[Rules] Aero: overtaking, laptimes and aero freedom

[S griffin]

RE the 1971 Italian GP. That was the last race at Monza before they put the chicances in, so that was the real reason why. We never had one like that again

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

Richard, I think the quote from my post is the leading question that needs to be answered. Those that saw both would argue that looking through their rose tinted glasses the answer is today's racing is not better than that which took place when the driver was predominant in the whole equation. If they are wrong why are they wrong? Sort that out and the answer becomes clearer but no one wants to go backwards if that is the answer.

Originally Posted by Casper

Richard, is the racing we see today better than then the racing that used to occur when the driver was the predominant factor? If the driver were to be even less of a factor than he is now would it improve?

Sorry, I had intended to address your initial direct questions (directly above), but got caught up in my long winded post. To answer your questions (give my opinions)...

Is the racing better today?... From a viewers perspective the racing is probably not better. Or rather less entertaining for viewers, but probably more difficult for drivers than it was decades ago. I put much of that down to overall increased professionalism and higher levels, or more equal levels of competition.

If they are wrong, why?... While my answer above nominally agrees with the initial point, but I think they are missing the point. Its like if you drew a circle around an era of racing, and then tried to pick and choose parts that you like and then expect to use those ingredients in a recipe to fix F1 today. My opinion is that the pie you bake is not going to taste the same because you used a fraction of the initial ingredients, some of those ingredients are long gone (innocence of a young sport) and some of the newer ingredients are out of your control (we live in a technology era).

If the driver is less of a factor, would it be better?... No. Restating an earlier point. The "problem" of racing has been solved. Outside of the occasional incremental new idea, racing from the theory of design and driving is pretty static. It used to be a hard problem to solve. Now it's not. Drivers skill used to make up the slack. Give the entire field ill handling cars with a random distribution of issues (this car is fast in a straight line, but not in fast corners, that car has great traction out of the turns, another car has great brakes, etc.) and then turn them loose. A human driver is what adjusted to all of that to make it work. We need to do that again. But dumbing it down via throwback technology will not result in those same ill handling beasts. We need to find a way to increase the challenge by making it harder, but without ramping up cost as well. Maybe turn a series of monkey's loose on the cars while in parc ferme to screw up various adjustments to increase the level of chaos is the answer!

Originally Posted by Casper

The whole plot went off the rails somewhere back in time through a whole lot of factors IMO but the foremost one I would say is greed on the part of everyone, I doubt any single major personality involved in F1 is any less guilty of this than any of their mates.

Mostly agree. I wouldn't say "greed" exactly, but maybe something less cynical (ask me tomorrow and I might use the phrase greed). But I view it as when it became "big time". More money, higher visibility, more and more professional. If it was even possible to do, I would love to see a graph of "team staff count" (really budget) vs. "fan satisfaction".

Originally Posted by Casper

Another question is this, why must F1 be highly technical, who said that high tech was necessary to have good racing? In fact a lot of onlookers would contend that high tech has led to just the opposite and want the whole thing slung back to the fifties and start again, not such a good idea me thinks but drum brakes would be interesting and running on cross plies even more interesting.

Can't close Pandora's box. Even if you create the Luddite series it would be a real experiment and likely not (in my opinion) anything many would watch for reasons I could go into, but it would be another novel of a post. I might watch it a few times out of curiosity, but am pretty sure I wouldn't on a regular basis and not just due to lack of technology. If I was to attempt to boil down why it would fail... Who would race in that series as a team or driver? I think only low budget garagista or "lifestyle" teams and gentlemen/wealthy drivers. That may sound ideal to some, but it would create a niche solution that likely wouldn't be popular enough to be shown on TV. Vintage racing with cars created today instead of decades ago.

Originally Posted by Casper

I have proposed before how to limit costs and the madness that unlimited development brings. The teams should be limited to one laptop per car at the circuit, the whole thing becomes self limiting because if they can't manage it with one laptop they by definition can't use it. I know it sounds like a ludicrous idea but it caps the out of control technical staff the teams now use and by banning telemetry they have not got anything to send back to the team base. They can get as technical as they like but they must manage it with one laptop and no data to leave the circuit.

I can't agree exactly with the idea of one laptop, but I agree with the root idea. Many months ago when the idea of active suspension was talked about, I have proposed the solution to contain costs be a spec control unit that had VERY limited compute power plus a VERY limited number of sensor inputs. The idea being that you can only make the solution so complex. I thought it would move suspension development away from complex and expensive mechanical solutions and into less expensive software solutions. On the other side, I have no concerns about the compute power outside of the car (I can buy into limits as part of cost savings, but not as a way to limit technology). I personally think a better use of telemetry, etc. is part of the solution to increase fan interest vs. a reduction (I am on the fence regarding how much is fed back to the driver during the race however). Clearly that idea is targeted at a younger generation and not a handful of hard core who have been fans for decades and in which that type of technology is not something they grew up with. I can agree with limiting staff to keep costs down.

Originally Posted by Casper

F1 has no future because it has no plan or vision as to what it wants to be and that is in the end down to poor management.

So I mention something similar in my long post above and that is that we can't agree on what F1 is. I actually think that is the biggest issue with F1. Ideas from people are radically different and are at polar opposites. I think I saw a recent article (maybe Autosport) that someone (a team principle, maybe Wolff?) asked the question... Is F1 predominantly entertainment or sport? People can't agree on topics like... Is is a driver championship, is it a constructors championship, can it be both? How can we implement solutions if we can't agree on what the ideal output looks like?

Richard

[bauble]

One area that does not seem to have attracted much interest is the actual circuits themselves, virtually every track today is a series of high speed sweeps with few true corners, and plenty of room to make a mistake, and not suffer too much.
I would love to see greater danger involved for anyone over doing it, not because I like to see accidents, I still mourn so many of my childhood heroes, but tighter corners, harder braking, and the need for getting the line right would probably bring speeds down. Then maybe (just maybe) we would see more driver emphasis in the equation, and cars engineered for less 'downforce' and less outright speed.
In other words design circuits that require a change of design philosophy, and need more driver imput.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bauble

One area that does not seem to have attracted much interest is the actual circuits themselves, virtually every track today is a series of high speed sweeps with few true corners, and plenty of room to make a mistake, and not suffer too much.
I would love to see greater danger involved for anyone over doing it, not because I like to see accidents, I still mourn so many of my childhood heroes, but tighter corners, harder braking, and the need for getting the line right would probably bring speeds down. Then maybe (just maybe) we would see more driver emphasis in the equation, and cars engineered for less 'downforce' and less outright speed.
In other words design circuits that require a change of design philosophy, and need more driver imput.

All of that and not billiard table smooth, bring back some actual bumps, precisely because the current cars couldn't cope with them.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by bauble

One area that does not seem to have attracted much interest is the actual circuits themselves, virtually every track today is a series of high speed sweeps with few true corners, and plenty of room to make a mistake, and not suffer too much.
I would love to see greater danger involved for anyone over doing it, not because I like to see accidents, I still mourn so many of my childhood heroes, but tighter corners, harder braking, and the need for getting the line right would probably bring speeds down. Then maybe (just maybe) we would see more driver emphasis in the equation, and cars engineered for less 'downforce' and less outright speed.
In other words design circuits that require a change of design philosophy, and need more driver imput.

...All are things which Charlie Whiting doesn't want.

[wolfhound]

Bumps F1 drivers love them have you ever seen the kerbs that insist on driving over.

[bauble]

The point is that tracks have evolved to suit the cars rather than having a car designed for a circuit. I am fairly sure that if designers had to produce a car just for Monaco it would not look a lot like todays cars.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

RE the 1971 Italian GP. That was the last race at Monza before they put the chicances in, so that was the real reason why. We never had one like that again

You're right chicanes just make brilliant high speed corners into technical twiddles where nobody can ever pass.
Another problem is that most of the tracks now feature consecutive corners that are in reverse directions; left right; corners need to be in the same direction to create passing opportunities, you position the car in the first corner and overtake into the second, it is very difficult to go right round the outside of a car of similar performance.

Bumps also make a track more unpredictable and the computer system simulations much less accurate - good!

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So I mention something similar in my long post above and that is that we can't agree on what F1 is. I actually think that is the biggest issue with F1. Ideas from people are radically different and are at polar opposites. I think I saw a recent article (maybe Autosport) that someone (a team principle, maybe Wolff?) asked the question... Is F1 predominantly entertainment or sport? People can't agree on topics like... Is is a driver championship, is it a constructors championship, can it be both? How can we implement solutions if we can't agree on what the ideal output looks like?

Richard

I think entertainment or sport is a) a false contradiction because it is not mutually exclusive and b) the wrong question, because that's not the problem regarding the technical regulations. The real question we surprisingly have to ask ourselves with current day F1 is; what should be more important the racing side of F1 or the technical side? Well the answer is quite simple; any motorsport should always in the first place be about racing. Full stop, basta, no sane motorsport fan would ever want to put any doubt on that and I find it fully ridiculous to even having to start a discussion about this.

Now the higher the level of motorsport the more important the technical aspect becomes and that is absolutely fine and desirable. However at no point should the technical aspect ever be allowed to overshadow the quality of the racing. Whenever that happens you are not talking about motorsport any more but an organised form of technical (and corporate) dick measuring.

The problem is the way I see it that F1 government has always wanted to get in the big manufacturers, which has resulted in ballooning budgets and enormous technical staffs. This ever growing contingent of engineers, by it's sheer bulk and influence within the F1 community has ever increasingly started to allow the technical aspect to overshadow the racing.

I think a perfectly fine scenario would be; if we would currently have F1 cars with less complex aero that are able to follow one another so we can have proper racing. Aero engineers would then be looking at ways to make F1's aero more interesting or advanced let's say. I would say; fine spend as many months, years and euro's to find ways to achieve that (with the condition that the cars will still be able to follow each other). In the meantime us motorsport fans will be enjoying proper racing, thank you.

How it's now is that F1 cars can't properly follow one another, but not only are we motorsport fans waiting years for it to get properly addressed, with the latest regulation proposals they even made it worse.

For me there is zero unclearity about what F1 should be. F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport; the fastest cars, the best drivers and the best racing. As any form of motorsport it should be first and foremost about racing, which is both a sport and entertainment. Anyone trying to muddle that priority is trying to maintain the status quo for their own personal interests. Sure, the technical aspect is one of F1's strong points and desirable. It clearly belongs to F1 and is even essential, but never should it be allowed to overshadow the quality of racing. Otherwise it cannot, by definition, be considered the pinnacle of motorsport.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I think entertainment or sport is a) a false contradiction because it is not mutually exclusive and b) the wrong question, because that's not the problem regarding the technical regulations. The real question we surprisingly have to ask ourselves with current day F1 is; what should be more important the racing side of F1 or the technical side? Well the answer is quite simple; any motorsport should always in the first place be about racing. Full stop, basta, no sane motorsport fan would ever want to put any doubt on that and I find it fully ridiculous to even having to start a discussion about this.

Entertainment and sport do not have to be mutually exclusive, BUT it is harder to make both work at the same time. And unless you happen to have something that just naturally works (in my opinion F1 is not in that category), you tend to sacrifice one to boost the other. At the moment, F1 is more about entertainment than it is about sport. Really it a combo of entertainment and business that is overwhelming the sporting side.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

For me there is zero unclearity about what F1 should be. F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport; the fastest cars, the best drivers and the best racing.

I get what you are saying. I agree with what you say, but it is overly simplified. It's like saying "food should taste good and be good for you" which does nothing to help you cook. How do you define things like "pinnacle of motorsports" and "best racing". People may scoff, but I think a thread titled "What defines good racing?" may take a bit of time and pages to gravitate to a definition that "most" could agree to, and then even if they could agree, I doubt they couldn't agree on what makes it happen. I think a key part of what people would say is "good racing" is something that is enjoyable as a viewer to watch. Sounds a lot like entertainment doesn't it? Have you ever participated in something that was personally enjoyable, but maybe not fun for others to watch? Racing can be like that sometimes. Making it a sport (good for those who participate) AND entertainment (enjoyable for viewers). Toss in a requirement to make it profitable as well. No so easy.

I also appreciate the comments about technology should not overshadow the racing. Does it today? I think "technology" is part of the puzzle, but it is not (at least in my opinion) a large factor in "what is wrong with F1". It is an easy scapegoat because it allows nobody to take responsibility for anything. It is a "thing" to blame.

Richard

[Casper]

I think the puzzle needs to be looked at from the driver's perspective to understand what has happened to F1 and the more technical open wheel classes.

A driver has a certain envelope of constraint to work in, grip, how good the thing handles, what the brakes can do, even his lines of vision etc etc. When those choices are reduced by technical additions, an example would be carbon fibre brakes, then the viewer loses the spectacle of seeing cars being passed or the attempt made to pass under brakes so it is something taken away from the spectacle. What have CF brakes done? They have reduced the time the car spends slowing down and that loss of time has resulted in the lack of passing under brakes. This reduction in what the driver can do due to technical innovation is what we are seeing and it won't change because the teams are in it to win and they do not care how as long as they are first on the podium.

Entertaining racing is a time issue and is not well understood if it is understood at all and reducing lap times will only result in more processions.

[wnut]

Here is what Mark Webber had to say about his transition from F1 to LMP1.

'For me it’s the traffic, it’s not easy for all of us to handle, but coming from Formula One which is basically just all time-trialling, although we all were [racing] until Pirelli turned up, but before that it was racing flat out, every lap was qualifying, you were flat out all the time. Here you have to manage the traffic, you’ve got to be cool with it, ...

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/1...champions.html

It would seem that many of us were right that one of the major problems with the whole circus are Pirelli's unfit tyres.

[Sodemo]

The first thing they need to do is to stop the front wing from becoming a mounting platform for 12 wing elements. The front wing should be kept to around about its current width, but with massively reduced surface area, say 80% of what is there currently. It should be ideally a "trim wing" used to tweak handling, not for the outright generation of downforce.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by wnut

Here is what Mark Webber had to say about his transition from F1 to LMP1.

'For me it’s the traffic, it’s not easy for all of us to handle, but coming from Formula One which is basically just all time-trialling, although we all were [racing] until Pirelli turned up, but before that it was racing flat out, every lap was qualifying, you were flat out all the time. Here you have to manage the traffic, you’ve got to be cool with it, ...

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/1...champions.html

It would seem that many of us were right that one of the major problems with the whole circus are Pirelli's unfit tyres.

I don't buy that. 2012 was a thrilling season with lots of great races. I recall the later Bridgestone seasons being total borefests with good championship endings - two totally different types of excitement.

What I loved about 2012 is how they just couldn't get their heads round the tyres. It was fantastic to see the boffins scratching their heads. Of course, like everything in F1, people eventually 'get it'. But my oh my, I had a lot of fun watching them all find ways of trying to make these tyres last.

And before someone says 'lottery' - everyone had the same tyres, and knew the regs. Sauber got it right, afterall...

Selby

[Sodemo]

For me, the tyres shouldn't be falling apart after 5 laps. I hate seeing the outside of corners with a carpet of marbles after only 20% race distance. People want to encourage overtaking, but then they insist on having these tyres which generate massive marbles which is detrimental to overtaking. I would vote for more durable tyres, but wider tyres which would give more grip.

[S griffin]

For me F1 is about getting to the edge of performance as well as the racing and it's not right that Pirelli should make sub standard tyres. I'm surprised as PR would be better if they made their tyres last

[Casper]

Pirelli are supplying what is dictated to them by the category promoter. They are not to blame for making a tyre that will not do what is generally expected of a race tyre so why do they cop all the flack?

[djinvicta]

Just give them a gear stick and a conventional clutch.. Sort the men out from the boys. Limit the wings, big tyres, fuel them up...Oh,that's not the pinnacle of motor sport is it? It's spectacular entertainment.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by djinvicta

Just give them a gear stick and a conventional clutch.. Sort the men out from the boys. Limit the wings, big tyres, fuel them up...Oh,that's not the pinnacle of motor sport is it? It's spectacular entertainment.

Yes, fast a flashy does not necessarily make good racing.

[Taxi645]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...ymonds-668220/

"Symonds said his desire for the new rules to be delayed until 2018 reflects the fact that there is still debate about exactly what direction the sport should take, and that time is running out.

Completely agree.

[wolfhound]

Has anybody noticed how LMP cars seem to have a lot less difficulty overtaking yet some of them have quite sophisticated aero. As overtaking back markers is part of WEC races then you need to make sure that you are able to overtake.
I don't remember drivers in the WEC complaining about being held up by other cars for any significant amount of time.

Maybe F1 has something to learn from LMP cars.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Has anybody noticed how LMP cars seem to have a lot less difficulty overtaking yet some of them have quite sophisticated aero. As overtaking back markers is part of WEC races then you need to make sure that you are able to overtake.
I don't remember drivers in the WEC complaining about being held up by other cars for any significant amount of time.

Maybe F1 has something to learn from LMP cars.

I'd hazard a guess that it's mainly due to the fact the wheels are covered. I remember reading that open wheels are the biggest source of aero turbulence in F1.

Selby

[Roninho]

Regardless if it needs more or actually less downforce, smaller or bigger wheels, etc. etc.:There is no doubt in my mind if Bernie/the FIA really wants to make it possible to have cars in which the drivers can make a substantial impact and overtaking is quite doable, that this can be done easily. And in a way that is both safe as well as offering good engineering challenges and opportunities.

The issue isn't that it is not possible, the issue is that F1's decision makers don't realize that there are more elements then just technology that has people become fans of f1.
Technology is indeed a part of it, just like driver capabilities, racing & overtaking and impressive equipment is. And The decision makers appear to just be personally interested in the engineering/technological aspect.

The whole engine sound fiasco is a perfect example of that. Just look at this: https://youtu.be/jS4Dh_EAfJI There are dedicated technical groups with people with knowledge working to decided on rule changes. If these experts can still decide on the 2014 engine option then imo it is obvious that customer interests are not a priority at all but politics decide.

The same applies to the aero design rules. I believe we will have to wait untill after Bernie is gone and we luck into someone who understands that F1 exists because millions of people tune in to watch the races before we will see rule change that lead to a better racing product.

All imho obviously.

[Casper]

So, he is one of the geniuses who thought up the new rules but they are so difficult that he can't get ready in time.


Engineers, let 'em loose and they design a twenty layer cake when all the birthday required was a single layer cake. No engineer should ever be allowed to be involved in the creation of rules for the sport.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

So, he is one of the geniuses who thought up the new rules but they are so difficult that he can't get ready in time.


Engineers, let 'em loose and they design a twenty layer cake when all the birthday required was a single layer cake. No engineer should ever be allowed to be involved in the creation of rules for the sport.

It would be just as logical to say the same about then fans? We are even less qualified, but apparently we know it all.

Richard