say so. I stopped short of saying that all drivers were to start smoking again but let's face it, if a driver had to risk everything on one qualifying lap on super sticky tyres he'd be gagging for a snout.If F1 did change as I suggest, we could also be treated to Gerhard Berger showing that little pussy Scott Speed how to drive. Berger knew how to brake late..............
Edited by Bagman on Saturday 18th August 22:31
All the same, when was the last time you heared the following dialogue
"Did you see the GP on Sunday???!!!"
"Yer that fuel strategy really gave me the 'orn"
This offers the following benefits.
1. The lower funded teams e.g. Jordan (or whatever they're called this week), Toro Rosso etc can whack up the boost in the early stages of the race, knowing full well that they won't finish. Joe Punter can cheer for the underdog and the ardent fan can bet with his mates how long it will take for the inevitable popping of the motor.
2. TV coverage focuses mainly on the leaders. Anyone sponsoring the lower teams will have more bang for their buck (quite literally when the motor goes pop) and will encourage their sponsors to pump in more cash then no longer will we have to listen to Colin Kolles interviews.
3. Flames
4. The serious teams will still win but their drivers will have to earn their money by passing each other for position. They will also have the option of cranking up the boost when they need to make a move stick but will also have to compensate by running leaner elsewhere. While this brings strategy back into the fold, the strategy results in physical passes rather than the passes taking place while one half of the pass is stationary. Both Joe Punter and the serious fan win here. Joe Punter doesn't give a toss how much boost the driver is using, he's just seen a driver squeeze past another then disappear up the road with a 15 ft flame shooting out the back of the car. The serious fan can sit and ponder "I wonder how much boost he was using there........." but still appreciate the racecraft of the pass.
5. More passing on track. Dig out your porn stash and find your taped editions of "The Team - a season with McLaren. Dig out the episode about sponsorship where McLaren are courting all the publicity they can at Silverstone. Have a look at the expressions on peoples' faces as Senna dices with Prost and Schumacher then look for the damp patch on Sally Gunnell's shell suit.
6. Flames
7. Banzai crazy speeds in qualifying. Read my post about tyres. Gumball tyres and big boost will make for knife edge, brown trouser qualifying without it being anymore dangerous than it is now.
8. Big horsepower + no TC = Oversteer. Anyone who doesn't think oversteer is good should trawl through their porn stash for Ronnie Peterson & Gilles Villeneuve. Imagine a wet race.......
8. Flames - Anyone who doesn't think flames are cool, dig out the Porn Stash for the 1985 San Remo Rally. There's a particularly great shot of a 205 T16 approaching the camera head on after exiting a 90 degree bend with half the car still in the ditch. As the driver changes up, the murky air underneath the car lights up. Can't find the clip on You Tube for you but this one will suffice for now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKc8wFa_ges
jellison said:
Yep re fuelling is cobblers - what has it got to do with driving? Strategy is cobblers to just fill them up and race from lights to flag, get the grip right down, larger engines rev limited to say 15k so they have some torque rather than this daft little screamer engines.
OK, so let's get this straight. You give the cars practice and qualifying. The fastest guy starts first, the slowest last. There are no pit-stops and the cars aren't equal.Where does this magical overtaking come from? Do drivers drive faster during a race? Do cars get slower / faster?
If you want to see overtaking then you have to have some method of shaking things up a bit. This is where strategy comes in. Whether it be tyre choice, fuel strategy, or some other variable, this allows some variation. But with no strategy every race is just a sprint, in which case why not just decide the result on the basis of qualifying and all go home early?
The alternative is a true wildcard (somebody suggested a tombola for grid slots, I've suggested grid reversals and points for qualifying positions, so there's a new strategic variable to ponder, others have suggested random sprinklers). That puts fast guys "out of position", means they have to overtake, and adds to the spectacle, but is absolutely artificial. Many will dislike the "falseness" of such ruses, and liken the end result to, say, WWF wrestling or Blue Peter competitions...
The idea of a "fits in this box, drinks this much fuel" approach appeals to me as an Engineer, but again that just makes it a competition between teams. There still won't be any 6-wheel fan cars, though, as every team's computers are large enough to work out the optimum solution pretty quickly and then you have, well, a procession again.
But at the end of the day, all "hobbling" or technical rule changes (bar a few, such as dropping wings) will still give poor racing, since nothing really changes - you just challenge the teams more to play "catch up", which seems to be the opposite of what is wished-for.
Reverse Grids - points for quailfying and real qualifying on almost zero fuel.
Basically get rid of the teams and just give them Gp2 or Cart cars.
Actually I am now convinced GP will nver be what it was how ever hard they try.
(All the aero has to come off before it will even get close). Most other areas of motorsport are better for entertainment now, just a pity that F1 has most of the best drivers (well WRC drivers are obviously the best but that is another matter!)
Basically get rid of the teams and just give them Gp2 or Cart cars.
Actually I am now convinced GP will nver be what it was how ever hard they try.
(All the aero has to come off before it will even get close). Most other areas of motorsport are better for entertainment now, just a pity that F1 has most of the best drivers (well WRC drivers are obviously the best but that is another matter!)
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
Eric Mc said:
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
That is why you need to control the spring rates per my original post. They can spend all the time they like developing downforce but it will only cause the cars to scrape along the ground. We can't get rid of wings because they are useful advertising space. So why not reduce their effect on downforce? Then they can run a lot closer which is why it has become a procession.The variation you want from strategy is catered for by my post regarding turbo motors.
The key thing is to eliminate the possibility of passing in the pits. Then they HAVE to pass each other on the track.
Bagman said:
Eric Mc said:
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
Then they HAVE to pass each other on the track.Bagman said:
Eric Mc said:
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
That is why you need to control the spring rates per my original post. They can spend all the time they like developing downforce but it will only cause the cars to scrape along the ground. We can't get rid of wings because they are useful advertising space. So why not reduce their effect on downforce? Then they can run a lot closer which is why it has become a procession.The variation you want from strategy is catered for by my post regarding turbo motors.
The key thing is to eliminate the possibility of passing in the pits. Then they HAVE to pass each other on the track.
Surely if you just want all the drivers in GP2/Cart cars shouldnt you just stop watching F1 and start watching GP2/Cart?? I suppose it all depends on what you feel F1 should be. If you think it should be just about the driver then your never going to like the rules because, in reality, its a constructor championship as much or more than a drivers championship. The constructors bring the money and make the decisions. The drivers are just a tool to help make there cars go quicker much like a new tyre compound or the latest spec engine....
NightDriver said:
Bagman said:
Eric Mc said:
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
That is why you need to control the spring rates per my original post. They can spend all the time they like developing downforce but it will only cause the cars to scrape along the ground. We can't get rid of wings because they are useful advertising space. So why not reduce their effect on downforce? Then they can run a lot closer which is why it has become a procession.The variation you want from strategy is catered for by my post regarding turbo motors.
The key thing is to eliminate the possibility of passing in the pits. Then they HAVE to pass each other on the track.
Surely if you just want all the drivers in GP2/Cart cars shouldnt you just stop watching F1 and start watching GP2/Cart?? I suppose it all depends on what you feel F1 should be. If you think it should be just about the driver then your never going to like the rules because, in reality, its a constructor championship as much or more than a drivers championship. The constructors bring the money and make the decisions. The drivers are just a tool to help make there cars go quicker much like a new tyre compound or the latest spec engine....
NightDriver said:
Surely if you just want all the drivers in GP2/Cart cars shouldnt you just stop watching F1 and start watching GP2/Cart?? I suppose it all depends on what you feel F1 should be. If you think it should be just about the driver then your never going to like the rules because, in reality, its a constructor championship as much or more than a drivers championship. The constructors bring the money and make the decisions. The drivers are just a tool to help make there cars go quicker much like a new tyre compound or the latest spec engine....
If it was all about constructors they'd be running in some sort of giant scalextric set. It's not about making the cars equal, its about letting them run closely to each other. The best teams will still win but everyone at their own respective level will actually be able to pass each other.Bagman said:
NightDriver said:
Bagman said:
Eric Mc said:
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
That is why you need to control the spring rates per my original post. They can spend all the time they like developing downforce but it will only cause the cars to scrape along the ground. We can't get rid of wings because they are useful advertising space. So why not reduce their effect on downforce? Then they can run a lot closer which is why it has become a procession.The variation you want from strategy is catered for by my post regarding turbo motors.
The key thing is to eliminate the possibility of passing in the pits. Then they HAVE to pass each other on the track.
Surely if you just want all the drivers in GP2/Cart cars shouldnt you just stop watching F1 and start watching GP2/Cart?? I suppose it all depends on what you feel F1 should be. If you think it should be just about the driver then your never going to like the rules because, in reality, its a constructor championship as much or more than a drivers championship. The constructors bring the money and make the decisions. The drivers are just a tool to help make there cars go quicker much like a new tyre compound or the latest spec engine....
This thread is pointless - F1 should be the playground for technology - bringing in rules just kills it for me... full slicks should be used , no pit stops , big turbo engine 1400~hp on full boost/chat, limited to one tank of fuel for the race ... see who wins .
If you ban a technology (active suspension , traction control , launch control ) the engineers will just spend the time/money on another advantage system. So why limit them at all ?
And I think that some races should be declared 'wet' races..... soak the track at the start. All the races I have enjoyed in the last few years have been the monsoon races where keeping the car on the track generates the win.
Bagman]quote said:
If the spring rate can only be so stiff, any excessive downforce will slam the car to the ground yes?
Yes, but as dtmpower has said you simple run more ground clearence than you have suspension travel so you get your downforce back. If you want to limit downforce then simply tell the teams what maximum downforce they can run at what speed. But then millions would just be spent on reducing drag and causing as much air disruption as possible to the following cars.dtmpower said:
Bagman said:
NightDriver said:
Bagman said:
Eric Mc said:
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
That is why you need to control the spring rates per my original post. They can spend all the time they like developing downforce but it will only cause the cars to scrape along the ground. We can't get rid of wings because they are useful advertising space. So why not reduce their effect on downforce? Then they can run a lot closer which is why it has become a procession.The variation you want from strategy is catered for by my post regarding turbo motors.
The key thing is to eliminate the possibility of passing in the pits. Then they HAVE to pass each other on the track.
Surely if you just want all the drivers in GP2/Cart cars shouldnt you just stop watching F1 and start watching GP2/Cart?? I suppose it all depends on what you feel F1 should be. If you think it should be just about the driver then your never going to like the rules because, in reality, its a constructor championship as much or more than a drivers championship. The constructors bring the money and make the decisions. The drivers are just a tool to help make there cars go quicker much like a new tyre compound or the latest spec engine....
This thread is pointless - F1 should be the playground for technology - bringing in rules just kills it for me... full slicks should be used , no pit stops , big turbo engine 1400~hp on full boost/chat, limited to one tank of fuel for the race ... see who wins .
If you ban a technology (active suspension , traction control , launch control ) the engineers will just spend the time/money on another advantage system. So why limit them at all ?
And I think that some races should be declared 'wet' races..... soak the track at the start. All the races I have enjoyed in the last few years have been the monsoon races where keeping the car on the track generates the win.
NightDriver said:
Bagman]quote said:
If the spring rate can only be so stiff, any excessive downforce will slam the car to the ground yes?
Yes, but as dtmpower has said you simple run more ground clearence than you have suspension travel so you get your downforce back. If you want to limit downforce then simply tell the teams what maximum downforce they can run at what speed. But then millions would just be spent on reducing drag and causing as much air disruption as possible to the following cars.In the early days of ground effect, when getting constant ground clearance regardless of downforce was critical, the teams basically ran their cars "solid". They still had springs, and adjustable spring platforms and dampers and bump stops, they just wound the bump stops up and the spring platforms down until nothing could move in reality yet it could be demonstrated to comply with the letter of the rules if required.
So spring rate is a red herring on its own. If you want to introduce a rule that says "the wheel must deflect 1 cm for each 100 kg of force applied" or somesuch, that could work.
Eric Mc said:
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
Here, here. In the same way that any old supermini will wipe the floor with many a sports car of yesteryear and comprehensively smash the speed limit, or that the nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle, technical progress is irrevocable. F1 increasingly resembles modern warfare - most battles are won or lost on the drawing board and at the budget stage - and F22 will shoot down anything in the sky, for instance.However the big problem is that the barrier to entry or progress is just too high. Even in the 90s, Symtek (sp?) could get a couple of cars on the grid for (ISTR) £6m for the season. Now you need to put down a deposit just to race of (again ISTR) £30m or so. With little testing allowed, you have to have the banks of knowledge, computer models and testing data in order to be competitive, and it starts to become simply a battle of ability to buy computers and harness engineers.
Attempts to curb spending based on budget have proved impossible to police in other areas, so that's a non-starter. Every regulation change just increases the spending needed in order to catch up, so is self-defeating.
My own feeling is allow unlimited testing, and let the teams decide which is most beneficial - testing or simulation. Meanwhile add as many strategic elements as possible, since those are the only things that are likely to lead to snap-decisions by humans and hence open up the opportunity for on-the-day competitive advantage.
skwdenyer said:
Eric Mc said:
I think you are correct. F1 was better when the designers were working from a position of comparative ignorance. They just know and understand far too much these days. Short of performing lobotomies on the designers or ordering the scrapping of all the computer data held on race car performance, this lnowledge can never be "unlearned".
Here, here. In the same way that any old supermini will wipe the floor with many a sports car of yesteryear and comprehensively smash the speed limit, or that the nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle, technical progress is irrevocable. F1 increasingly resembles modern warfare - most battles are won or lost on the drawing board and at the budget stage - and F22 will shoot down anything in the sky, for instance.However the big problem is that the barrier to entry or progress is just too high. Even in the 90s, Symtek (sp?) could get a couple of cars on the grid for (ISTR) £6m for the season. Now you need to put down a deposit just to race of (again ISTR) £30m or so. With little testing allowed, you have to have the banks of knowledge, computer models and testing data in order to be competitive, and it starts to become simply a battle of ability to buy computers and harness engineers.
Attempts to curb spending based on budget have proved impossible to police in other areas, so that's a non-starter. Every regulation change just increases the spending needed in order to catch up, so is self-defeating.
My own feeling is allow unlimited testing, and let the teams decide which is most beneficial - testing or simulation. Meanwhile add as many strategic elements as possible, since those are the only things that are likely to lead to snap-decisions by humans and hence open up the opportunity for on-the-day competitive advantage.
DavidY said:
This is what we want
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7uuahQQugY&mod...
davidy
Not a V10 twin turbo though was it? thought all turbo F1 cars were straight 4 single turbo or V6 TT?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7uuahQQugY&mod...
davidy
Edited by DavidY on Thursday 16th August 19:12
KeithR said:
After watching that old video, it's clear that today's formula 1 cars need to be much less aerodynamically dependant to allow that kind of close racing. More mechanical grip e.g. full slicks etc. Also, watching those old cars clash together like that; you couldn't do that in today's cars for fear of suspension damage etc. Not saying that contact is good, but when it's in the spirit of racing.
Also remember that the harder tyre compounds of the past meant less 'marbles' off line which significantly aided overtaking.Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff