|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
15 Jul 2015, 15:25 (Ref:3558776) | #1276 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,745
|
Quote:
if the drivers have a much higher fitness level today then of course the cars are easier to drive regardless of any relative 'difficulty' differences between the eras. im on wnut side that body size should not be a factor and also outside of personal fitness/endurance, physicality should not be a factor either. not an engineer, but as a layperson, a car is a mechanical device and mechanical devices serve to reduce the physical burden to the operator and over time the development of mechanical devices should reduce that burden more not less. like Casper and you Pinguest i dont think outright speed is the cure all nor do i think the pinnacle of technology means fastest either. as for Richard's question about what can make F1 more difficult. this is the hard one and i spent some time thinking about it last night. for me the races/drives that stick out in my mind the most are ones where the drivers ability to feel their way around the track is made apparent. Senna or schumi in the rain, inspired pit stop timing, starting at the back and methodically moving up the grid. for me i think its always been more about racecraft then physicality. for example, i would like to see a driver have to rely on a fuel gauge on their steering wheel and have to work out for themselves how fast they can go to cover the remaining distance type of changes. i want to see drivers make their own pit stop calls based on their feel and not because data analysis thinks its the right time. rather a reduction on external sources of information. to me it seems natural that if the physical strain is decreasing then the mental burden should be increasing. smarter drivers and throw numbers at them via a a high tech HUD screen in their helmets and let them work out the sums for themselves. if that makes any sense. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
15 Jul 2015, 18:47 (Ref:3558806) | #1277 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
Like you, I expect it is more about the problem being mentally challenging and less about it being physically demanding. As others have pointed out, driver fitness can only improve. I don't think we can use methods of making it more physically challenging as a way to increase the spectacle. While medicine and other sports knowledge has increased over the decades we are still humans. You can look at other sporting endeavors to see the impacts of progress. I don't follow track and field, but roughly speaking records are approaching the limits of the human body. So if you break a world record, it is by very small amounts. On the other end, you have sports like rock climbing (which is still young) in which roughly speaking the challenge has remained constant, but technique and fitness has allowed large performance increases. I think there are some strong corollaries between something like climbing El Capitan (Yosemite USA) and F1. I am not into climbing, but I watched a documentary earlier this year that was very interesting... http://www.valleyuprising.com/ I would recommend watching it even if you are not into climbing as it is a good story. Anyhow, it talks about when people first started to climb as a sport. It not "mountaineering", but just the rock climbing part of that. In the late 1950's the first trip up the nose of El Capitan took 47 days. Within a decade that had dropped to 10 days. Today speed climbers are doing it in roughly 2.5 hrs and many people now climb it while it was a VERY elite group at the start. And while the equipment is better, it basically is the same as before and some climb without equipment. To bring F1 and climbing El Capitan together... We have been measuring how fast someone can run 100 meters for a very long time. It has been diminishing gains for awhile. However, within a single lifetime (and within the lifetime of some on this forum), we have seen something like F1 or climbing El Capitan start as being "hard" and with large jumps in "accomplishments", but are now are starting to see it hitting that wall in which big jumps or spectacular achievements are hard if not impossible to achieve. My point is that both El Capitan and F1 are still both "challenging", but the problem is less than it was decades ago. The "nut" has been cracked. It is a problem with a known solution. Less art, more science. Less intuition, more textbook. So to me it probably will be less about the cars (high or low tech) or drivers (high fitness level from here forward) and more about creating a new challenge for the overall system. Chillibowl mentions examples above of driving in the rain, or fighting your way through a field from the back. Those are examples of challenges that are not easy to solve and it results in memorable drives/races. So I wonder if in addition to some of the technology changes we talk about (make it easier to run closer to other cars, etc.) that changes to the game are needed as well. I still don't know what the answer is. I hope it is not things like reverse grids or randomly spraying water on track during events. But I do look at tracks today and think "Is that track particularly challenging?" and I think "No". Tracks are billiard table smooth. The Raidillon and Eau Rouge turn complex is no longer feared. What if there was more camber, more elevation change, changing surfaces, etc. Also, what if the game that is played was changed. Would that make it all more interesting? I wish I had more answers as to "how to change the game". I am not saying to make F1 races longer, but I think one thing that makes WEC races interesting is that they are long and it harder to ensure success. There is a lot more chance for things to go wrong or not to plan. Sorry for the rambling post! Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
15 Jul 2015, 21:44 (Ref:3558847) | #1278 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
Max Mosley's idea of a two tier F1 might be a bit closer to reality. The idea was discussed at the recent stratagy group meeting.
However a modified form might appear where the technical rules might stay the same but some of the restrictions put in to reduce costs would be different for the budget cap teams. The non budget cap teams would have limited test and windtunnel time, limits on computer power and such like. http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns31411.html That might work but I think there should be more in it for the budget cap teams to allow them to be fully competitive. |
|
|
16 Jul 2015, 00:33 (Ref:3558864) | #1279 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
F1 is not a cutting edge tech category currently, the cars are basically spec with pretty well no innovation allowed, so I do not see a problem in going to a Rat Fink F1, as that is what we have anyway! Complicated certainly, technically advanced and innovative, not really!
If you want your head to explode, just look here at the "scientific approach" to the 2009 regulations! http://www.f1technical.net/articles/11525 Half the down force. reducing the engine costs from 15M Euro, the massive mistake in engine freezes! "When we froze the engine for five years it was a massive mistake, a massive mistake. We froze a very expensive engine, and the thinking at the time was that it was not a performance differentiator and therefore you could freeze it. Subsequently it turned out that maybe it was a performance differentiator, or it has become a performance differentiator, and therefore you cannot have a frozen engine.” Adam Parr. Nothing like repeating and compounding your mistakes is there! Not to mention the mistakes of grooved tyres and movable front wings instituted by this lot! Last edited by wnut; 16 Jul 2015 at 00:46. |
|
|
17 Jul 2015, 02:07 (Ref:3559088) | #1280 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 555
|
I love old stuff. I have very little interest in all of the modern trappings of life and I have no desire whatsoever to own a modern car or most likely anything that's coming down the pike. Regardless of what is being used for power.
This is where I contradict myself. F1 and even Motorsport as a whole cannot operate and put in technical regulations that harken to the past and pretend that progress hasn't happened and will continue to happen. The regulations are stifling enough already. As result all of this younger generation of skateboarders and bmxers whose dream cars have over 1,000 hp, active suspension, active aerodynamics, amazingly high tech drive trains are simply not interested. I can't blame them either. I can remember first falling in love with F1 as a teen in the mid 90s. I recall wishing that they would open the regs so that we could really see something special. Then the regs got tighter. Then we got the V10s but, we had those stupid tires. Still I wished for more open regs...surely some fat slicks and active aero with tunnels would fix this inability to pass one another. What do we get? A frozen V8 and even stupider aero regs. On to today and it's more of the same. Let's free these beasts a little. I'm tired of looking at the same basic look for the past decade. Let's see something rad, something awe inspiring, something that makes the hyper cars suddenly seem a lot less hyper to the kid back flipping his bike and has Mclaren P1 background on his iPhone. Maybe I'm wrong but, can we at least try it? Just this once? |
|
|
17 Jul 2015, 13:18 (Ref:3559169) | #1281 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,745
|
These are hard questions and while I think i know what I want would i actually be happier if I got it? And even if I was what happens after year 1 when the process of change sets in again.
Anyways the line I quoted of yours really resonated with me. F1 has become a little too clinical for my tastes. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
17 Jul 2015, 14:47 (Ref:3559189) | #1282 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
"Grey area" tech (to me) is stuff like active suspension; cool and innovative, but taking away a bit more than it gives, perhaps, in terms of the car being "raw" (I feel F1 should lean more toward "untamed beast" territory, but not everyone may agree). Basically, any driver's aid that serves to lessen the significance of a driver's senses and skill would fall in this category, and should be viewed with trepidation. "Parody tech" is stuff like the wooden skid block, grooved tires, DRS (I'm sure there have been many others during the time I signed off from F1 for a time). Stuff that are obviously "compromises for the spectacle" and/or just lazy work-arounds (for problems that perhaps don't even exist). I've always thought a standardized tub could be part of the answer, eliminating design variables (and save a ton of money) so teams could get to the meat of the car right away, in tandem with freeing up the design windows (here's your block of wood; carve whatever you want!). I wonder if some standardized engine components - a'la NASCAR - is the way to go too. Thinking out loud. |
||
|
17 Jul 2015, 18:22 (Ref:3559207) | #1283 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 555
|
My idea for F1 is the ultimate expression of what is possible within the limits of the circuit, the drivers and safety for all. I don't feel that we are very close to that point and haven't been for quite sometime. I could be completely wrong and I'm willing to consider that. Maybe it's just a matter of carburetors or mechanical fuel injection with a completely mechanical connection between the drivers foot and engine and hands transmission and steering box. There's a huge part of me that would love this as this is how I would build my vintage racer if I could afford one. This is the stuff that I would rather own. But, it is in the past.
As far as the drivers being taxed, that should happen through the cars taxing them in a modern way. Just as an F22 pilot is taxed in a different and in arguably lesser and greater ways than the pilot of a Sopwith Camel. I don't think the cars have to wail and snarl. Though I'm not opposed to it. I don't think that the cars have to be difficult to tame beasts. The only reason that used to be is because that's the best that they could do. If they had today's sophistication back then this wouldn't even be a point of comparison. My starting point would be lower visually. Lower front wing, lower rear wing, no stepped floor. Wider. I'd like to see 2,000 cm width again. If a tad wider that's fine. Of course wider tires but, on 13" rims. I like fat sidewalls. Aero changes would be ground effects accompanied with minimal wing designs front and rear. No DRS. Underfloors wouldn't be standard but, probably not far from it to keep things in check during the term of these pilot changes. |
|
|
21 Jul 2015, 14:28 (Ref:3560031) | #1284 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,565
|
Yet more tinkering by the FIA, this time further restricting pre-season and mid-season testing ( http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120046 ).
They are reducing the pre-season testing to two 4 day sessions at Barcelona in March, and have cancelled the mid-season tests completely. |
||
|
21 Jul 2015, 14:33 (Ref:3560034) | #1285 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
21 Jul 2015, 15:23 (Ref:3560038) | #1286 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
||
|
21 Jul 2015, 15:26 (Ref:3560040) | #1287 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
||
|
21 Jul 2015, 15:27 (Ref:3560041) | #1288 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,745
|
obviously im not a fan.
systematically eliminating testing is like telling soccer teams they cant practice any more! |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
21 Jul 2015, 15:28 (Ref:3560043) | #1289 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,745
|
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
21 Jul 2015, 15:34 (Ref:3560046) | #1290 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,652
|
If there's not a cost cap/unlimited testing rule coming then I can only think that this new rule is sponsored by Mercedes!
All of these restrictions are only playing lip-service to cost cutting whilst stopping the teams further back catching with those in front! |
||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
21 Jul 2015, 18:39 (Ref:3560096) | #1291 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
21 Jul 2015, 18:45 (Ref:3560097) | #1292 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
There was a proposal at the last stratagy meeting for a cost capped F1 where teams could go cost capped or not. The cost capped class would have no restrictions on wind tunnel usage, or testing among other ideas.
|
|
|
21 Jul 2015, 20:51 (Ref:3560121) | #1293 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
The only things that I can imagine are... 1. Teams find the mid and end of season testing not that helpful. That as the Autosport article mentions, they end up more about drivers getting seat time than about teams getting benefit of track time. This explains the removal of the mid season testing (in article) and I assume it includes the end of season testing (not in article, but I think there is allowance or was allowance for an end of season test such as the one McLaren debuted a test mule with the Honda engine, or was that some type of special allowance?) 2. Teams find the compressed pre season testing schedule hectic and not long enough to absorb feedback and push out changes before the next scheduled test. So rather than just run cars around they would reduce it to two different windows of testing. 3. Teams are becoming more and more confident in their use of simulations and feel classic "testing" is a waste of time. Frankly, I don't even buy my arguments. Especially #2 as the proposed two pre-season testing sessions takes place in two short windows within a total of 18 days in March!!! And if #3 is true, then God help us. But hey, what do I know. It still makes no sense to me. They claim to know what they are doing. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
21 Jul 2015, 23:26 (Ref:3560148) | #1294 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
I think it is great that McLaren who voted for these stupid rules are now seeing what it looks like to be on the receiving end of them.
How you are meant to compete and pay for a whole season with a mistake you cobbled together in February is just beyond me. Hopefully sense will prevail and a better set of rules will be drafted. P.S. Who thinks Merc are anywhere near the spirit of any resource restriction agreement with what they spent developing their current PU? PPS Stipulate and spec single element front wings that are only as wide as the distance between the front rims and ban end plates entirely! Save millions of dollars right there! Last edited by wnut; 21 Jul 2015 at 23:34. |
|
|
21 Jul 2015, 23:57 (Ref:3560153) | #1295 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,229
|
As a potential rule change, a return to ground effect is potentially on the cards. This is Button's take, according to Autosport.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120001/ |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
22 Jul 2015, 00:21 (Ref:3560157) | #1296 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Undertrays could be brought in with the banning of front wings. Some of the earlier ground effect cars ran without front wings because they disrupted the air flow below the car. |
||
|
22 Jul 2015, 00:32 (Ref:3560158) | #1297 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,229
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
22 Jul 2015, 00:40 (Ref:3560160) | #1298 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
||
|
22 Jul 2015, 00:58 (Ref:3560165) | #1299 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,229
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
22 Jul 2015, 23:03 (Ref:3560334) | #1300 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
"F1 scraps in-season testing for 2016"
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns31464.html Just gets better and better! Perhaps the testing regimen is just a manifestation that the teams do not believe they can win, so why bother yourself trying. Lopez's view on the matter: "What I would not do again, perhaps, is that when you are fourth or fifth, try to gamble in going for first place," he said recently to Auto Motor und Sport. Now, he sees the independent British team Williams in the same sort of situation." http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns31463.html Just assemble something that looks vaguely like an F1 car and tour around collecting Bernie's handouts? Last edited by wnut; 22 Jul 2015 at 23:19. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |