Onboards..

[jab]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

But still, if current cars are close, as you say, why can't they overtake? Atleast cars could overtake then. It's hard to compare, really, but I suppose the closest thing to F1 cars in terms of technology, cornering speeds and variety of constructors etc is LMP racing - and when Audi and Peugeot floor it properly, which happens once or twice a season, it's the most exciting thing in motorsport.

The fastest single seaters are then GP2, IRL or FRenault 3.5. Both produce far better racing regularly than F1.

But GP2, IRL and FRenault 3.5 have drivers that make mistakes. The driving standards are lower. GP2 and the WSR are junior formulae with inexperienced drivers and reverse grids. And there's less pressure on the drivers as well - F1 team bosses, the stewards, the media and the keyboard jockeys like us are ruthless when drivers make mistakes and take other drivers out. Maybe if there was less pressure we'd see more drivers going for it

And whether endurance racing is exciting or not is open to debate. Personally, I enjoy it and I don't watch as much as I'd like to, as I think it's the closest thing (this side of the Atlantic) to what F1 used to be like - not much wheel-to-wheel but you have things like reliability issues, amateur drivers and proper minnows. A lot of people don't enjoy it, though, because it's very drawn out - it doesn't really fit in in the modern generation where everyone wants action immediately or else they'll switch over and watch football. Comparing F1 and endurance racing is like comparing one day cricket with test cricket, with junior formulae as Twenty20

I hear what you're saying because I've often thought the same way myself. But lately I've realised we expect too much. If you want a pure racing series, there will always be a certain percentage of bad races

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by jab

Comparing F1 and endurance racing is like comparing one day cricket with test cricket, with junior formulae as Twenty20

Unfortunately a good majority of "casual fans" would like F1 to be like "Twenty20".

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by sizzle

And that is a problem because?

Nothing for me, and I never said I had a problem with it (you never said I did, etc...). However there is a problem for the driver, he was slower than if that hadn't happened.

What I do think is really cool is a proper four wheel drift. A dab of oppo is only half way to being cool.

Originally Posted by JamesH

I think that's a really well set up car. Notice how the front wheel always pointed exactly where the car needed to go and how the back didn't just snap back, but was nice a smooth. The driver was also pretty good as well!

He had throttle over steer. Either the car has poor rear traction, or he pressed the throttle too early. If the car was set up and the driver driving the corner perfectly then the car would be in a perfect drift. All wheels pointing where he wanted to go. And it wouldn't have had that little fish tail at the end. That would be nicer, smoother and faster. He's half way there... A car that snapped away means it isn't very progressive on the limit, but it doesn't mean it is set up well, or that the driver didn't touch the throttle too early.

[bman]

how about a return to a 'ground affects' type aero set up of the late 70's early 80's?

cars then used little wing, especially the front. (and at some tracks not at all)

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by jab

But GP2, IRL and FRenault 3.5 have drivers that make mistakes. The driving standards are lower. GP2 and the WSR are junior formulae with inexperienced drivers and reverse grids. And there's less pressure on the drivers as well - F1 team bosses, the stewards, the media and the keyboard jockeys like us are ruthless when drivers make mistakes and take other drivers out. Maybe if there was less pressure we'd see more drivers going for it

And whether endurance racing is exciting or not is open to debate. Personally, I enjoy it and I don't watch as much as I'd like to, as I think it's the closest thing (this side of the Atlantic) to what F1 used to be like - not much wheel-to-wheel but you have things like reliability issues, amateur drivers and proper minnows. A lot of people don't enjoy it, though, because it's very drawn out - it doesn't really fit in in the modern generation where everyone wants action immediately or else they'll switch over and watch football. Comparing F1 and endurance racing is like comparing one day cricket with test cricket, with junior formulae as Twenty20

I hear what you're saying because I've often thought the same way myself. But lately I've realised we expect too much. If you want a pure racing series, there will always be a certain percentage of bad races

Well, I'm talking about in LMP races in the last half hour/hour, in the last stint, when it is a nose-to-tail dash for the finish. And it's great because the cars a faster in different places. That's what makes for good racing. We need technical diversity. It would have been good to have two-tier actually!

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Adam43

He had throttle over steer. Either the car has poor rear traction, or he pressed the throttle too early. If the car was set up and the driver driving the corner perfectly then the car would be in a perfect drift. All wheels pointing where he wanted to go. And it wouldn't have had that little fish tail at the end. That would be nicer, smoother and faster. He's half way there... A car that snapped away means it isn't very progressive on the limit, but it doesn't mean it is set up well, or that the driver didn't touch the throttle too early.

What I mean by well set up is that when he did apply the throttle too early (in fact I think he lost rear traction when going over the curb, but effect is the same), he required very little in the way of steering to get back to going in the right direction - no armfuls of opposite lock, just a smidgen and the car moved straight back to the right line. Nothing snapped away or snapped back. It was progressive, and handled well by the driver, the car did nothing to catch him out. Nicely set up.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by JamesH

What I mean by well set up is that when he did apply the throttle too early (in fact I think he lost rear traction when going over the curb, but effect is the same),

It would be set up nicer if it could ride the bumps and had more rear traction.

he required very little in the way of steering to get back to going in the right direction - no armfuls of opposite lock, just a smidgen and the car moved straight back to the right line.

That is armsful of opposite lock in a formula car. It is a lot in my MGB! His right hand is at about 10 o'clock in correcting that! That is a lot of lock in a formula car - the stuff needed for a pretty tight corner. Then to correct the over correction his left hand goes to 11ish.

Nothing snapped away or snapped back. It was progressive, and handled well by the driver, the car did nothing to catch him out. Nicely set up.

As I said, progressive on the limit (the rear wheels anyway). It didn't snap, but that just means it is forgiving. A small part of set-up, I suppose. Give me relatively more rear grip, better ride of the kerbs. Or maybe it was just the need to drive the corner better and has nowt really to do with set-up?

Half cool. Second gear hero!

Full cool, twice:

[Sodemo]

Seeing as we are posting youtube videos, vintage Montoya...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt8bhqgBznM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AEK-...eature=related

[Born Racer]

What has changed that has made the racing less interesting is reliability

I don't agree with this, as I'd rather know the cars are likely to finish and that a driver won't lose out due to unreliability. Plus, you have more cars potentially battling head-to-head then.

F1 team bosses, the stewards, the media and the keyboard jockeys like us are ruthless when drivers make mistakes and take other drivers out. Maybe if there was less pressure we'd see more drivers going for it

Agreed- over-zealous stewarding is not going to help.

[Born Racer]

Seeing as we are posting youtube videos, vintage Montoya...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt8bhqgBznM

I miss those shrill V10s.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It would be set up nicer if it could ride the bumps and had more rear traction.

Not if doing that made everything else worse, which it probably would, and maybe there isn't any more rear traction to be had?

Originally Posted by Adam43

That is armsful of opposite lock in a formula car. It is a lot in my MGB! His right hand is at about 10 o'clock in correcting that! That is a lot of lock in a formula car - the stuff needed for a pretty tight corner. Then to correct the over correction his left hand goes to 11ish.As I said, progressive on the limit (the rear wheels anyway). It didn't snap, but that just means it is forgiving. A small part of set-up, I suppose.

I'd say a big part as long as it doesn't mean slower lap times. (But then, in an unforgiving car, you just end up sliding moreoften, so your average lap time decreases)

Originally Posted by Adam43

Give me relatively more rear grip, better ride of the kerbs. Or maybe it was just the need to drive the corner better and has nowt really to do with set-up?

Probably! Looks like the overdrove it, and the setup allowed him to recover quickly and easily, without loss. That would class as good setup for me, but maybe not others!

[Sodemo]

Ive always said they need to show the drivers feet more, like in an inset picture in picture combo together with the onboard shots.

[Born Racer]

Top idea Sodemo. That would be insightful.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Top idea Sodemo. That would be insightful.

Its been done before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RXCOFWaGgI

[HughGJohnson]

Originally Posted by kartracer41

Okay, so aerodynamically, they may not be balanced front/rear, but you can't honestly think that the best engineers in the world are going to let the fastest race cars in the world go to the track "unbalanced". The advantage of the diffuser teams was that they had a bunch more aero available at the rear, which allowed them to set the car up with more grip in the front. The other teams did not have that extra grip available in the rear or their cars, so they designed less grip into the front. You are always going to see the rear ends of these cars sliding out. If they aren't, the drivers are pushing hard enough. I would bet most of the drivers on the grid would prefer a "loose" race car over a "tight" car, so you are likely going to see oversteer as opposed to cars pushing when the drivers go over the limit.

I couldn't agree more. The diffuser teams had an advantage because the found a loophole in the rules. The cars were not supposed to have such an effective diffuser. If the rules had been written better all the cars would have major oversteer and there wouldn't be anything the teams could do about it.

[Born Racer]

Is there an alterior motive to the lack of going far enough with the regulation changes? Why are they so keen to retain such a level of aerodynamic dependency?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Is there an alterior motive to the lack of going far enough with the regulation changes? Why are they so keen to retain such a level of aerodynamic dependency?

Teams don't like change.

To be honest, I really dont know why A) The teams and B) Bernie, isn't more interested in providing a "better show".

If the regs were totally re-written to provide close racing (similar to what they did with the first season(s) of GP2) then we would have much better racing.

What they need to do is provide bigger tyres for more mechanical grip, widen the cars to provide a wider (more stable) track + increased drag) and go further with the aero by stipulating underbody aerodynamics.

If there were better racing throughout F1, sponsors and TV companies would be happier - as more people would watch, which means greater revenues for Bernie and the teams.

I think getting Ross Brawn to write the rules (with a few other people) would be a good place to start (but then you would get people crying foul over conflict of interests). Perhaps getting Ross to write the rules with the other technical delegates would be the answer...?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Not if doing that made everything else worse, which it probably would, and maybe there isn't any more rear traction to be had?

Yes.

I'd say a big part as long as it doesn't mean slower lap times. (But then, in an unforgiving car, you just end up sliding moreoften, so your average lap time decreases)

Exactly.

Probably! Looks like the overdrove it, and the setup allowed him to recover quickly and easily, without loss. That would class as good setup for me, but maybe not others!

Not if doing that made everything else worse.