How bad do you want wheel-to-wheel racing?

[Wrex]

Like everyone here, I yearn for F1 to get some real wheel-to-wheel action back, but at what price are you willing to pay?

Tradition v Action : What is the desired ratio? We have seen from the recent changes that some of us like them, some don't. Some of don't care for tradition in F1, some don't want anything changed.

Max recently revealed what he wanted for qualifying in 2003.

Full story available at PlanetF1.com

"If you really want to see overtaking you would probably have to swap the grid round and one of the things we considered quite seriously was - as well as giving points to the first eight in the race - doing the same thing in qualifying," he told ITV-F1.

"But then having done that you would swap the fastest ten drivers round for the race. So the man who was tenth would have no points but he would be first on the grid while the man who had ten points in his pocket, of course, would start tenth and he's got every prospect of coming through the field."

Now this is a little too radical for my blood, and I would die if they introduced it. However, it would make for some great racing. But I'm not interested in artificial racing.

The quote I found most interesting was the final one

Clearly if you spend two days of a race weekend finding out which car is fastest and you put him at the front, that car is likely to drive away in the race. The more professional and reliable things become, the more true that becomes.

A very good point. Some of the best drives we have ever seen have been when a top car cuts through the field (see Rubins in Hochenheim 01 and Silverston 02). Starting the top 10 from P11 would provide some great racing, and certainly slow a dominant car like the F12002 running away with traffic to contend with.

So what do you think. Would you sacrifice F1's traditions to 'manufacture' some great racing, or would you rather keep it how it is letting those brilliant red cars run away with it?

[Bononi]

Tough choice indeed.

Maybe some experimentation to see how it works, first ?

[Red]

Originally posted by Wrex
The more professional and reliable things become, the more true that becomes.

A very good point.

A very good point? This IS THE point. It would be nice to see overtakings but for what price? Heck, I'm not willing to pay a dime. Formula 1 is supposed to be sport meant to find the fastest car and the fastest driver. Not a show.

Actually I have an idea and actually that might even work. Make 2 races every GP weekend. Make a Race, a normal race that counts for the Championship and add another one, some 30-40 laps no refuelling random grid positions (or reversed grid from the real Race).

Sheese. Overtakings.. Overtaking occurs when 2 equal drivers in 2 equal cars cannot occupy the same position on grid. Why should I be thrilled if Schumacher's FErrari overtakes whoever's Minardi because the starting grid was artificially 'manufactured' to increase 'entertainment'?

[Valve Bounce]

I would never like to see overtaking manufactured from artificial conditions. However, if a driver makes a mistake like downshifting badly, misses a gear, or just puts too much throttle down after a corner and gets too much wheelspin, and his opponent behind wants to take this chance to overtake, that is the battle I'd like to see. Then when the guy who messed up wants to fight back for his position, that's what a good wheel to wheel is about. Drivers should know that when they make any mistake in shifting gears, braking, or accelerating, then the guy behind is going to take him on. That's what motor racing should be all about.
Max is going to make any points he can to try to justify his rule changes to date like grooved tyres, black boxes that shift gears, apply Trax and so on that he can only suggest sillier and sillier things like driver swapping, ballast penalties, back to front grids etc. because when these are rejected, he can at least say he tried.

[BootsOntheSide]

They do things like reversing the grid, or part of it, for race 2 in some championships like the ETCC, but maybe it would be too much for F1, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport. Removing the driver aids would add to overtaking, as Valve touches on- no-one can do an enrtire race without missing a gear or underbraking at least once, and that creates the chances. We'd also get much fairer results.

[Sodemo]

But overtaking is an entirely artificial spectacle anyway in most cases, as one car can only overtake another car if one car is superiour in one area (horsepower, grip), or has a mechanical problem, which has made the car less driveable.

If you have 2 cars that are totally equal in terms of grip and power, then its unlikey you will see overtaking unless a driver makes a mistake.

For example; Sennas move on 5 cars at Donnington in 93. Im sorry, but his car was setup fully wet, the rest were a compromise, true he did show guts overtaking 5 cars on the first lap, but in 93, in that era overtaking was more common in general.

[sonic]

Originally posted by The Monster
If you have 2 cars that are totally equal in terms of grip and power, then its unlikey you will see overtaking unless a driver makes a mistake.

really? what about slipstreaming then? I know clever F1 aerodynamics have pretty much negated this phenomenon but in every other class, even with identical equipment, the car behind will be quicker and be able to pass - without a mistake on anyone's part In formula Ford you only used to be able to qualify pole if your team mate would tow you down the fast bits!

its easy, get rid of downforce and give them super grippy tyres - then you've got mega go-karts and mega exciting battles.

[Glen]

Classic slipstreaming is a pretty good example of falsely obtained overtaking, surely? The car behind is the faster car, despite being the slower car. Just because it's been done for decades, doesn't mean that it's not every bit as false as some newly dreamt up measure.

BTW. One minor misunderstanding that often comes up to do with slipstreaming... often you will hear people say the dirty air causes no slipstreaming - whereas the truth is that without dirty air there is no slipstream to get in to. What reduces slipstreaming is the high amount of downforce that the cars rely on for grip. So - what we need for sipstream overtaking is lots of dirty air, but cars which don't rely as much on aerodynamic downforce.

Personally I'm not convinced that it will make all that much difference - a car that is a second a lap quicker will still get far enough in front to avoid towing the car behind. You can't slipstream without getting close enough in the first place.

I'm also unconvinced that manual gear shifts and no TC would provide very much more overtaking - on average you could expect the number of errors to at least be evenly spread between drivers, and the best drivers with the best cars would get an extra advantage from being less stressed in the first place.

I think there is a lot of wisdom in the observation that reliabilty and professionalism make the sport more boring and predictable, and its pretty difficult to figure what to do about that. In days gone by a driver or a team would gain an edge by gettig something right that the opposition hadn't thought of or lacked the resources to do anything about - that can't happen now because even a team like Jordan would make any 1970's outfit look like complete amateurs. Every standard, including driving, is on a completely different level now.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Glen
What reduces slipstreaming is the high amount of downforce that the cars rely on for grip. So - what we need for slipstream overtaking is lots of dirty air, but cars which don't rely as much on aerodynamic downforce.

If you don't mind, Glen, I'll add something here:

You need the dirty air for the slipstream, but you have to be close enough to the lead car in order to get into the stream. Current reliance on aero grip in corners reduces the chance that you'll exit the corner close behind the lead car, because you can't corner as quickly as him and stay close. Therefore, you won't be able to tuck into the slipstream - unless you catch him on the straight, in which case the stream is only partially helpful, as you're already in a faster car.

Originally posted by Glen
I'm also unconvinced that manual gear shifts and no TC would provide very much more overtaking - on average you could expect the number of errors to at least be evenly spread between drivers, and the best drivers with the best cars would get an extra advantage from being less stressed in the first place.

While, over the course of the race, the errors should even out, it's the timing of the errors that would be crucial. Say that in 2001 Monaco, Bernoldi and DC are to make 1 error that would allow someone to overtake them. If Bernoldi makes his error early, DC is back in the hunt. If he doesn't make it until after his pitstop, DC stays behind just as he did. Timing of errors on track would be like timing of pitstops, but without the benefit of planning.

And since the best drivers will make mistakes also, they'll be concentrating even harder to minimize the number and their overall impact. And if there's someone who has a chance of passing the leader, but needs the leader to make a mistake, there's more incentive to pressure the leader if errors are more likely to happen. So I doubt they'll be any less stressed.

[Inigo Montoya]

Tradition versus action? My ratio would be 100% to 0%. I am unwilling to allow Bernie and the boys to artifically manufacture any type of "circus" racing league like we see in CART and NASCAR.

In F1, the fastest car is at the front of the grid because it *earned the right* to be there. One team dominates because *they earned it*.

You can play with the technical regulations all you want, because they will apply to everyone equally, but please don't invent rules that artifically try to provide more passing by punishing those who are fast. THAT would be a farce.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
...please don't invent rules that artifically try to provide more passing by punishing those who are fast. THAT would be a farce.

Like Olympic velodrome races?

[neilap]

I don't want to see artificial racing either. Ferrari is fast because of good decisions and paying off the right people. Toyota will be more than capable of doing that too, when that happens Ferrari will begin to call for rule changes too. I think a salary cap would be good (covered in another post) and as I have said a million times before, not allowing tires to be made for specific cars. If teams could not spend more than a certain amount, how they spend would be more important than how much.

That would bring the cars closer but it would still mean teams have to work hard. BAR has a big budget but still languishes while Sauber has good results with millions less, so a salary cap would not give anyone a distinct advantage.

[Yoong Montoya]

The best solution would be to go back to the 1997 era, but with today's safety measures included. Remember how good that season was? Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Benetton, Prost and Arrows all having at least 1 chance at a win that season? And the racing was very good that year too!

[Yoong Montoya]

Oops, I forgot Jordan!

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by Glen


I'm also unconvinced that manual gear shifts and no TC would provide very much more overtaking - on average you could expect the number of errors to at least be evenly spread between drivers, and the best drivers with the best cars would get an extra advantage from being less stressed in the first place.

OK, let me try. Just think that a car going into a corner will have to downshift on average 4 times, braking at the same time, then corner at the optimum line and speed, and accelerate with as little wheelspin as possible and change back up four times. Of course the clutch must be depressed at exactly the right time, and let out exactly right for each gear change. Now multiply that by the number of corners in any lap, then multiply that by the number of laps per race. Now that alone makes quite a few opportunities for errors and mistakes.
Now we put my old friend Alex Yoong into a Ferrari identical to SchM's and we see how many errors each makes per lap. Now you take SchM out of the Ferrari and put him into the inferior Williams or McLaren, with less handling capability, tyres, power, etc., and by some fluke, Alex hits quals before it rains and poor SchM just manages to qualify in say tenth spot after the rain has drenched the track, so he ends up well behind our friend Alex, and in the "slower car". Will we see overtaking? even when Alex qualifies in the superior car ahead of poor SchM? You betcha.

[Glen]

I see your point, I understand how this would place more emphasis on driving and less on the car. My point is only that this probbly won't be the miracle cure that people are looking for - and also that TC and auto aren't quite the evils that they are made out to be. To me the problem with such features in the cars is as much one of presentation and information - too little effort is made to help us appreciate the skill that is still needed, and it's easy to fall into a way of thinking that leaves little room for respect for the drivers.

None of that takes away from your well-put point, VB, and I agree that a situation might arise where a better driver in a lesser car could make a difference. I am just a little cynical about how often that might happen. Also, I strongly feel that a really good and well balanced car will provoke far fewer mistakes anyway. Add that to the fact that, by and large, the best drivers are already in the best cars and unfortuantely it might result in a hell of a lot of changes for little net result.

To qualify what I mean by a hell of a lot of changes... getting rid of TC would probably mean a spec engine management... and this in turn would mean throwing away virtually all of the esoteric engineering in modern F1 engines. This is because different V angles and other details mean completely different engine management strategies, with unusual firing orders and timings. On the other hand I am in favour of cost and exotica reduction - so ultimately this could be a good thing - the point right now is not to underestimate what a huge change this would be.

Auto shift I couldn't care less about. That really is silly!

[Down F0rce]

if you want wheel to wheel racing, follow this link:

http://209.43.92.200/brickyard/imspr...0915tx2-sm.mov

[neilap]

Originally posted by Down F0rce
if you want wheel to wheel racing, follow this link:

http://209.43.92.200/brickyard/imspr...0915tx2-sm.mov

Now that would be good if there were right turns and breaking points!!

I dont want to see manual shifting back in F1. All that would do slow the cars down. Each driver would be slower so the races would be longer and the passing even less likely. What if the guy making the pass makes a misses a shift? He would then proceed to remove himself and the person he is passing out of the race. I watch CART with the sequential gearboxes and it is so utterly frustrating to see all the time it takes shifting and not steering. Many accidents occur because both the drivers hands are not on the steering wheel.

As for traction control, if they can ensure no one has it then I am for removing it. But if some teams are able to "Ferrari" it undetected into their software I say keep it.

[Speed]

Originally posted by Down F0rce
if you want wheel to wheel racing, follow this link:

They were blocking overtaking paths to 3rd. and 4th.

Only until last lap they went for P1.

Wheel to wheel racing was Dijon '79

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by neilap
Now that would be good if there were right turns and breaking points!!

For you and Speed:

http://www.globalserve.net/~trauttf/Gilles/Dijon79.mpeg

or go here for an 8 meg version:

http://www.farzadsf1gallery.com/dijon79.html

[EERO]

Originally posted by Glen
I see your point, I understand how this would place more emphasis on driving and less on the car. My point is only that this probbly won't be the miracle cure that people are looking for - and also that TC and auto aren't quite the evils that they are made out to be.

The problem is that we are looking for a "Miracle cure", when the reality is that a series of rational changes must be made, each of which will yield a small improvemnet,but when viewed together will realize an improvement in the quality of the racing in F1.


I have been an F1 fan for more 30 years and I have NEVER seen people as disgruntled about the quality of the show as they are now.

I think a real racing fan accepts the dominance of one team and certainly Ferrari's present position is due to the terriffic group of peolpe they have assembled. But I cannot think of a time with the possible exception of 1988, in which one team has so eliminated the possibility of an upset by an underdog as Ferrari have in the last three years.

The current system is flawed and it must be fixed. I agree heartiloy with Bouncey that the best way to start-not the only only, merely the first-is to reduce aerodynamic grip, increase mechanical grip, eliminate automatic shifts, re-install Manual Gearboxes and foot-activated clutches and to eliminate Launch control and traction control.


Once that is done we can introduce other ideas. However, we must not lose sight of the goal to reward ability and not be seduced by ridiculous schemes such as those promoted by Max and Co.

[Down F0rce]

Originally posted by paul-collins
For you and Speed:

http://www.globalserve.net/~trauttf/Gilles/Dijon79.mpeg

thnx for the link, i am about to spend the next few hours watching it! brilliant stuff!

[paul-collins]

Best three laps of racing in television history. Only 1969 Le Mans finish would have compared, but it wasn't captured... IMNSHO.

[Valve Bounce]

paul-collins, I knew sooner or later someone would bring up dijon when I saw the title of this thread. Bless you. Those two guys were nuts.
I think that not only for improving the spectacle but reduction in costs is vital for F1 to survive. I just read the two posts that Armco bender posted in the Arrows thread, and if that is not an incentive for the FIA to act now to try to achieve both, it will be too late. Wrex also brings up the very important point that no factory CEO would like to see their factory team at the rear of the field. We are not talking about just one or two teams folding, apart from the two already gone. What we should fear are more teams leaving the grid because they do not have the funds to keep up, or if they do spend the funds they cannot keep up.

[Jordi]

Those two guys were nuts? Nah. They said they were, but they were just racing as hard as possible. There was nothing else then. Only 2 cars and the asphalt and the dirt, with 2 racers.