How to fix F1?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by wnut

Just assuming technical innovation is happening doesn't mean it is either.

The biggest take away from F1 seems to be to buy the biggest heaviest car you can find for the safety!

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...e-grown-so-big

"The longest car that Mercedes makes isn’t the luxury S-Class saloon or eight-seat V-Class people carrier. It’s Lewis Hamilton’s title-winning W11."


"Increased crumple zones extended the length of cars, and better head protection made them look bulkier. Crash standards continued to rise, requiring larger and more complex crash structures, and the introduction of the wooden plank, underneath cars to this day, increased ride height."

Interesting to read the comments about the size of current F1 cars, comparing this to the length of Mercedes road cars really puts things into perspective.
It's also interesting to see how some of this length increase is due to safety improvements. Purely coincidentally I was editing some old photographs yesterday and these included the 1986 British Grand Prix at Brands Hatch. There was a bad accident at the start of the race right in front of me which resulted in Jacques Lafitte badly breaking both of his legs (and ending his F1 career). One of my pictures of his Ligier being craned away afterwards clearly showed that the front of the monocoque was just broken off in the impact!

[Peter Mallett]

I remember that day, it resulted in the rule change that required the feet to be behind the front axle line.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Casper

Copying is not innovative as it has always been done by every team so I guess we can rule that out. A serious question, when was the last innovation that was not banned? I thought F1 was supposed to be the free thinking, make the damned thing go as fast as you can at any cost series but apparently it has turned into ban everything and stifle all free thinking. They may as well make it a spec series and let's see who actually is the best driver and at the same time dump the constructor's championship. It may be that dumping the constructor's championship could change F1 for the better.

Using the (lack of) rule set you are imagining, the cars would cost a billion pounds and the drivers would all pass out from the G-Forces at turn 1 and be killed.

But I'm sure the innovation would be amazing.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

In recent years Newey has publicly condemned and complained about F1 engineers/designers being corralled and not allowed to think and innovate the way it was done in the past.

I understand Newey's point of view. A man with idea that he can't use.

Originally Posted by Casper

My point about if cars were still being raced without wings and a team thought that they could make a car go faster the FIA would not allow the wings to be fitted has not been commented on but it is an valid illustration of how F1 is restricting free thinking in design.

Maybe. I think there is a level of maturity in the overall sport. It has sort of arrived at a point that for many reasons (commercial being a significant one) that creativity is put in a tight box.

The sport has always has some type of box it had to stay inside of. Even saying we must use four wheels and have a driver in the car is setting limits as to what can be done.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Using the (lack of) rule set you are imagining, the cars would cost a billion pounds and the drivers would all pass out from the G-Forces at turn 1 and be killed.

But I'm sure the innovation would be amazing.

Exactly.

Richard

[S griffin]

At the end of the day, there is only so much a designer can do. Hopefully innovation isn’t quite dead and I think we’ve seen enough to show there is still room for it.

At the end of the day we have reached a point where we have set boundaries. Obviously we don’t want to go over the top to the point where we have cars that can’t race each other

Obviously the old radical thinking we saw back in the day maybe 40 years ago is gone. We’ve got set parameters and it’s up to teams to try and find that limit. No out of the box thinking, but anything in the box goes

I just hope diversity between the cars carries on, as we need F1 to continue being a series with different cars

[Aysedasi]

Can you have two ends in one day?

[Adam43]

Only time will tell.

[Peter Mallett]

Perhaps the solution will dawn on someone.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Perhaps the solution will dawn on someone.

But that's at the beginning of the day, not at the end of the day.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

But that's at the beginning of the day, not at the end of the day.

On those days you burn both ends of the candle?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Perhaps the solution will dawn on someone.

I just found this video of James Hunt commentating on one of the South American GPs in 1982 about how the rule makers had messed up the rules to make the competition closer and the Brabham domination Piquet and Rebaque was making a mockery of the sport.
Oh, how this commentary could be dubbed over any modern GP of the last 7 years with complete accuracy, just substitute names.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPRnpqRRA4

Can't wait for the 2022 regs, ha bloody ha!

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

But that's at the beginning of the day, not at the end of the day.

That'll be a sunset clause.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by wnut

I just found this video of James Hunt commentating on one of the South American GPs in 1982 about how the rule makers had messed up the rules to make the competition closer and the Brabham domination Piquet and Rebaque was making a mockery of the sport.
Oh, how this commentary could be dubbed over any modern GP of the last 7 years with complete accuracy, just substitute names.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPRnpqRRA4

Can't wait for the 2022 regs, ha bloody ha!

I don't remember anyone dominating in the early 80's?

It was one of the most ooen periods in history.

My god if the rubbish we have these days was half as close as it was back then!!!!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Using the (lack of) rule set you are imagining, the cars would cost a billion pounds and the drivers would all pass out from the G-Forces at turn 1 and be killed.

But I'm sure the innovation would be amazing.

That is purely supposition on your part.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chunterer

I don't remember anyone dominating in the early 80's?

It was one of the most ooen periods in history.

My god if the rubbish we have these days was half as close as it was back then!!!!

I don't disagree with you Chunterer, It was just how accurately; way more accurately than at the time they were made; Hunt's commentary could apply to the rubbish we are stuck with at the moment.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Casper

That is purely supposition on your part.

Do you have any sort of evidence to support this?

CART were able to pull enough G-Forces in the 90s to cause drivers lose peripheral vision and become light headed. Races were abandoned because drivers were close to blacking out from the forces. And that was regulated chassis 20 years ago.

And what makes you think that 20 years of progression, with unregulated chassis, and open competitive development will not achieve this? And you think it'll be ok to re-introduce things like aggressive side skirts, despite the massive risk of accidents that the cars will have....at even higher speeds? Or the active aerodynamics that have drivers driving one handed?

I'm sure it'll be fine. Lets do it. The sport was better when we lost 3-4 drivers a year anyway.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Do you have any sort of evidence to support this?

CART were able to pull enough G-Forces in the 90s to cause drivers lose peripheral vision and become light headed. Races were abandoned because drivers were close to blacking out from the forces. And that was regulated chassis 20 years ago.

And what makes you think that 20 years of progression, with unregulated chassis, and open competitive development will not achieve this? And you think it'll be ok to re-introduce things like aggressive side skirts, despite the massive risk of accidents that the cars will have....at even higher speeds? Or the active aerodynamics that have drivers driving one handed?

I'm sure it'll be fine. Lets do it. The sport was better when we lost 3-4 drivers a year anyway.

That was at Texas Motor Speedway in 2001, during qualifying for the Firestone Firehawk 600. Drivers, sustained g-loads as high as 5.5 due to the 24-degree banking. Several drivers complained of being very dizzy and disorientated. As the race couldn't be run safely, it was initially postponed then canceled.

[Akrapovic]

How to fix F1: Ask the construction company that resurfaced Turkey to do a world tour.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

How to fix F1: Ask the construction company that resurfaced Turkey to do a world tour.

Yep. And a spot (or more) of rain on a regular basis wouldn't go amiss either.....

[Armco Bender]

I watched F1 in the 1980's and I can safely say that I can't remember what I had for lunch today..

[chillibowl]

Brundle made a good point about this race/track being a good argument for slashing downforce.

[chillibowl]

was not sure where to put this and didnt want to take the race thread too far off topic.

but the length and weight of these cars...

how much does the length and weight of these cars contribute to the risk level?

no doubt that a stronger stronger safety cell is a benefit but where is the trade off between that and the extra force a heavier car carries into an accident?

does a relatively smaller car do better in situations like this and also the incident at Mugello? does a less long car mean Grosjean finds the gap in front of Kvyat?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

was not sure where to put this and didnt want to take the race thread too far off topic.

but the length and weight of these cars...

how much does the length and weight of these cars contribute to the risk level?

no doubt that a stronger stronger safety cell is a benefit but where is the trade off between that and the extra force a heavier car carries into an accident?

does a relatively smaller car do better in situations like this and also the incident at Mugello? does a less long car mean Grosjean finds the gap in front of Kvyat?

Clearly less mass will result in less energy at time of impact. As to physical dimensions. My memory is that the cars were made more narrow to facilitate passing (not sure I agree that worked and I loved the look of the older wider cars). Even then, the wheelbase is probably little factor in side impacts as that is primarily down to the side impact crush tubes mounted to the sides of the safety cell. As to length, the cars are long, but I think the question is the length of crash structures (nose and part attached to the gearbox). It would be hard to argue to make those shorter than they are. Now, if you can make the rest shorter, that would be fine. But that probably is just the engine/transmission section. Again, it's probably a hard argument to shrink the size of the safety cell.

Overall, I don't see size (too long) or weight (too heavy) being a large factor in the recent Grosjean accident. Of course you could argue the weight/mass of the car was higher than decades past, so it was able to more deeply spear into the armco. Less mass and the armco may have not split as much and that may have had higher g forces on the driver (not good). More weight and maybe it would have punched through and made it easier for him to escape (good)! Or the extra weight could have allowed him to spear on through and create other issues (such as escaping into areas considers "safe" for course workers (bad).

I know people complain about the weight of the cars. I think there is a certain level of extra these cars carry due to pure safety improvements. And a specific amount that is due to complex power units. I am all for simpler power units that could allow the cars to weigh less, but keep all of the safety improvements.

Richard

[Richard C]

I might also mention. I don't think Grosjean's nose crash structure "compressed" as it was expected to do. It looked relatively intact. So the deceleration was from the deformation of the armco and not the crash structure. And the safety cell took some unanticipated damage (in my opinion). Side crush structures seemed to have worked.

Richard

[Sodemo]

I think there are many factors at play here with this crash. One thing I dont recall seeing decades ago, is many of these kind of crashes, so I wonder if its partly a driver behavior issue, or maybe a rear vision issue of not being aware of where your car is relative to another car beside you (poor mirrors?). Certainly the increased weight helped to penetrate the barrier. I think the cars are over 100kg heavier than cars from the 90s (for example).

I do think some drivers (all?) do push the rules of the road and the rules of racing further than drivers did 20-30 years ago. I dont think you would get drivers pushing drivers wide into a gravel trap, or going onto wide grass and flooring it to rejoin as they do these days when its tarmac run off.

I'm no fan of the Halo (and I still am not) but you cant really argue that in this case, it saved Grosjean's life.