BBC "Exclusive": Pat Head & Rory Byrne propose "biggest ... change since 1983" in '13

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

As the cars you mentioned are considerably slower than Formula 1-cars, a smaller performance differential is required for successful overtaking manoeuvres.

So, what we really need is......slower F1 cars? Which is what they will probably be in comparison to the 2012 cars, which will no doubt be getting back to 2004 Ferrari levels of performance by then.

[Sodemo]

I dont really agree there. The first one or two seasons of GP2 were great due to the way the aero worked. Then after that I believe they changed the chassis (oddly?) to make them more aero dependant. Those cars were all identical, yet the racing was great.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I dont really agree there. The first one or two seasons of GP2 were great due to the way the aero worked. Then after that I believe they changed the chassis (oddly?) to make them more aero dependant. Those cars were all identical, yet the racing was great.

I have to agree with you there, it's about ease of driving and aero dependency that makes the good racing, not needing a performance differential. Even if you were to have a fleet of completely identical cars a la IROC, make them difficult to drive for the circuit (e.g. IROC cars around Monaco) and you'll probably have an exciting race.

Originally Posted by Marbot

So, what we really need is......slower F1 cars? Which is what they will probably be in comparison to the 2012 cars, which will no doubt be getting back to 2004 Ferrari levels of performance by then.

The 2013 cars are planned to be slower. I'm not sure if we will hit 2004 speeds in 2012, but I think it should be the aim to peg the cars at current speeds; in 2004 the cars were cornering a little faster than desirable.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If they were to twin the wider cars with superwide rear tyres, adjust the weight distribution a bit, then we could see some mega slides too, perhaps not 60s - 70s style sweeping drifting, but certainly some Senna-esque tail out moments like his epic Monaco Lotus laps.

Don't think tyre construction would allow that. Modern racing is all about that modern scourge 'managing the tyres'.

Originally Posted by Fox89

I disagree. I feel the closer the cars and drivers are in terms of performance the more overtaking we will see. As long as you reduce reliance on aero so that it is possible. If you have a car that is much faster than another, it is only going to overtake if it is behind a slower car. And why would it be? In qualifying it would have been in front of the slower car. So it takes mitigating circumstances such as Malaysia to put those faster cars at the back.

When you make it all about the drivers though, you'll get little mistakes or moments of bravery that allow the guy behind to get closer and get into the slipstream. So reducing the performance difference is a good thing.

Three other problems with overtaking, though. Being effectively allowed to squeeze a car alongside you off the track - especially approaching the apex but in reality anywhere along the straight, and gizmos preventing mistakes. No gearchanges to miss, engine mapping which recreates much of traction control, and tracks where going off can actually be quicker than staying on (Copse, Eau Rouge, 1st corner at Hockenheim, etc.

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by Woolley

Don't think tyre construction would allow that. Modern racing is all about that modern scourge 'managing the tyres'.


Three other problems with overtaking, though. Being effectively allowed to squeeze a car alongside you off the track - especially approaching the apex but in reality anywhere along the straight, and gizmos preventing mistakes. No gearchanges to miss, engine mapping which recreates much of traction control, and tracks where going off can actually be quicker than staying on (Copse, Eau Rouge, 1st corner at Hockenheim, etc.

Bring back Carbys, steel brakes, manual gear levers and proper clutches!

[Sodemo]

If they are going to go to underfloor aero, what will become of the wooden plank?

[duke_toaster]

It might possibly wind up being dispensed with.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

It might possibly wind up being dispensed with.

Sparks?

[dyewat808]

Another thing with touring cars is that a lot of the overtakes there are down to a bit of pushing and shoving. Body contact is not as much of a problem compared to F1, and this means the drivers are far more willing to bump bumpers and 'nudge' each other a little just to slow them down or knock them off the racing line enough for the following car to overtake.

NASCAR of course has the bump draft which is kinda like KERS. The difference of course is that the leading car can't do anything about being slipstreamed in a bump draft, whereas with KERS the leading car can hit their KERS button too (if they have it) and try to outrun the overtaker.

I partly agree with pingguest - the performance differential needs to be there, but it must only be there at certain points. That's the biggest problem in my eyes.

[Teretonga]

Basically what a number of us have been saying for more than 5 years....

About time, although the devil will be in the detail...

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Basically what a number of us have been saying for more than 5 years....

About time, although the devil will be in the detail...

Performance differential can come from the tyres. If the tyres degrade more (as we are expecting) then we may see cars begin to struggle after 10-15 laps. Of course, if the 2013 regs do indeed come to fruition and we get cars with much less downforce, looking after tyres will become far more important, as downforce = tyre preservation.

To be honest, ive been saying it for at least 12 years. The 1998 tech regs were the biggest step in the wrong direction in the history of motorsport. Sure, motorsport has been heading on a crash course with downforce ever since 1968, but 1998 for me was a straw that broke the camel's back. F1 has not been the same since.

If we can get back to some cars that have mechanical grip, and force the designers to use less downforce then it can only be a good thing. Simply just reduce the surface areas the designers can work with, racing will improve. Give the designers a wing area of 2 metres sq, and he might get 1000kg of downforce. Give the same designer a wing area of 2 inches sq, and he might get 2kg of downforce. Perhaps overstating the point, but you get the idea. If you limit the surface areas that can be developed, there is less "gain" that can be attained. This would also close up the grid, as the lesser funded teams wouldn't have to spend 2000 hours in wind tunnels in order to gain 50grams of downforce. Limit the surface areas for downforce, close up the grid, improve the racing.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Performance differential can come from the tyres. If the tyres degrade more (as we are expecting) then we may see cars begin to struggle after 10-15 laps. Of course, if the 2013 regs do indeed come to fruition and we get cars with much less downforce, looking after tyres will become far more important, as downforce = tyre preservation.

That could lead to more interesting racing though, with a choice of either being kind on the tyres or wringing them dry in ten laps. I don't think two stop strategies should be mandatory, but it would be nice if the range and style of tyres made two and perhaps even three stoppers a realistic strategy.

To be honest, ive been saying it for at least 12 years. The 1998 tech regs were the biggest step in the wrong direction in the history of motorsport.

It's certainly one of the worst self-inflicted wounds in motorsport history.

Off topic comment alert I have to type this or my brain will explode! Alongside my personal pet hate, the decision to rename Formula 2 as Formula 3000 in time for the 1985 season (not that the new rules were that bad an idea, although perhaps encouraging a few engine makes other than Cosworth might have been an idea ...), which I think started the pathway to the current single seater situation with its mess of boxing style confusing titles that's more complex than the rugby offside rule and events with a self-inflated level of importance. Thanks for reading, you've been a wonderful audience. Don't forget to try the veal and tip your waitress. We now return you to the topic

Sure, motorsport has been heading on a crash course with downforce ever since 1968, but 1998 for me was a straw that broke the camel's back. F1 has not been the same since.

Abolishing downforce in single seaters (excluding Formula Ford, which while it is a great club formula, is of little relevance to the modern single seater racing car, and could not become of great relevance with destroying its special character) is like abolishing the forward pass in American Football, it has become an integral part of the sport.

If we can get back to some cars that have mechanical grip, and force the designers to use less downforce then it can only be a good thing.

More mechanical grip would be nice, wider cars (190cm or 200cm?) and larger tyres (especially rear) would improve that easily. That or stickier tyres (see point one).

[E.B]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Was that not a problem perhaps compounded by Bernie, who had IIRC purchased all of the available stocks of the Cosworth (DFV?) engines made obsolete by the turbos in F1, and needed an outlet to offload them all?

The DFV engine was the only real option in F3000 for quite a few years until the Mugen / Honda V8 was developed, which in turn forced Cosworth into a new engine to match the Mugen.

But yes I at the time missed the F2 cars....

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Fox89

I disagree. I feel the closer the cars and drivers are in terms of performance the more overtaking we will see. As long as you reduce reliance on aero so that it is possible. If you have a car that is much faster than another, it is only going to overtake if it is behind a slower car. And why would it be? In qualifying it would have been in front of the slower car. So it takes mitigating circumstances such as Malaysia to put those faster cars at the back.

When you make it all about the drivers though, you'll get little mistakes or moments of bravery that allow the guy behind to get closer and get into the slipstream. So reducing the performance difference is a good thing.

The actual (not only geometric) car length is a factor as well. But overtaking is not going to happen if there's no sufficient performance differential. Assuming two cars are doing exactly the same lap time, how is overtaking ever going to happen?

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Abolishing downforce in single seaters (excluding Formula Ford, which while it is a great club formula, is of little relevance to the modern single seater racing car, and could not become of great relevance with destroying its special character) is like abolishing the forward pass in American Football, it has become an integral part of the sport.

This raises an interesting question: what standard decides whether something is an integral part of the sport?

And if downforce is indeed an integral part of the sport, then to what extent? Downforce was discovered in the late 1960s, but became dominant in the ground effect era and from 2007 its virtually the only area where development is allowed.

[duke_toaster]

Off topic comment alert I have to type this or my brain will explode! Originally Posted by E.B Was that not a problem perhaps compounded by Bernie, who had IIRC purchased all of the available stocks of the Cosworth (DFV?) engines made obsolete by the turbos in F1, and needed an outlet to offload them all? The DFV engine was the only real option in F3000 for quite a few years until the Mugen / Honda V8 was developed, which in turn forced Cosworth into a new engine to match the Mugen. But yes I at the time missed the F2 cars.... In short,yes. However my issue was not with the F3000 car rules, the 2000cc engines got silly especially when Honda brought that V6. However, the issue is about the name change mainly for me, because it got rid of the whole F3 to F2 to F1 pyramid. Thanks for reading, you've been a wonderful audience. Don't forget to try the veal and tip your waitress. We now return you to the topic

Originally Posted by Pingguest

This raises an interesting question: what standard decides whether something is an integral part of the sport?

It's one of those Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" things.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

It's one of those Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" things.

Couldn't this apply to grooved tyres, mid-race refuelling and driver aids as well? It's just a thought.

One could also think to the opposite. Formula 1 was found as the ultimate drivers' championship in the first place. Although the sport is a technical warfare, the driver should be most influential and thus securing his input deserves being a top priority. Downforce makes the car unnecessarily easy to drive and should therefore be eliminated.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Couldn't this apply to grooved tyres, mid-race refuelling and driver aids as well? It's just a thought.

Swipe someone off the street and ask them to draw an single seaterr, and it will probably have wings. Grooved tyres are a new thing, and have been successfully junked. The mental image of a single seater probably has slicks.

The pit-stop is an integral part of car racing, something virtually unique to it, like the lineout. However, that generally applies mainly to tyre changes, rather than refuelling. Driver aids, well, not really.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Basically what a number of us have been saying for more than 5 years....

About time, although the devil will be in the detail...

hehe, I haven't even been here a year and already I too feel like I'm repeating myself

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Swipe someone off the street and ask them to draw an single seaterr

As if the common man knows that much about motor racing. Most people still need to be made aware that the formation lap is not the start of the race.

Interestingly, until the ban on tobacco advertisement Marlboro used an image the 1982 McLaren-Cosworth. That car didn't have a front wing, at least not in that image.

Grooved tyres are a new thing, and have been successfully junked.

Throughout Formula 1's history grooved tyres were used more often than slicks and until recently those kind of tyres were banned. Why wouldn't a common man think of a single seater with grooved tyre?

However, that generally applies mainly to tyre changes, rather than refuelling.

Is that so? The common man in the United States doesn't know any better than pit stops are used to refuel the car. In Europe many people have no notion about pit stops or, if they do, it's used for refuelling too.

[JimW]

Still got pit stops. Until they get rid of those everything else is just tinkering at the edges.

Jim

[JimW]

Originally Posted by sizzle

Bring back Carbys, steel brakes, manual gear levers and proper clutches!

Absolutely right.

Regards

Jim

[Fox89]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The actual (not only geometric) car length is a factor as well. But overtaking is not going to happen if there's no sufficient performance differential. Assuming two cars are doing exactly the same lap time, how is overtaking ever going to happen?

In the ways that I suggested. Removing performance differential is only fixing one half of the problem, the other half is allowing cars to get close enough to each other.

Remember: if you have car A and car B 0.5s apart and doing exactly the same laptime, car B will have the slipstream advantage on every straight. So let's assume that all the aero problems are fixed and the cars can run very close together, we then end up looking at performance differential:

scenario 1 (Significant difference): Car B is much faster than Car A. It successfully gets in the slipstream of Car A, passes, and then disappears into the distance because it has a significant raw pace advantage.

scenario 2 (Little difference): Car B is of a very similar raw speed to Car A. Car B gets in the slipstream of Car A and overtakes. Car B cannot get away as the performance difference is too small. Car A now has the slipstream and the possibility to overtake.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by JimW

Still got pit stops. Until they get rid of those everything else is just tinkering at the edges.

Jim

I don't agree there, removing pit-stops would mean hopelessly hard tyres and no possibility of strategy differences - think of Valencia being spiced up by Kamui Kobayashi wearing a set of hards almost down to the canvas until about five laps left, then pitting in for a set of softs for a banzai finish.

Originally Posted by Fox89

In the ways that I suggested. Removing performance differential is only fixing one half of the problem, the other half is allowing cars to get close enough to each other.

Mistakes and strategy differences are factors as well. In the first case, cars that are not as easy to drive would help - that is not easy to achieve, but perhaps the tyres could be changed so that they are harder to work. On the latter, it's all about the aero package.

[JimW]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

I don't agree there, removing pit-stops would mean hopelessly hard tyres and no possibility of strategy differences - think of Valencia being spiced up by Kamui Kobayashi wearing a set of hards almost down to the canvas until about five laps left, then pitting in for a set of softs for a banzai finish. . .

Exactly wrong. I'm not interested in strategy, it's the drivers and the driving which make the racing. If you want to see strategy, take up chess.

Regards

Jim