[Multi 21] F1 becoming a joke

[garcon]

By the way, Mark - I agree on your specific point on aerodynamics, but then that wasn't what prompted my comment.

Although I'm not sure where the balance should be between less aero (and fewer resultant gimmicks) and the preservation of F1's position at the technological pinnacle of the sport. I'm not even sure whether they are mutually exclusive.

[Peralta]

I don't mind at all the high technology even the high cost ( I am an engineer by trade) to make this cars the ultimate racing vehicle. What I am worried is that supposedly the ultimate best drivers in the world aren't showing there skills to drive this cars. This sophisticated technology with the high costs goes out the door when you bolt a set of tyres that can't even last half a race so then drivers have to drive conservetely. This goes for the gimmicks like DRS and even KERS. KERS is push to pass button. Hamilton said it himself when he drove Senna's car around Silverstone "wow these cars must have been amazing to drive"

[Marbot]

DRS is spreading. They even like the squidgy tyres!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106455

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by MarkG

The point is. F1 aero performance created quite a few years of GP racing where cars could only overtake via pitstop strategy. We have had some "racing" and unpredictability in Gps these recent seasons because it was decided to provide teams with rubbish tyres and introduce DRS. It appears to me, and I might be wrong, it is ONLY because of aero performance and the processions it creates, that "gimmicks" were introduced. Gimmicks aren't needed if the aero performance is dealt with properly.

I remember watching many a processional GP in the '70s and '80s and the cars had widely, varying aero configurations, particularly in the '70s and immediately after ground effect was band.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by Marbot

DRS is spreading. They even like the squidgy tyres!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106455

DTM cars are high aero cars aren't they? Maybe that's why.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I remember watching many a processional GP in the '70s and '80s and the cars had widely, varying aero configurations, particularly in the '70s and immediately after ground effect was band.

So you disagree then?
Some races in that era were processions because the performance disparity front of grid to rear of grid was enormous. Partly that anyway.

So I take it from your example, that you think races would be processional today if the cars had half or less the aero? Can you honestly say that? With today's reliability and closely matched drivers?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by MarkG

So you disagree then?
Some races in that era were processions because the performance disparity front of grid to rear of grid was enormous. Partly that anyway.

So I take it from your example, that you think races would be processional today if the cars had half or less the aero? Can you honestly say that? With today's reliability and closely matched drivers?

I don't know about performance disparity, considering the majority of the cars were powered by DFVs.

Those cars in the '70s and early '80s had nothing like the aero packages we see on a modern F1 car, so yes I still think we'd see processional racing.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by MarkG

DTM cars are high aero cars aren't they? Maybe that's why.

DTM follows everything F1 does, if F1 introduced Rocket Boosters to the sides of the cars then DTM would do the same.

They even recycle the 'talents' of David Coulthard, Ralf Schumacher ect.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I remember watching many a processional GP in the '70s and '80s and the cars had widely, varying aero configurations, particularly in the '70s and immediately after ground effect was band.

The 80s had some damn good races and seasons, especially the early-mid 80s. Ironically, a lot of the time this was with softer tires, however you didn't get the kind of marbles you do today and could overtake offline and in other weird areas. You could overtake even on those horrific American street circuits like Caesar's Palace and Detroit. Even Hungary had some fantastic races.

[Scooter185]

Originally Posted by Peralta

I don't mind at all the high technology even the high cost ( I am an engineer by trade) to make this cars the ultimate racing vehicle. What I am worried is that supposedly the ultimate best drivers in the world aren't showing there skills to drive this cars. This sophisticated technology with the high costs goes out the door when you bolt a set of tyres that can't even last half a race so then drivers have to drive conservetely. This goes for the gimmicks like DRS and even KERS. KERS is push to pass button. Hamilton said it himself when he drove Senna's car around Silverstone "wow these cars must have been amazing to drive"

i disagree about the tires, as it's a variable that the driver has to manage. You see conservative driving across all series when it comes to fuel, the Pirellis just add another element that can be partly controlled by the driver.

the marbles are ridiculous though, being able to pass doesn't work when there is no where to pass.

[Peralta]

Originally Posted by Scooter185

i disagree about the tires, as it's a variable that the driver has to manage. You see conservative driving across all series when it comes to fuel, the Pirellis just add another element that can be partly controlled by the driver.

the marbles are ridiculous though, being able to pass doesn't work when there is no where to pass.

Hulkenberg was quoted as saying after the race that he can go as fast as the Ferraris Lotus and Mercedes but that his tyres in his Sauber would not keep up the pace. Talented driver hindered by his tyres.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The main thing is that engineers cannot unlearn things. You could never go back to regulations that were around 20 years ago, the cars would be way too fast, and they would get faster; faster, if you know what I mean.

I did say "revised". I'm not saying go back to 3.5 litre engines or anything.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't know about performance disparity, considering the majority of the cars were powered by DFVs.

Those cars in the '70s and early '80s had nothing like the aero packages we see on a modern F1 car, so yes I still think we'd see processional racing.

Of those races you watched, how often did you note that guys couldn't pass (even though they were significantly faster) because of dirty air affecting the aero?

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by Peralta

I don't mind at all the high technology even the high cost ( I am an engineer by trade) to make this cars the ultimate racing vehicle.

Can you specify what the Ultimate racing vehicle would do?

Originally Posted by Peralta

What I am worried is that supposedly the ultimate best drivers in the world aren't showing there skills to drive this cars.

What skills are they supposed to be showing?

Originally Posted by Peralta

This sophisticated technology with the high costs goes out the door when you bolt a set of tyres that can't even last half a race so then drivers have to drive conservetely.

You actually have to be a super driver to manage a deteriorating car.

Originally Posted by Peralta

This goes for the gimmicks like DRS and even KERS. KERS is push to pass button.

DRS is a gimmick. KERS is not. I'm surprised you think that, being an engineer.

Originally Posted by Peralta

Hamilton said it himself when he drove Senna's car around Silverstone "wow these cars must have been amazing to drive"

Couldn't a driver manage the boost, and their performance, on those turbo gp cars,?

Getting abck to bjohnsonsmith's point about processional races occurring in the days when the cars weren't as reliant on the aero for their performance. I would've thought that was because they field would've been able to sort itself out. Faster cars would've been able to get past relatively easier and take their "natural" position. For years I was aware of John Watson's record setting win at Longbeach (starting 22nd, the deepest anyone has ever won a gp). I was able to see the whole race on youtube, however many years ago, and what struck me was how processional that race was! Wattie was in the lead half way through, It wasn't much different to starting the race on pole and leading the whole way.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

I did say "revised". I'm not saying go back to 3.5 litre engines or anything.

Of those races you watched, how often did you note that guys couldn't pass (even though they were significantly faster) because of dirty air affecting the aero?

It was a long time ago but what I remember was the field spreading out and the race turning into a procession, with attrition being at the core and playing a large part in the outcome of the race.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It was a long time ago but what I remember was the field spreading out and the race turning into a procession, with attrition being at the core and playing a large part in the outcome of the race.

That is true, but it was also true of many categories at that time. A challenger falling away with car ills, often meant there was a large gap to the next car, and viewers and trackside spectators then just watched cars circulating for lap after lap. Pretty boring from a racing perspective, but enthusiasts at trackside (only) generally had other aspects to enjoy. Definitely not great tv viewing. My point is the procession was nothing to do with the fact the cars had low aero performance. I admit, processional F1 races of modern times are probably of more interest because most cars survive the race, and most cars are on the same lap, and indeed, the attempts by the FIA etc to spark things up a bit by the use of mandatory pit-stops, mandatory tyres and other "gubbins" have improved things.
But it's quite likely in my view that no "gubbins" are necessary if aero was addressed so that cars could at least have chances to overtake on track. With the reliability of modern cars, the tiny spread of skill difference across the grid, if much lower aero performance was decreed, I reckon F1 racing would improve as a spectacle, as well as retaining other interesting elements such as strategy. By the way, one "gubbin" I would still want to see, would be a max pit crew of 6 for pit stops.

I don't have a problem with high aero performance in long-distance sports cars, for Le Mans etc, but I do with single-seaters, and cars for shorter distance races.

If someone like Hamilton drove a Le Mans type car round Brands Hatch GP circuit, and then drove a F1 car with 750bhp and aerodynamics of an 80's car I think he'd find the F1 car more challenging to drive even it was 5 seconds slower, and a trackside viewer wouldn't notice the time difference.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Peralta

Hulkenberg was quoted as saying after the race that he can go as fast as the Ferraris Lotus and Mercedes but that his tyres in his Sauber would not keep up the pace. Talented driver hindered by his tyres.

Would he be able to keep the pace if they all had tyres that lasted much longer, or would the better cars still leave him behind? Bearing in mind that it was only the Red Bull team that actually complained about the tyres degrading and blunting the performance of the car. What Force India should do is try and figure out how to make their tyres last as long as they do on the Ferrari's, etc. It's much easier to do that than trying to catch a Red Bull car on tyres that don't degrade. Harder tyres might get Hulkenberg a podium, but they won't keep Red Bull off it.

[GT6]

i think that unless F! can stop kicking itself in the shins in full view/sound of the public it will be the butt of all the worse comments about sport being a busness rather than a serious contest between drivers/cars

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by GT6

i think that unless F! can stop kicking itself in the shins in full view/sound of the public it will be the butt of all the worse comments about sport being a busness rather than a serious contest between drivers/cars

The 'public' already thinks this about F1. Go to any mainstream news site and click on F1 stories and see what I mean. And the feeling towards it is much worse than what you mention.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It was a long time ago but what I remember was the field spreading out and the race turning into a procession, with attrition being at the core and playing a large part in the outcome of the race.

I don't know about you. But, had I been watching at the time, I'm not sure this type of processional race would've bothered me as much as the ones from the last 20 years.


Fundamentally, an F1 race has to be hard for a car, putting it under immense stress, and 300km would been brutal for the cars in those days. With the current rules about engines, the FIA are saying that 700km is stretch for a modern day F1 engine. Sanitised racing conditions, circuits with the same characteristics, similiar looking cars. Yep, F1 is a joke.

Originally Posted by MarkG

If someone like Hamilton drove a Le Mans type car round Brands Hatch GP circuit, and then drove a F1 car with 750bhp and aerodynamics of an 80's car I think he'd find the F1 car more challenging to drive even it was 5 seconds slower, and a trackside viewer wouldn't notice the time difference.

Albert Park has changed at all since it was first used 18 years ago. The cars are going 8-10 seconds a lap faster than in 96. Nobody has ever mentioned it. Even from 04, with that much of a drop in 8 years, nothing was ever said.