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

[Glen]

VB

Don't know why you've taken that personally - it's clear that you feel passionately about this topic, but there's no need to get excited just because someone has an alternative view. And in any case, I cannot see how my post is taken as being directed at one individual.

I'm not an auto engineer, so if I'm wrong about the fuel injection then I think I'll just admit to being out of my depth on that point.

In referring to cars being all the same I was trying to debunk the argument that is often brought forward that more should be done to increase the effect of the driver over the car by controlling more aspects of the car. I'm not saying that this is something you have said - my post referred to several points, only some of which were made by your good self!

As for the point about Schumacher - again, I did not direct this at you so I'm puzzled as to why you take such personal umbridge. Many people (not you!) argue that Schumacher's achievements are mitigated against by his working in an era where the car is perceived to give the driver more help - this gives rise to my remark.

As for how computers improve F1 racing: In so many ways that it might be hard to be comprehensive... Two examples:

1. Telemetry has revolutionised race car preaparation - and it drastically reduces wasted setting-up time and errors in the races (actually a reason why cars circulate closely, but are unable to overtake - but I want to see overtaking on merit, not due to errors)

2. By using computers the performance of the car is pushed to the absolute limit - something which is a must-have in Formula 1 for me (I DO NOT want to watch cars which are less good than they can be).

BTW, I absolutely DO read things before I spout off - there is a chance that I might not agree though!

[Valve Bounce]

HEY GLEN, PlEASE READ MY POST AGIN. I DO NOT TAKE ANY PERSONAL UMBRAGE AGAINST ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID. Very sorry for the caps. This is a straight discussion which I am very passionate about because it seems to be driving F1 on a spiraling cost uptrend. PLease believe me, if I took anything personally, I would have stopped right away. I would not have talked to you.
Nobody knows where on-board computers will head in the short term. You must have read the posts about cheating and so on. What I am trying to say is that on-board computers have thwarted what the FIA has tried to restrict from F1. That on-board computers have contibuted very little to racing in F1. OK , I admit, telemetry have improved response times to car set ups, but is this not equal if all cars did not hav no-board computers? OK, so th ebetter drivers would have beneffited from set up procedures, but isn't that what we are talking about?
As for overtaking on merit, if a driver makes a mistake in changing down, cornering speed or acceleration from a corner, it is his merit that is in question that allows a following driver to overtake.
Now I must apologise that I cannot respond to any of your posts for 10 days, as I am off to Melbourne, and I have no access to the internet. But please, don't assume that I take anything you say as a personal affront - au contraire, I am only responding to your posts, and am trying to keep this thread going, because I honestly like discussing these things in this forum. I have apologised for my long windedness on this subject - I just hate to see F1 being muddled up in a morass of mumbo jumbo.

P.S. May I add you to my buddies list?

[Glen]

VB

Never had anyone want to be my buddy! Honored. Don't actually know what the buddy list is!

I'll try and keep this going until you get back - don't hold much hope though, the technical side is not as popular as the human aspect.

Here's a way to look at it - where do you draw the line, and how do you justify this arbitary point? Is lap timing and communications equipment OK? Telemetry? Why would computer assistance in manufacturing be alright, but not in the car (since F1 is a competition of manufacturers as well as drivers)? If someone invented a purely mechanical gearbox that was just as easy to operate as the computer assisted version, would that be ok - the driver would equally well assisted, but not with the evil electronics!?

Some of the arguments for limiting electronic aid are sound, for me, but they all fall down because they single out "electronic" and "computers" - like that is some kind of new evil. Drastic advances have long been part of F1, and over the years this has become an intrinsic part of the sport... Wings - mega driver aid, loads of grip and options to set-up... Slicks - huge help with big grip and predictable handling... Carbon fibre brakes - don't fade in the traditional way, actually get better when hotter, no need to look after them, reduces driver skill... And it goes on.

At the start of motorsport engine ignition advance and retard were manually done, and then someone invented a gizmo to do it for the driver - now, we all take that for granted and it's somehow ok because now it's old.

The way I see it the big problem with F1 is too many rules, not too few. More options for engines would be a good idea - bit like the new MotoGP formula. This would encourage innovation and a team might get a break-through one year and jump up the grid.

Aerodynamics have got to be addressed - only because of the difficulty of following a car closely. A "control" diffuser, standardised for everyone and designed to reduce the dirtying of air might be an option.

Some control is needed in certain areas - no-one seems to think that the fuel rules need changing for example, and neither do I.

The hope of really close racing is a forlorn one though I'm afraid - unless virtually everything is controlled there will continue to be a big difference between teams.

[DavyboyLT1]

Originally posted by Glen
...More options for engines would be a good idea - bit like the new MotoGP formula. This would encourage innovation and a team might get a break-through one year and jump up the grid.

I agree. One of the things that used to be interesting in F1 was the variety of engines. Just 7 years ago, teams were using V8's, V10's, and V12's.

M. Schumacher won his first WDC in a V8 powered Benetton, against a field of V10's and V12's. That season, it was great watching how the different powerplants performed (V8's had more low-end torque, flatter powerband, but less high-end horsepower; V12's had lots of high-end power, but were peaky and thirsty; V10's were a compromise between the two). And let's not forget the glorious differences in sound.

The different engines, of course, suited different tracks and drivers better than others. It's interesting to note that, even though every major player was using a V10 at the time, Toyota originally designed a V12 for their foray into F1. Unfortunately for them, the FIA changed the engine specs to requiring 10 cylinders, so they abandoned the V12 project.