How Can F1 Be Made More Exciting?????

[Valve Bounce]

Glen - you are correct. That's why I said that I am boring everyone again. It has become a case of "If we can't police it, then let it happen". Most of us would probably agree that if Traction control, launch control, and clutch control could be effectively policed, they would not be allowed in F1. The point is: I have come up with the solution on how to control it - ban those bloody on-board computers. If you are going to let it happen, and we are talking about the pinacle of technological development, then why not ABS and active suspension? And remote braking control? If you can answer that, then I will agree 100% with your assessment, although I do admit 100% that I am biased.

[Alan Jones]

Guys, I'm suprised none of you have thought about this but the main thing we need to make it more exciting is this.....................................





























Replace all pitcrews with the pitbabes for each respective team. Be more exciting than whats happening on the track at least 90% of the time

[calais]

hey AJ, is there supposed to be a photo of some pitbabes there, or what???????

[Riceboy]

Agreed with an earlier post.....

Stop bending the rules for Ferrari and Schumacher.

In all seriousness though they need to bring back non sequential manual gearboxes.

Will not only see more chance of mistakes for the drivers but also greater reliability????

Obviously I don't have to say that slicks need to come back and downforce reduced. Because everybody knows that don't they Mr Mosley!!

[Dickie Thrust]

Take the wings off, make the tyres narrower, give them more power than grip and you have got........Formula Ford, the most exciting racing in the world.

[JR Ewing]

the f1 drivers in ffords would be hilarious

[JR Ewing]

ms would still win from....

[JR Ewing]

button!!

[Dickie Thrust]

60 minutes of 22 F1 drivers in a grid of FF cars would give you the most sensational racing and TV you have ever seen.

[Glen]

ITV commentary made a very good point about Imola as a circuit - that it is very much a "car" track. We had Ferrari Ferrari, Williams Williams, Mclaren Mcl... you get the picture - all the way back to the BARs. Even a grid of FFs would have the same split - because the best teams would produce the best car.

Bringing back slicks and cutting downforce might produce some more overtaking I suppose. But I'm afraid that particular suggestion is more motivated by retroism (is there such a word - looking back to the "good old days" anyway) than a genuine way of getting better racing.

I read somewhere that the grids are in fact more closely matched than ever before - it's just that todays F1 is much much more consistent and scientific. There are fewer mistakes, therefore fewer surprises.

As far as where do you stop goes... TC and LC are functions of electronic engine management - as VB has pointed out to get rid of these you would have to go back to carbs, which doesn't sound very F1 to me. Diff and gearbox control could easily be legislated out - I don't really have an opinion about that. What the regs now say about steering and brakes (no electronic control) is fine by me.

The latest tyres seem easier to control so I see no reason why they shouldn't be grooved. They could have narrower slicks, with the same amount of rubber on the road - that would give you a narrower track which might help overtaking. Plenty of fans already dislike the narrower cars already though.

Which brings us back to circuits - get rid of Imola for a start! A more open and mixed circuit is better - Sepang is very good for overtaking.

[DavyboyLT1]

Originally posted by f1manoz
How about something to increase braking distances?

Good idea. That could be accomplished by changing the material that the brake discs and pads are constructed of. Also, the specs on "brake swept area" could be changed, by reducing the pad size.
Those changes would serve to increase braking distances.

[DavyboyLT1]

Originally posted by Glen
ITV commentary made a very good point about Imola as a circuit - that it is very much a "car" track. We had Ferrari Ferrari, Williams Williams, Mclaren Mcl... you get the picture - all the way back to the BARs. Even a grid of FFs would have the same split - because the best teams would produce the best car.

I heard that as well.

Bringing back slicks and cutting downforce might produce some more overtaking I suppose. But I'm afraid that particular suggestion is more motivated by retroism (is there such a word - looking back to the "good old days" anyway) than a genuine way of getting better racing.

I suppose that there is a little bit of nostalgia at work here.

Which brings us back to circuits - get rid of Imola for a start! A more open and mixed circuit is better - Sepang is very good for overtaking.

Improving circuits is probably the most feasable, and potentially the most effective, way to improve the racing.

[botsquad]

1 legit tv coverage......not bernievision
pay-per view if they have tooo...but do something...!

2 more races in the u.s.a.

3 no selective enforcement of the rules.

[EERO]

Originally posted by Glen
...Bringing back slicks and cutting downforce might produce some more overtaking I suppose. But I'm afraid that particular suggestion is more motivated by retroism (is there such a word - looking back to the "good old days" anyway) than a genuine way of getting better racing.

I believe Glen the word is "Nostalgia"
I for one see no problem with going back if we can determine that we have gone down the wrong path.

I posit that Formula 1 is first and Foremost, Driver's Championship as Bouncey put it so succintly back up the thread, "Rather than promoting F1 ashe ultimate racing series (drivers and technology), I would prefer that F1 offered a series where the best drivers competed. Full Stop."

We are not witnessing a clear dominance by Schumacher right now. I have no doubt that he is the best driver right now, -and it can be argued I think, that part of the game is the fact that he is able to attract the best people around himself-but we really don't know how much is Schumacher and how much is the electronics of the car.

If Formula 1 truley is a Driver's Championship, then it has lost its way.

For the record, my entire career in Architecture is positted upon the assumption that Modernism was a huge mistake from which we still suffer and that the majority of Architects practising in the world are misgiuded arrogant bunch of aesthetic hooligans. So as you see, I have no problem with a nostalgia based in the ideal of overthrowing delusional keepers of the status quo.

Originally posted by Glen I read somewhere that the grids are in fact more closely matched than ever before - it's just that todays F1 is much much more consistent and scientific. There are fewer mistakes, therefore fewer surprises.

As far as where do you stop goes... TC and LC are functions of electronic engine management - as VB has pointed out to get rid of these you would have to go back to carbs, which doesn't sound very F1 to me. Diff and gearbox control could easily be legislated out - I don't really have an opinion about that. What the regs now say about steering and brakes (no electronic control) is fine by me.

TimD suggested on this same subject awhile ago, a return to manual gearboxes and clutches-which would as I understand it, seperate the drivers from the riders.


Glen, its a delicate line to tread, to regulate technology, because every designer is continually looking for an edge over the competiton. Honestly, i'm not certain what the solution is, but I do know that the current regualtions stifle on-track compettion.

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by DavyboyLT1


Good idea. That could be accomplished by changing the material that the brake discs and pads are constructed of. Also, the specs on "brake swept area" could be changed, by reducing the pad size.
Those changes would serve to increase braking distances.

Where do you get all those ideas Davyboy?

These are not your ordinary road car..
F1 cars needs to decelarate very fast in order to negotiate corners after a long straight for instance...those cars under heavy braking can decelarate of more than 100mph in seconds.

I mean the heat resistance for those brakes are about 750 degrees Celcius

If you go to sites that manufacture brakes like Brembo, AP Racing, Alcon Components, Hawk perfoemace etc you'll know what are the composites used for optimum usage particularly for racing cars.

[ChrisUSA]

simple - allow 1.5 liter 2strokes with a 425kg weight limit. hey, it spruced up MotoGP, why not F1? oh yeah, tie one of MS's hands behind his back too, that'll even up things

[Valve Bounce]

Hey!! I never said that to get rid of LC and TC we would have to go back to carbs. What's wrong with fuel injection?
What I am saying is that by allowing TC and LC, we now have a new generation of computer technology in cars of which we have no idea where the limit is. Can anyone swear that the use of engine management on the diff and gearbox does not affect braking already? Just add the valve control and TC to braking and presto, you have some form of ABS through the engine braking system. It is a bit naive to say any part of electronic control can be legislated out - the reason we have TC and LC is because they could not be legislated out.
Just consider that we have the current engine size, which, without computerised engine management, would probably put out 10% less power. Nobody would miss that. Reduce the projected frontal area of the rear wing and increase the height of the front wing and presto, you have slipstreaming. Manual gears, and the possibility of some drivers making a mistake in changing down is very real. Add these together and you will have overtaking of the lessor drivers by the better drivers going into and coming out of corners.
Apart from the argument that F1 should be the pinacle of technological development, I would challenge anyone to tell me the benefit of on-board computers to F1 racing.
I know I am being pedantic, and I apologise if I am hijacking Daviyboy's thread.

[Jukebox]

I might be wrong but if i'm not mistaken every car have this anti stall ECU component fixed and apart from the control that the drivers have to change the configuration on brakes in the cockpit itself, there's this telemetry system for engineers in the pits to control brakes for example. But not ECU

[racer69]

Here's what i reckon:

- Lose the traction control & Launch Control, go back to at least semi-automatic gearboxes, ie..about 2000 specs.

- Slick Tyres, and lose the narrow track regulations, get the cars back to 1997 car size.

- Get rid of the pit stops, make the have to go the whole distance on 1 set of tyres and the cars full of fuel at the start. That way the cars would be very heavy, wing would need to be taken off to compensate for the lack of straightline speed, we win all round. Pit stops were a nice change in 1994, but now they are way to predictable & boring.

- Encourage more tracks to do what Imola is doing for next year, speed them up.

- Ban testing on current GP tracks until the round at that circuit has been completed.

[Glen]

I'm not saying that all things modern are good per se - but certainly I"m saying that my own definition of what I expect F1 to be definately includes innovation and technological development. I differ from those that feel that F1 is first and foremost a drivers competition - to me the appeal lies in the synergy between man and bespoke racing machine. If a formula were created that had closer or identical cars it would not attract the best drivers - since an alternative would surely be brought along that would have more glamour.

Fuel injection, except in crude mechanical form, requires electronic control as I understand it. Standard engine management might go some way to avoiding fears of cheating, but in my opinion the electronics are a legitimate area for innovation.

As far as modern vs old-fashioned goes - I think its a great tragedy that overreaction to some of the more extreme modernist projects leads even architects to look back rather than forward. Britain (or at least where I live, in Surrey), in my opinion, is blighted by a ridiculous need to make virtually all new buildings look like third rate pastiche of Victorian buildings. Who decides what is the zenith of development, and therefore the arbitrary point at which innovation stops?

Comments about making cars wider again pop into these discussions - how exactly is that going to help the racing? It just means that some people will find non-close racing more palatable because at least the cars look the way they used to! For my money today's cars look better than ever - they are exquisite engineering masterpieces.

Some of this strikes me as a lot of hot air deriving from a desire to see someone other than Schumi winning. The irony is that one legitimate justification for wanting to change things might be to ensure that the best driver wins - which is precisely what happens anyway!

[ndp]

Originally posted by Glen
VB

What you are expressing is just a bias against computer engineering over traditional engineering. It's always been the case that the biggest difference is in the design and preapration of the car - it's just that nowadays electronics are part of that process. Having a really well built chassis is a driver aid. Running the best tyres is a driver aid. Lowering the centre of gravity is a driver aid. These old fashioned driver aids sit well with the retro fans, whereas computer enhancements (an inescapable element in virtually all modern machines) do not. I'm suprised that some of the luddites can bear to discuss F1 on a computer! The difference between drivers is still evident on race day.

Hey, the car is a driver aid, it saves the driver having to walk!

[DavyboyLT1]

Originally posted by Jukebox


Where do you get all those ideas Davyboy?

These are not your ordinary road car..
F1 cars needs to decelarate very fast in order to negotiate corners after a long straight for instance...those cars under heavy braking can decelarate of more than 100mph in seconds.

I mean the heat resistance for those brakes are about 750 degrees Celcius

If you go to sites that manufacture brakes like Brembo, AP Racing, Alcon Components, Hawk perfoemace etc you'll know what are the composites used for optimum usage particularly for racing cars.

On the vast majority of their circuits, CART has heavier cars braking from similar speeds, while using ferrous alloy brake disc materials, as opposed to carbon in F1. CART uses carbon only for 4 tracks (superspeedways). The use of metal, for discs, lengthens the braking distance, which theoretically provides a longer window of opportunity to pass.

My point is that it is a fact that carbon brake materials shorten the stopping distance. But many racing series in the world get by without them, even if their cars are heavier, and achieve higher speeds. Therefore, while carbon is state-of-the-art, it is by no means necessary to use it to stop an F1 car.

Jukebox, I didn't start this thread to have you make it your personal mission to discredit my ideas.

The question is "How can F1 be made more exciting?"

If you have any ideas, let's hear them...

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by Glen
I'm not saying that all things modern are good per se - but certainly I"m saying that my own definition of what I expect F1 to be definately includes innovation and technological development. I differ from those that feel that F1 is first and foremost a drivers competition - to me the appeal lies in the synergy between man and bespoke racing machine. If a formula were created that had closer or identical cars it would not attract the best drivers - since an alternative would surely be brought along that would have more glamour.

Fuel injection, except in crude mechanical form, requires electronic control as I understand it. Standard engine management might go some way to avoiding fears of cheating, but in my opinion the electronics are a legitimate area for innovation.

Some of this strikes me as a lot of hot air deriving from a desire to see someone other than Schumi winning. The irony is that one legitimate justification for wanting to change things might be to ensure that the best driver wins - which is precisely what happens anyway!

Glen, I think that you havn't bothered to read my post, or if you did, you have ignored all the points I have made. Pleaase read it again before you answer this one.
First of all, fuel injection was not a crude device before electronics; it was better than carbs then but unfortunately more expensive. Mercedes were great proponents of fuel injected racing engines long before computers.

Banning on-board computers would not make all cars the same - the factory teams like Ferrari and Williams, McLaren, Renault would still develop brakes, aero package, engine, gearbox, suspension and so on to try to stay ahead of each other.

As for your last point, I could not disagree more. An excellent driver like MSch would probably gain a helluva lot more advantage than the inexperienced youngsters arriving on the scene but have not learned the finer points
of braking, gear changing, acceleration out of corners to the degree the older and more experienced drivers have. In all likelihood, MSch would gain an even greater advantage over many other drivers.

The other points I made were to permit slipstreaming and thereby produce more overtaking opportunities.

And lastly, you have not answered the critical question I posed: tell me how on-board computers have benefited F1 RACING?

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by DavyboyLT1

Jukebox, I didn't start this thread to have you make it your personal mission to discredit my ideas.

The question is "How can F1 be made more exciting?"

If you have any ideas, let's hear them...

Davyboy...sorry if you feel that way but this is what forum is all about right?

A person like you come out with ideas and another person like me or more pointing out whether it's sensible or not. I've given my idea of maybe limiting the number of boards on the rear wing element to enable slipstreaming & overtaking chances as there will be less air sucking a car behind.

Just think about ECU, telemetry, anti stall, brakes that can flush out dust from the wheels, transmissions breakthrough, engine components used to reduce it's weight, TC, LC, revolutionary suspensions and the last goes on and on...

I'm sorry again if you can't stand critics..anyway i feel strongly that F1 should be allowed/encouraged to introduce new technologies as i feel that future cars may benefit from what the engineers involved introduced for their respective teams. They are racing against eachother, not only the drivers on the track but the people behind the scenes too.

[DavyboyLT1]

Originally posted by Jukebox


Davyboy...sorry if you feel that way but this is what forum is all about right?

A person like you come out with ideas and another person like me or more pointing out whether it's sensible or not.

O.K. You're right. I shouldn't take this personally.

This thread has generated a lot of debate, and that's to be expected. Some of us, obviously, will just have to "agree to disagree".

Sorry I took things the wrong way...