Discussion
This has been puzzling me for a while.
Watching F1 today was a bit frustrating since you keep hoping for overtakes to happen but ultimately they really dont.
Rubens following two cars for a number of laps but being unable to pass in 'dirty air' was a prime example.
I watched all the 'classic' races and this really wasn't an issue in the past.
Brundle made a point that if they reduce Aero benefit to the equivalent of a wet race then we'd see overtaking but then F1 would effectively be slower than GP2 which obviously can't happen.
Now GP2 appears to use the same principals as F1 with regards to Aero/Wings etc but they still manage to trade places pretty frequently.
So what's the difference with F1? Why, for argument sake, can't we use the GP2 principal aero package but with perhaps a wider track / tyres and 2-300 extra bhp?
Watching F1 today was a bit frustrating since you keep hoping for overtakes to happen but ultimately they really dont.
Rubens following two cars for a number of laps but being unable to pass in 'dirty air' was a prime example.
I watched all the 'classic' races and this really wasn't an issue in the past.
Brundle made a point that if they reduce Aero benefit to the equivalent of a wet race then we'd see overtaking but then F1 would effectively be slower than GP2 which obviously can't happen.
Now GP2 appears to use the same principals as F1 with regards to Aero/Wings etc but they still manage to trade places pretty frequently.
So what's the difference with F1? Why, for argument sake, can't we use the GP2 principal aero package but with perhaps a wider track / tyres and 2-300 extra bhp?
F1 is the peak, everything is operating at the absolute edge of the performance it can acheive. Any distubance like dirty air will have a larger effect than it will on a less optimised system.
Personally (by this I mean don't 'have a go at me' please) I think the mechanical grip should be increased significantly with wider track, wider tyres etc etc and the aero grip reduced so the cars can run closer together and work better off the optimum line allowing easier overtaking.
Personally (by this I mean don't 'have a go at me' please) I think the mechanical grip should be increased significantly with wider track, wider tyres etc etc and the aero grip reduced so the cars can run closer together and work better off the optimum line allowing easier overtaking.
It all starts with MAX MOSELY hahaha who else.
It started when senna killed himself in 94 because the car bottomed out and so after that as a 'safety measure' they raised the cars and then lost all the downforce. Because of this they had to start trying to get downforce from on top of the car which gives a lot of turbulence and not as much downforce.
An easy fix is to lower the cars again give them downforce from under the cars take all the crap from on top of the cars off and then they can get back to real racing again.
It started when senna killed himself in 94 because the car bottomed out and so after that as a 'safety measure' they raised the cars and then lost all the downforce. Because of this they had to start trying to get downforce from on top of the car which gives a lot of turbulence and not as much downforce.
An easy fix is to lower the cars again give them downforce from under the cars take all the crap from on top of the cars off and then they can get back to real racing again.
Fire99 said:
Now GP2 appears to use the same principals as F1 with regards to Aero/Wings etc but they still manage to trade places pretty frequently.
So what's the difference with F1? Why, for argument sake, can't we use the GP2 principal aero package but with perhaps a wider track / tyres and 2-300 extra bhp?
GP2 has much less downforce than F1, therefore less turbulence, less influence due to dirty air, etc. Tyre compounds are probably very different too, with GP2 compounds having a wider performance envelope than F1 tyres.So what's the difference with F1? Why, for argument sake, can't we use the GP2 principal aero package but with perhaps a wider track / tyres and 2-300 extra bhp?
A lot of the dirty air stuff could be solved by allowing ground-effect cars again, but the FIA is not likely to allow ground-effect cars due to the risks of porpoising and flying cars, despite all the recent advances in aeronautics.
kenny21 said:
It all starts with MAX MOSELY hahaha who else.
It started when senna killed himself in 94 because the car bottomed out and so after that as a 'safety measure' they raised the cars and then lost all the downforce. Because of this they had to start trying to get downforce from on top of the car which gives a lot of turbulence and not as much downforce.
An easy fix is to lower the cars again give them downforce from under the cars take all the crap from on top of the cars off and then they can get back to real racing again.
You could say that the move to kill underfloor downforce started in 1983 - with the banning of sidepods and underfloor aerodynamic devices.It started when senna killed himself in 94 because the car bottomed out and so after that as a 'safety measure' they raised the cars and then lost all the downforce. Because of this they had to start trying to get downforce from on top of the car which gives a lot of turbulence and not as much downforce.
An easy fix is to lower the cars again give them downforce from under the cars take all the crap from on top of the cars off and then they can get back to real racing again.
Sorry to sound like a broken record (a simile which I concede may be lost on the younger members of this forum), but if all the wings were removed, and the entire bottom of the car made flat, then all downforce would disappear and we could then go back to real cars, real overtaking and real racing.
(And I could add, controversially, real drivers.)
(And I could add, controversially, real drivers.)
Evangelion said:
Sorry to sound like a broken record (a simile which I concede may be lost on the younger members of this forum), but if all the wings were removed, and the entire bottom of the car made flat, then all downforce would disappear and we could then go back to real cars, real overtaking and real racing.
(And I could add, controversially, real drivers.)
And cars which are not fast, and not F1......(And I could add, controversially, real drivers.)
Jungles said:
Fire99 said:
Now GP2 appears to use the same principals as F1 with regards to Aero/Wings etc but they still manage to trade places pretty frequently.
So what's the difference with F1? Why, for argument sake, can't we use the GP2 principal aero package but with perhaps a wider track / tyres and 2-300 extra bhp?
GP2 has much less downforce than F1, therefore less turbulence, less influence due to dirty air, etc. Tyre compounds are probably very different too, with GP2 compounds having a wider performance envelope than F1 tyres.So what's the difference with F1? Why, for argument sake, can't we use the GP2 principal aero package but with perhaps a wider track / tyres and 2-300 extra bhp?
A lot of the dirty air stuff could be solved by allowing ground-effect cars again, but the FIA is not likely to allow ground-effect cars due to the risks of porpoising and flying cars, despite all the recent advances in aeronautics.
So use the GP2 model (which I think is quite a nice looking car), expand it a bit with a larger track, wider tyres etc plus a significant HP increase and then you have a formula which is still the fastest but retains the overtaking principals of the lower formula.
We seem to have at the moment lots of mucking around with the icing on the cake where the fundamentals don't work in a track race scenario. Cars need (beyond relying on the weather) to be able to get close and pass if the driver/car is up to the job.
kenny21 said:
It all starts with MAX MOSELY hahaha who else.
It started when senna killed himself in 94 because the car bottomed out and so after that as a 'safety measure' they raised the cars and then lost all the downforce. Because of this they had to start trying to get downforce from on top of the car which gives a lot of turbulence and not as much downforce.
An easy fix is to lower the cars again give them downforce from under the cars take all the crap from on top of the cars off and then they can get back to real racing again.
Yes, because in e.g. 1992 and 1993 there was so much more overtaking...It started when senna killed himself in 94 because the car bottomed out and so after that as a 'safety measure' they raised the cars and then lost all the downforce. Because of this they had to start trying to get downforce from on top of the car which gives a lot of turbulence and not as much downforce.
An easy fix is to lower the cars again give them downforce from under the cars take all the crap from on top of the cars off and then they can get back to real racing again.
Evangelion said:
Sorry to sound like a broken record (a simile which I concede may be lost on the younger members of this forum), but if all the wings were removed, and the entire bottom of the car made flat, then all downforce would disappear and we could then go back to real cars, real overtaking and real racing.
(And I could add, controversially, real drivers.)
And as Brundle pointed out, you would then have to change the rules in EVERY other FIA formula to ensure that the F1 cars were still fastest, at a cost of billions of pounds, during a global economic meltdown.(And I could add, controversially, real drivers.)
Still, good idea though. Perhaps you should stick with formula ford if that's the type of car you want to see racing?
I wont even justify the "real drivers" bit with a response.
acf8181 said:
T89 Callan said:
F1 is the peak, everything is operating at the absolute edge of the performance it can acheive.
Exactly, and it extends to the drivers.GP2 drivers and such make many many many more mistakes than f1.....so opportunities to pass are more frequent.
The bottom line with F1 is that a serious ingredient is lacking. There is absolutely no way of denying it. No-one in their right mind would suggest the cars be performance equals of a lower formula but the principals of how the cars achieve cornering speed are seriously flawed to allow on-track racing beyond the first few corners of the race.
F1 is the pinnacle of the sport. If you want door handles bashed together at every corner then there're other formulae that might well suit. But in F1 we have the cream of the drivers driving cars that have been designed and built buy the cream of designers and engineers.
There was a sublime overtake by LH on Webber, and others as well. You can think back to Senna/Mansell in Spain, then three abreast in Spa. Mansell/Senna in Hungary as well. I remember a British GP when the whole second half of the race was one overtake on the penultimate lap. One of the most thrilling races I've seen.
If cars swopped positions every lap and every corner then it would be Formula Ford. That's not to decry FF, just to show it is different. The TVR Tuscan Challenge brought many people to motorsport but F1 it wasn't.
There are less than 20 GPs a season. Let's keep it as the cream. No more massive changes to the rules, just a tweak here and there.
It has been the avowed intent of the legislators to make overtaking easier but, despite the suggestions on many threads on these and other forums, it hasn't happened. So I would suggest that it is not as simple a task as suggested. However, Mosley is now history and you never know, we might just get someone in charge who knows what they are doing.
But let's keep F1 pure. The farcical tyre regs are a warning to those who want to bring in artificial regulations to slow cars at times. And what about KERS? That great, tremendous, genius-inspired move to enable overtaking on a whim has proved not only a total failure but an expensive total failure. In fact a disaster.
There was a sublime overtake by LH on Webber, and others as well. You can think back to Senna/Mansell in Spain, then three abreast in Spa. Mansell/Senna in Hungary as well. I remember a British GP when the whole second half of the race was one overtake on the penultimate lap. One of the most thrilling races I've seen.
If cars swopped positions every lap and every corner then it would be Formula Ford. That's not to decry FF, just to show it is different. The TVR Tuscan Challenge brought many people to motorsport but F1 it wasn't.
There are less than 20 GPs a season. Let's keep it as the cream. No more massive changes to the rules, just a tweak here and there.
It has been the avowed intent of the legislators to make overtaking easier but, despite the suggestions on many threads on these and other forums, it hasn't happened. So I would suggest that it is not as simple a task as suggested. However, Mosley is now history and you never know, we might just get someone in charge who knows what they are doing.
But let's keep F1 pure. The farcical tyre regs are a warning to those who want to bring in artificial regulations to slow cars at times. And what about KERS? That great, tremendous, genius-inspired move to enable overtaking on a whim has proved not only a total failure but an expensive total failure. In fact a disaster.
Derek Smith said:
F1 is the pinnacle of the sport. If you want door handles bashed together at every corner then there're other formulae that might well suit. But in F1 we have the cream of the drivers driving cars that have been designed and built buy the cream of designers and engineers.
There was a sublime overtake by LH on Webber, and others as well. You can think back to Senna/Mansell in Spain, then three abreast in Spa. Mansell/Senna in Hungary as well. I remember a British GP when the whole second half of the race was one overtake on the penultimate lap. One of the most thrilling races I've seen.
If cars swopped positions every lap and every corner then it would be Formula Ford. That's not to decry FF, just to show it is different. The TVR Tuscan Challenge brought many people to motorsport but F1 it wasn't.
There are less than 20 GPs a season. Let's keep it as the cream. No more massive changes to the rules, just a tweak here and there.
It has been the avowed intent of the legislators to make overtaking easier but, despite the suggestions on many threads on these and other forums, it hasn't happened. So I would suggest that it is not as simple a task as suggested. However, Mosley is now history and you never know, we might just get someone in charge who knows what they are doing.
But let's keep F1 pure. The farcical tyre regs are a warning to those who want to bring in artificial regulations to slow cars at times. And what about KERS? That great, tremendous, genius-inspired move to enable overtaking on a whim has proved not only a total failure but an expensive total failure. In fact a disaster.
Hi Derek,There was a sublime overtake by LH on Webber, and others as well. You can think back to Senna/Mansell in Spain, then three abreast in Spa. Mansell/Senna in Hungary as well. I remember a British GP when the whole second half of the race was one overtake on the penultimate lap. One of the most thrilling races I've seen.
If cars swopped positions every lap and every corner then it would be Formula Ford. That's not to decry FF, just to show it is different. The TVR Tuscan Challenge brought many people to motorsport but F1 it wasn't.
There are less than 20 GPs a season. Let's keep it as the cream. No more massive changes to the rules, just a tweak here and there.
It has been the avowed intent of the legislators to make overtaking easier but, despite the suggestions on many threads on these and other forums, it hasn't happened. So I would suggest that it is not as simple a task as suggested. However, Mosley is now history and you never know, we might just get someone in charge who knows what they are doing.
But let's keep F1 pure. The farcical tyre regs are a warning to those who want to bring in artificial regulations to slow cars at times. And what about KERS? That great, tremendous, genius-inspired move to enable overtaking on a whim has proved not only a total failure but an expensive total failure. In fact a disaster.
In many ways I completely agree with you. There seems to have been some poorly executed 'fad' ideas like KERS and the current tyre rules which seem to simply play novelty act at the fair.
Personally I think KERS was as much an idea to look good to the 'greenies' as it was an overtaking aid.
I also agree that I wouldn't want to see F1 reduced to a Touring Car style event.
However, I think the problem with the technical rule changes etc are not so much it being a difficult problem to fix but more that there are soo many layers of management/sponsors/decision makers that any changes are affected by more factors than purely improving racing.
I think the 2009 changes were a misguided mistake trying to introduce lots of 'toppings on the cake' ideas to spice up the racing.
However I still don't understand why a GP2 style aero benchmark wasn't implemented then mechanically (both engine and track/wheel size) enhanced to keep F1 a good number of steps above the lower Formula.
Fire99 said:
Hi Derek,
In many ways I completely agree with you. There seems to have been some poorly executed 'fad' ideas like KERS and the current tyre rules which seem to simply play novelty act at the fair.
Personally I think KERS was as much an idea to look good to the 'greenies' as it was an overtaking aid.
I also agree that I wouldn't want to see F1 reduced to a Touring Car style event.
However, I think the problem with the technical rule changes etc are not so much it being a difficult problem to fix but more that there are soo many layers of management/sponsors/decision makers that any changes are affected by more factors than purely improving racing.
I think the 2009 changes were a misguided mistake trying to introduce lots of 'toppings on the cake' ideas to spice up the racing.
However I still don't understand why a GP2 style aero benchmark wasn't implemented then mechanically (both engine and track/wheel size) enhanced to keep F1 a good number of steps above the lower Formula.
Nick,In many ways I completely agree with you. There seems to have been some poorly executed 'fad' ideas like KERS and the current tyre rules which seem to simply play novelty act at the fair.
Personally I think KERS was as much an idea to look good to the 'greenies' as it was an overtaking aid.
I also agree that I wouldn't want to see F1 reduced to a Touring Car style event.
However, I think the problem with the technical rule changes etc are not so much it being a difficult problem to fix but more that there are soo many layers of management/sponsors/decision makers that any changes are affected by more factors than purely improving racing.
I think the 2009 changes were a misguided mistake trying to introduce lots of 'toppings on the cake' ideas to spice up the racing.
However I still don't understand why a GP2 style aero benchmark wasn't implemented then mechanically (both engine and track/wheel size) enhanced to keep F1 a good number of steps above the lower Formula.
I see your point about vested interests. It seems that with FOTA's new authority we'll probably get self interest stopping changes that would make racing a bit more exciting.
I think the circuits deserve a bit of the blame. Can we not get a mix of corners and approaches? Something where aerodynamics don't play such a big role?
And the marbles! I once got hit on the forehead at Donington by a lump of tyre. Why not change the tyre compounds to one where bits don't fly off at every corner and make them last the whole race? I'm not suggesting Pirelli P1s but just something that doesn't make the circuit just a car's width.
It's got to be joined up plans though.
So no hope there.
Derek Smith said:
Nick,
I see your point about vested interests. It seems that with FOTA's new authority we'll probably get self interest stopping changes that would make racing a bit more exciting.
I think the circuits deserve a bit of the blame. Can we not get a mix of corners and approaches? Something where aerodynamics don't play such a big role?
And the marbles! I once got hit on the forehead at Donington by a lump of tyre. Why not change the tyre compounds to one where bits don't fly off at every corner and make them last the whole race? I'm not suggesting Pirelli P1s but just something that doesn't make the circuit just a car's width.
It's got to be joined up plans though.
So no hope there.
Don't you think that your very points indicate how much of a knife-edge F1 has become on performance/racing etc? If the tracks are too aero, there's no overtaking. If the tyres are too marbley, there's no overtaking. If the track is dry, there's no overtaking. Basically the chances of an overtake must be pushing odds of about 1000-1.I see your point about vested interests. It seems that with FOTA's new authority we'll probably get self interest stopping changes that would make racing a bit more exciting.
I think the circuits deserve a bit of the blame. Can we not get a mix of corners and approaches? Something where aerodynamics don't play such a big role?
And the marbles! I once got hit on the forehead at Donington by a lump of tyre. Why not change the tyre compounds to one where bits don't fly off at every corner and make them last the whole race? I'm not suggesting Pirelli P1s but just something that doesn't make the circuit just a car's width.
It's got to be joined up plans though.
So no hope there.
And yes, getting all the different factions to work together for a common goal does seem like asking them to reinvent gold however, F1 ultimately must still be a race and not a game of chess involving fast cars.
I firmly believe that for F1 to move forwards, it needs to look backwards on what the core principals of the racing is all about and build on that. And yes, in the short term, that will no doubt not please everyone. But isn't that what the true job of the FIA president should be ? To oversee and ensure that F1 is run and works in the best interests of the sport?
Edited by Fire99 on Tuesday 28th July 11:08
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff