F1 too fast

[Kicking-back]

The pole time for the 1996 Australian GP was in the 1 min 32 second range.

This year, Schumacher did a race fastest lap in the 1 min 24s.

There has to be serious concern about the cornering speed of current F1 cars - I hope we're not becoming complacent ten years on from Imola.

Is it time to now severely reduce the aerodynamic grip of the cars - giving a slower lap time and making them less-difficult to overtake in?

[f1truestory]

i dont agree to "the faster, the more dangerous".
speak on about the safety side, i think the safety impact of cars will always improve as technology move along as well.

[Pitstop]

See your point KB, but have not brakes improved pro rata?

No-one wants a repeat of Imola 1994.

[1 Lotus]

The FIA have repeatedly tried things to slow down the cars. Grooved tires were supposed to do it - there is a laugh. The year they began using grooved tires, the lap records at every single venue was toppled.

I whole-heartedly agree however that if they did something to slow down the cars, particularly in the area of grip and the cornering speeds, the racing would get much more interesting ESPECIALLY at tracks where overtaking is most difficult.

[hgmonaro]

Slowing the cars by making them unstable would increase the danger (however I advocate that!). Lap times are not good indication of safety, years ago the cars would have been much slower and much more dangerous. I agree with your last comment, less aero (and less brakes) to improve the racing would be a move in the right direction.

[climb]

IMO speed is important but not the prime aspect of safety.
Provided we cann pretend to have cars at 90km/h speed, running at 270 or 300 doesn't change much itself.
What counts more IMo is that cars be perfectly controllable by the drivers, that the impact resistance be optimized, and that tracks have adequate gravel traps where there is a significant risk of going out of track.
Or, like the case of Imola, some intelligent chicanes be put where the 3rd condition cannot be fulfilled.

[Sodemo]

Massivly less areo (1 single element), slicks, sequential mechanical gearboxes (with lever), 700kg minumum weight, steel brakes, wider cars.

[Glen]

F1 is the fastest single seat formula, and that's got to stay. I am particularly against making the cars bigger and heavier - that they can make such powerful machines so compact and elegant is very much part of the appeal for me, and I have no desire to see more brutal cars that are less elegant in handling.

[Spudgun]

One factor that has sped up the cars since 1996 is the tyre war. Back in 1996 Goodyear were supplying the whole grid. As they had no competition they did not need to keep pushing and pushing the envelope as much. Of course there was development, just not at the current staggering pace.

Now we have Bridgestone and Michelin fighting at it hammer and tongs as much as the teams are. They are striving to eek out every last bit of performance from their tyres and lap times are plummeting. The grip levels have surpassed the old full slicks.

Improvement in chassis design, engine power and aerodynamics (despite some kerbs in this area since 1996) have of course played a massive part, but I think the tyre war has also played a huge part.

The thing is that safety has improved along with the speed. The sport is safer now than even 1994 (but it would be interesting to see what it would be like now if 'that' day hadn't happened), the chassis and aero are better to handle the extra speed.

Now the ground-effect days were dangerous!

[ASCII Man]

If that day didn't happen then everything would have been the same that year and the next year, and then we would have most probably lost Mika.

Either way its a lose-lose situation.

[BootsOntheSide]

If they hadn't've brought in the various speed reductions in recent years (grooved tyres, smaller rear wings, narrower cars, single-engines etc) the laptimes would be more like 1m15. The pace of technical improvement on F1 cars these days is incredible, and largely down to the tyre war coupled with the increased investment from manufacturers (and that, due to there being less teams, the talent is more concentrated in the same place - for example Mike Coughlan has designed quick cars in his own right, yet he is now supporting Adrian Newey)

[krt917]

I don't really have a problem with speed as far as saftety goes because, as has been said, safety measures have improved to and F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport. I would reduce the use aerodynamic aids which would reduce the speeds, but I'd do it to improve the racing.

I agree that the tyre war has been the largest factor in the increase in speeds.

Just as an aside, did anyone see Mark Hughes' piece on Frank Dernie in Autosport last week? Dernie has some very interesting and controversial ideas on how to increase overtaking in F1.

[Dutton]

I seems to me that rather than speed itself, it is rather the structures/mechanisms in place to absord the energy etc in the event of an incident that is critcal.

Consider that, if speed was really the relevant factor, deaths/injuries would havestarted at zero and done nothing but fly upwards as time has gone on.
It would appear to be the opposite case.

Whilst the reduced aero/increased mechanical grip is the commonly said means to solve overtaking etc, perhaps it isn't?

I mean, if you think about it, you get more overtaking in wet races right? That, as I understand it, requires maximum downforce and minimum mechanical grip?

Naturally, there will be more to it than this. And, certainly, it will not increase safety much I doubt.

In terms of safety: really, to be honest, F1 as is now seems to be rather safe. If the same approach to safety is taken as has been since, say, 98/99 then it should manage to keep things in check.

[Schummy]

It's not just for safety, but for the sport itself. Get rid of (almost?) every wing and limit tyre compounds. Tech will go forward and forward and it needs to be limited or we will not able to call it World DRIVER Championship.

Downforce destroy most of the finesse of the art of driving. I even don't like F1 simulators/games! Cars corners like scalextric cars, braking is a sort of on/off thing.

Appart from that, it's obvious that all rest factors equal, less speed means more safety, and thus, the possibility of using more interesting tracks, not the current set of CAD designed tracks, without (almost) elevation changes, constant radius corners and huge gravel traps.

Well, just in case nobody has noted, I don't like (high) downforce and sticky tyres

[GTV27]

LOW downforce and HARD tyres would be interesting - and would go some way to simulating the wet conditions that promote overtaking (as somebody else has noted) as well as slowing corner speeds dramatically - which might make accidents more frequent, but less massive and therefore life threatening.

Safety is relative. The cars would be a lot safer if they had enclosed wheels and cockits - but then they'd be sports cars (and prob even faster for it).

[Armco Bender]

The 1939 Auto Union V12 GP car could hit 300 kph on the straight,so relatively speaking in the last 65 years F1 cars haven't gone much faster..................

[golem]

Because of the constant nobbing of the regs, Armco.

Personally just drop back the engine capacity to 2.4 V8's. That'll force the selection between aero downforce and aero drag to go a bit more in favour of aero drag reduction, thus dropping downforce a bit. Also, don't narrow up the wheel track but narrow up the allowable bodywork width and slight narrow up of the allowed wings.

[DriverT]

Yeah, but the engine manufacturers would probably all pull out instantly.

[Russ]

Originally posted by The Monster
Massivly less areo (1 single element), slicks, sequential mechanical gearboxes (with lever), 700kg minumum weight, steel brakes, wider cars.

Speed doesn't kill,sudden lack of it does!! The FIA will not reduce aerodynamics further because of the amount of time,money and personnel spent on it over the years and if it was banned now there would be an outcry!! As for slicks (i thought this topic was about reducing speeds not increasing them???) As for reverting to a gear lever,how do you think a driver having only one hand on the wheel is going to reduce speeds and aid safety?! 700kg minimum weight? 600kg is fine,you start getting problems when cars are built to 495kg (as the MP4/18 was) meaning that 105kg of its weight was made up of ballast,so 105 kg of potential impact absorbing structure was sitting on the cars floor where it's no good to Kimi or David if they hit a wall at 195mph. This is where the problem lies today!

[Smokey 6 litre]

less aero, my plan (which i've been on about for ages) is to limit the size of the front filament to inside the wheels (open up those big tyres to the air) and make the wing one filament.
they can do whatever they like with the back (it will have to balance anyway)
oh, and bring back slicks for more mechanicaL grip.

[golem]

Why would the engine manufacturers pull out instantly? There's no less or more of a reason for them to participate based on capacity. All they're doing, is dropping two 0.3 litre pistons.

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by DriverT
Yeah, but the engine manufacturers would probably all pull out instantly.

Well, then Cosworth can supply them all.

And costs would drop dramatically as all the teams would be privateers!

[BARrouette]

F1 too fast: NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE.
The faster the better...

[Armco Bender]

Well, then Cosworth can supply them all.

Now your talking,put a DFV on the back of all the cars.....a gear lever,a clutch,one tank of fuel,one set of tyres,oversteer,overtaking............I think I'm having a 1970's flashback

[hamsmith]

F1 too fast? Only for the cars who finished third and under in Oz, too fast to keep up!