World Champion DRIVER

[csirl]

Originally Posted by Tucky

Also, if you look at where teams are set up, yes it is generally in Britain, but that is because the infrastructure has already been set up there for decades. Teams could set up somewhere else, but it would cost more to set a team up from scratch in say Spain, rather than using the resources already available. It doesn't make financial sense.

Yes, this is very true - the closed shop has made it very difficult to set up without purchasing a defunct closed shop outfit or being based in the closed shop's geographic location close to MK/Northampton. But this was not the case 20 years ago when you'd multiple teams, personel, expertise available in France, Germany & Italy. It's a shame that the expert knowledge has been eliminated in these countries. What's more, this is eventually going to kill innovation - you need the competition and interaction between multiple centres of excellence with people from differing background to drive research based innovation.

[Tucky]

Perhaps you could explain how this is Bernie's fault, as I don't understand your argument.
You've said it's his fault for favouring the "British" teams with aerodynamics, but all the teams have extremely talented engineers from different countries. In terms of engines, there isn't a single engine manufacturer from Britain in F1, all the engines are from Italy, Germany, France, and soon Japan.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see the connection

P.S. Sorry for dragging this even more off topic. I'll try and get help with this addiction

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tucky

Perhaps you could explain how this is Bernie's fault, as I don't understand your argument.
You've said it's his fault for favouring the "British" teams with aerodynamics, but all the teams have extremely talented engineers from different countries. In terms of engines, there isn't a single engine manufacturer from Britain in F1, all the engines are from Italy, Germany, France, and soon Japan.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see the connection

P.S. Sorry for dragging this even more off topic. I'll try and get help with this addiction

It goes back to the 90's and what happened regarding a renegotiation of the Concorde agreement.

Some teams opposed it but got stiff armed in the process and Ferrari got the best deal.... its history so that may not be a strong subject... But that's your research subject.

[Tucky]

I'm familiar with the 1997 concorde agreement, and my point is that apart from being governed by the laws of England (which I don't think really influences the team location) I don't see anything that is biased towards British teams.

Originally Posted by csirl

But this was not the case 20 years ago when you'd multiple teams, personel, expertise available in France, Germany & Italy. It's a shame that the expert knowledge has been eliminated in these countries. What's more, this is eventually going to kill innovation - you need the competition and interaction between multiple centres of excellence with people from differing background to drive research based innovation.

If you look at the teams 20 years ago, 10 of the 14 teams were already based in Britain, the four that weren't were split between Italy and France, so it's really not that different to how it is now. There's still plenty of competition, no matter where the teams are based.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tucky

Perhaps you could explain how this is Bernie's fault, as I don't understand your argument.
You've said it's his fault for favouring the "British" teams with aerodynamics, but all the teams have extremely talented engineers from different countries. In terms of engines, there isn't a single engine manufacturer from Britain in F1, all the engines are from Italy, Germany, France, and soon Japan.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see the connection

P.S. Sorry for dragging this even more off topic. I'll try and get help with this addiction

I don't understand "Bernie favouring British teams with aerodynamics". I can't find that anywhere above.
What did happen is that 1998 was the introduction of new rules narrowing cars, the move toward grooved tyres and other things. This was to reduce the cornering speed of the cars(narrow track, grooved tyres and eliminate other forms of bodywork that gave teams a chance to gain down force.

Designers have subsequently found any way they could to increase down force and the most effective way allowed within the rules was to work with the air under the car...
Naturally the FIA tried to do things to keep the designers at bay but the designers keep outwitting the rule makers.
The latest 'ugly cars' phenomenon is simply because the rules were not written precisely enough to get what the FIA was aiming at (lower noses and less under body down force) and the designers had fun with them....

Cornering speed affects lots of things including circuit safety, putting spectators further back, reduces passing opportunities, braking distances, and the importance on under body down force makes the cars very pitch sensitive and affects flowing cars considerably, so you cant follow so closely... it's why Tilke circuits are the way they are, trying to create opportunities to pass has given us circuits that aren't like real road racing but very artificial stop-go circuits with long straights and sharp corners. And if he reconfigures a traditional circuit it spoils it.....

[wnut]

F1 really went to the dogs when they set up the OWG (Overtaking Working Group) to address the problem of overtaking in F1 due to the wake turbulence.

The OWG consisted of aerodynamicists who immediately increased the size of the front wing and their own importance in the sport out of all proportion in the guise of facilitating overtaking.

To me this group was one of the all time best examples of a cynical abuse of power by an interest group in the history of the sport, and the direct cause of our present problems!

[Tucky]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I don't understand "Bernie favouring British teams with aerodynamics". I can't find that anywhere above.

It was from a quote earlier (below)

Originally Posted by csirl

This has all come about because of Bernie's heritage - a British team principal who represented all the British teams (FOCA). The rules have gradually changed over the years to favour what the British teams do best i.e. aero and exploiting loopwholes and away from e.g. engines, which the Italians, French and Germans are good at.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by wnut

To me this group was one of the all time best examples of a cynical abuse of power by an interest group in the history of the sport, and the direct cause of our present problems!

thats a really good point.

out of curiosity would you say that the advent of the band aid solutions (DRS and two DRS zones etc) is a attempt to take power away from the aero boffins or just a way to restore balance?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Tucky

It was from a quote earlier (below)

Thanks Tucky. Now I understand what you meant. I think the suggestion is taking things a lttle to far. Bernie wasn't responsible for the actual rules nor was there any deliberate attempt to move to aero development to help the "British' teams. It was the FIA and its various rules and working groups that led the sport in that direction.

On the subject of driving I notice Jacque V has been talking about F1 no longer being epic... He cites the artificialness of the sport and the way it seems to pander to the modern idea of overtaking every two seconds as being what is important when its not...he suggests a result when only two cars were left and they were 2 laps apart could still be an epic GP...
Because what people want is the drivers to do it, not a switch. If they have to conserve fuel it is fine, but not hitting a switch and letting the computer do it. The driver should have to do it.

I spent some time in the last week watching video of Mansell chasing Prost at Spa in 89 and Hamilton having a run in the '88 MP4 for Top Gear. That was an era when F1 was epic, that was when F1 really was F1. It was great and the cars were great and looked great. 1988 MP4/4 and the 1989 Ferrari 641 were fantastic looking cars.

When people decry the present F1 and hark back 25 years its about a time when F1 was epic as JV said, But its not now, It's about the drivers, not technology. Its like gladiators at the colosseum, or it was, but its not now.

The emphasis has been taken away from the drivers but losing the human battle element is killing the sport. People wont watch a battle between the machines. They would watch a battle between human achievers...

So when people want to go back to cars 20-25 years ago; with wide track, wide tyres, stick shift gearboxes, foot clutches, (heel and toe), less down force (not none), harder tyres, cars that move around a bit, etc its because they remember an epic era and they want it back. Not what we have now, because it doesn't excite them.....

The 1997 world champion and former Indy 500 winner says similar things to what dozens of other people seem to think so why cant Bernie and the FIA get it right....

It is possible to have all the characteristics of the aforementioned characteristics of the cars and still have the new engines and green technology... But will our 'leaders' take the sport there.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

On the subject of driving I notice Jacque V has been talking about F1 no longer being epic... He cites the artificialness of the sport and the way it seems to pander to the modern idea of overtaking every two seconds as being what is important when its not...he suggests a result when only two cars were left and they were 2 laps apart could still be an epic GP...
Because what people want is the drivers to do it, not a switch. If they have to conserve fuel it is fine, but not hitting a switch and letting the computer do it. The driver should have to do it.
It is possible to have all the characteristics of the aforementioned characteristics of the cars and still have the new engines and green technology... But will our 'leaders' take the sport there.

Back to where this thread started!!!
I quite agree with what you say (although I'm not sure I would accept JV as a source) and this is what I was trying to get at in the first place.
F1 has become far too specialised, and apparently robotic, to deserve to award the title WORLD CHAMPION DRIVER. The knowledgeable fans may appreciate the finesse involved in a highly specialised performance, but to most it is a not driving, and the control appears to be more in the hands of the team than the driver.
I would suggest that the reception given to Sebastian Vettel on occasions was more a reflection of "the team rigged it" than any dislike of a skilful and charming champion.
Thus I come back to the point that it is not only the development of the cars, but the submerging of the driver talent in a team structure, and thus the lack of visibility or achievement that is required to excite fans.
I can live with present developments, and in fact I think the technical novelty and relevance of the new power trains is a great step forward.
What I would like to see is the WORLD CHAMPION DRIVER being decided over a range of events including say Indy, Pikes Peak, WEC at Spa or Le Mans, Touring cars in Macau, and please the GT Bathurst 12hr. Together of course with a number of the classic GPs.
Not going to happen because of Bernie's control of the naming rights, but I think that is more of a problem than the suppose manipulation by him to have a closed shop.

[Tucky]

But would the drivers realistically leave their current series to compete in this? I don't think so, IMO the days of a true "drivers champion" ended in the 60's.

[Oldtony]

I doubt if it would ever be a problem to attract drivers to a competition that was rated by FIA as the World Champion.
If drivers were willing to compete in the 50s, 60s and 70s I doubt that they would fail to turn up now.
The problem is the financial, marketing and control structures, not the participants.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

I doubt if it would ever be a problem to attract drivers to a competition that was rated by FIA as the World Champion.
If drivers were willing to compete in the 50s, 60s and 70s I doubt that they would fail to turn up now.
The problem is the financial, marketing and control structures, not the participants.

Yup Oldtony, the biggest problem with most series is getting the TV and media exposure necessary to keep the sponsors and money on board!
F1 is first and foremost a media magnet, and Bernie a media magnate!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 really went to the dogs when they set up the OWG (Overtaking Working Group) to address the problem of overtaking in F1 due to the wake turbulence.

The OWG consisted of aerodynamicists who immediately increased the size of the front wing and their own importance in the sport out of all proportion in the guise of facilitating overtaking.

To me this group was one of the all time best examples of a cynical abuse of power by an interest group in the history of the sport, and the direct cause of our present problems!

That's a very interesting notion!

I remember years of articles in Racecar Engineering saying the problem was dirty air on the front wing and the real solution was to reduce the wings on both ends and do more of the work under the car, and then when the final solution came out, it was bigger front wings. HUH?

Of course that didn't work, so then we got DRS.

But wouldn't the aerodynamicists have equally given themselves job security and control if they went toward more under body downforce generation?

The real solution was massive downforce reduction, and that would certainly reduce their influence, so maybe it's not surprising they didn't go that way.

In any case, I'm about half way through watching 12H Bathurst, and I would say that was better racing than F1 has managed in several decades, and those cars are very low downforce compared to an F1 car.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The real solution was massive downforce reduction, and that would certainly reduce their influence, so maybe it's not surprising they didn't go that way.

In any case, I'm about half way through watching 12H Bathurst, and I would say that was better racing than F1 has managed in several decades, and those cars are very low downforce compared to an F1 car.

F1 had worked out that ground effect made for lousy racing during its first appearance, you have to drive a ground effect car like its on rails. Go sideways lose grip and pick yourself out of the scenery!

While you are looking at V8 supercars, take a look at Aussie Racing cars, essentially a legends category. Currently about the best racing series on the planet and at a fraction of V8 cost.

Good power, no downforce, light weight. Don't like one make but at least they have different body styles ....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNozPmWjVQc

(Note to Pirelli, you can race on these tyres!)

Quite safe too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I95QrCNXfeA

How good could F1 be?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

thats a really good point.

out of curiosity would you say that the advent of the band aid solutions (DRS and two DRS zones etc) is a attempt to take power away from the aero boffins or just a way to restore balance?

No Chillibowl, I don't think that DRS takes the power away from the aero boffins, it simply offsets the advantage conferred on the leader by the wake turbulence behind the car.
Get rid of the aero, and drafting would come back, and this gives the advantage to the overtaking car, much like DRS.

[Adam43]

Back to the original point.
It is a real shame F1 drivers aren't racing in other categories too. The reasons why are mentioned above.
There are drivers in other series that aren't racing in other categories either. Some do. A lot of these drivers aren't good enough to race in F1.

It's a shame, but it's the world's problem not F1's.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 had worked out that ground effect made for lousy racing during its first appearance, you have to drive a ground effect car like its on rails. Go sideways lose grip and pick yourself out of the scenery!

While you are looking at V8 supercars, take a look at Aussie Racing cars, essentially a legends category. Currently about the best racing series on the planet and at a fraction of V8 cost.

Good power, no downforce, light weight. Don't like one make but at least they have different body styles ....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNozPmWjVQc

(Note to Pirelli, you can race on these tyres!)

Quite safe too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I95QrCNXfeA

How good could F1 be?

Not V8 Supercars.
1 Ferrari F458
2 & 3 Mercedes SLS
4 McLaren MP4
5 Audi R8

After almost 12 hours of hammer & tong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azQQb-Ohdbo

One of the drivers of the winning Ferrari was Mika Salo.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Not V8 Supercars.
1 Ferrari F458
2 & 3 Mercedes SLS
4 McLaren MP4
5 Audi R8

After almost 12 hours of hammer & tong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azQQb-Ohdbo

One of the drivers of the winning Ferrari was Mika Salo.

Sorry just kind of assumed it was V8s; should have known better; reading skills.

Looks like it was a good race!
Nice to see the V8s releasing drivers to race other categories.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 had worked out that ground effect made for lousy racing during its first appearance, you have to drive a ground effect car like its on rails. Go sideways lose grip and pick yourself out of the scenery!

I don't remember ground effect being that bad. I thought there was some good racing back then.

After F1 banned it, it was still used to good effect in CART/IndyCar in the '80s and '90s etc. and despite IndyCar's woes today, the DW12 is ground effect and has produced some great racing, compared to F1.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't remember ground effect being that bad. I thought there was some good racing back then.

After F1 banned it, it was still used to good effect in CART/IndyCar in the '80s and '90s etc. and despite IndyCar's woes today, the DW12 is ground effect and has produced some great racing, compared to F1.

Depends on what we are meaning by talking about ground effect.
In the late 70's to early 80's, over a 4 year span we had the tunnels.
Ground affect began with the Lotus 77, then 78, 79, 80-81. Gordon Murray penned the Brabham BT 48 and 49 and Williams had the FW07-08 until the FIA decided it was all too dangerous because cornering speed was so high and banned it. 1983 it was back to skirt limits and the big teams headed for turbo engines by BMW, TAG-Porsche, Renault. Ferrari were already heading that way in 1981-2 and that started another trend that lasted until 1989 when turbo's went and we were watching atmospheric V10's.....

'Modern' ground effect is the practice of running the car as low as possible and using the air passing around the sides and under the car to generate down force, something that has been very effective in learning how to manipulate the air but has made overtaking more difficult (short braking distances because of higher cornering speeds, and close racing is much more difficult because the cars are so sensitive to pitch and disturbance... they only work well in clean air) The second wave of aero was a follow on to the attempt to slow the cars with narrower track and grooved tyres that began in 1998...

Indy car has ferocious down force tunnels in the early 80's but instead of trying to totally ban it they limited some convolutions and CART managed the tunnel phenomenon more carefully right through the 90's.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Depends on what we are meaning by talking about ground effect.
In the late 70's to early 80's, over a 4 year span we had the tunnels.
Ground affect began with the Lotus 77, then 78, 79, 80-81. Gordon Murray penned the Brabham BT 48 and 49 and Williams had the FW07-08 until the FIA decided it was all too dangerous because cornering speed was so high and banned it. 1983 it was back to skirt limits and the big teams headed for turbo engines by BMW, TAG-Porsche, Renault. Ferrari were already heading that way in 1981-2 and that started another trend that lasted until 1989 when turbo's went and we were watching atmospheric V10's.....

'Modern' ground effect is the practice of running the car as low as possible and using the air passing around the sides and under the car to generate down force, something that has been very effective in learning how to manipulate the air but has made overtaking more difficult (short braking distances because of higher cornering speeds, and close racing is much more difficult because the cars are so sensitive to pitch and disturbance... they only work well in clean air) The second wave of aero was a follow on to the attempt to slow the cars with narrower track and grooved tyres that began in 1998...

Indy car has ferocious down force tunnels in the early 80's but instead of trying to totally ban it they limited some convolutions and CART managed the tunnel phenomenon more carefully right through the 90's.

I'm very familiar with ground effect and it's evolution, from the Lotus 78 (the Lotus 77 wasn't ground effect), big venturi tunnels with sliding skirts, to the initial banning of ground effect in '81 by the FIA, which led to fixed skirts, ride height controls and stiff suspension in '81 and '82 and to it's eventual banning in F1 for the '83 season and to the use of multiple venturi tunnels during the CART era and now the DW12. Don't forget the Ligier JS11 in that list.

As for turbo engine's, in '82 the Brabham BT50 had an in-line 4, BMW turbo engine and the Renault RE30B had the Renault-Gordini V6 turbo engine, which Renault had been pioneering and using since 1977. All interesting stuff and it made for such variety.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm very familiar with ground effect and it's evolution, from the Lotus 78 (the Lotus 77 wasn't ground effect), big venturi tunnels with sliding skirts, to the initial banning of ground effect in '81 by the FIA, which led to fixed skirts, ride height controls and stiff suspension in '81 and '82 and to it's eventual banning in F1 for the '83 season and to the use of multiple venturi tunnels during the CART era and now the DW12. Don't forget the Ligier JS11 in that list.

As for turbo engine's, in '82 the Brabham BT50 had an in-line 4, BMW turbo engine and the Renault RE30B had the Renault-Gordini V6 turbo engine, which Renault had been pioneering and using since 1977. All interesting stuff and it made for such variety.

In answer to your question above BJ, I think the racing in the ground effect was more a result of the variety of the cars on offer and the fragility of the ground effect components and the unreliable results they caused.
Teratinga is right that the braking distances got smaller and the speed differential between the straights and the corners smaller, o there was less opportunity to overtake.

Once a car got off line and the airflow under the car became disturbed control was lost, not like a conventional car that slows as soon as it goes sideways.

Gordon Smiley's accident, was I believe directly attributed to the car losing ground effect.

This Depallier accident at Zolder in 1979 is typical of a driver just driving off the circuit when the skirts failed! No skirts no grip!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIvkD5WWMdU

Do you remember the Indycar drivers suffering from tunnel vision and blackouts due to the g forces they were pulling in the early 80s?
Blurred vision and crushed discs from the rock hard suspensions?

I think Indycar reduced ground effects in 84? The new racer is really ground effect light, and it is one make so nobody can get stupid?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm very familiar with ground effect and it's evolution, from the Lotus 78 (the Lotus 77 wasn't ground effect), .

The Lotus 77 didn't have tunnels but was the beginning of Colin Chapman's genesis to the 78. They experimented with skirts around the side pods and diffusers to get the air out from under the car and clean up flow under the rear wing.
No tunnels but they were experimenting with air flow and 'passive suction'.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The Lotus 77 didn't have tunnels but was the beginning of Colin Chapman's genesis to the 78. They experimented with skirts around the side pods and diffusers to get the air out from under the car and clean up flow under the rear wing.
No tunnels but they were experimenting with air flow and 'passive suction'.

The first use of skirts that I ever saw, was testing the Lotus Type 78 in early 1977.
It was running brushes that touched the track to try and stop air getting under the car.