Quality of racing.

[StephenRae]

I have a theory that the quality of racing in single seaters deteriorates as the costs go up. 750 mc, Formula Vee and FF1600 are all very competiive, then when the serious money comes in the racing becomes more processional until we reach the zenith of our sport F1, where there is virtually no overtaking.

[Stephen Green]

Interesting thought. Could it be that the higher you get the less your personal money is involved?

Just an observation you understand

[Ian Sowman]

This applies to motor racing as a whole, not just single-seaters.

Interestingly, the opposite seems to be true in bikes.

[diz]

Originally posted by StephenRae
I have a theory that the quality of racing in single seaters deteriorates as the costs go up. 750 mc, Formula Vee and FF1600 are all very competiive, then when the serious money comes in the racing becomes more processional until we reach the zenith of our sport F1, where there is virtually no overtaking.

I agree Stephen, but I live under the belief that FF1600 is the zenith of our sport and 'above' that [if above is the right word, but I doubt it] it becomes business. Sad, but true.

[StephenRae]

[quote]This applies to motor racing as a whole, not just single-seaters.

Interestingly, the opposite seems to be true in bikes

I hadn't thought about the bike analogy... I wonder if wings are to blame, varying levels of downforce will space the cars out and if everyone has got it right the need for'clean air' has the same effect

[Ian Sowman]

Yeah, the less aerodynamic a car is the better racing it will produce. See Caterhams, Minis.

As for bikes, I think the explanation is the greater spread of abilities and types of machine at club level.

[Dave Brand]

Originally posted by Ian Sowman
Interestingly, the opposite seems to be true in bikes.

I have to disagree with you on that! Bike racing is fiercely competitive at all levels, from the lowliest club racing up to GP.

As for bikes, I think the explanation is the greater spread of abilities and types of machine at club level.

Are you possibly guilty of making a judgement on a small, not representative, sample? The spread of machine types in a typical club race is usually small; true, it is not uncommon for more than one class of bike to compete in the same race, no different to many car club races. The spread of ability in any club bike race is no different to that in many car club races. Watch a club SS600 race, a SS400 race, a Superteen race, etc., etc......I don't think you'll have any complaints about the quality of racing!

[Ian Sowman]

Quite possibly I have fallen into that trap Dave, but I have been to other bike events (apart from PPT) and had similar experiences. It's probably just a personal thing, but I seem to find car races more entertaining in general - possibly in some cases because passing is more difficult!

[StephenRae]

I think a lot can be learned from the bike organisers and rule makers. They seem to cram in numerous races,and in my limited experience there are very few gaps between them.
I anticipate the arguement that broken cars take longer to move than bikes...but why?
I seem to have "lost the thread"

[Russfeld]

I think its because as the cars change, the tracks dont, so they end up too fast for the circuits they're on. Snetterton is great for Formula Fords. Could you imagine an F1 race around there?

[Ian Sowman]

Don't forget also that bike races are very short, only six laps of Mallory say, which is nothing. There was a good BRSCC meeting earlier this year: six qualifying sessions and 12 races. Worked very well...

[Russfeld]

Well with cars half the battle is just being in front. By physically occupying the road you can hold off a guy for a while. With bikes there's a lot more variation and the guy can go by pretty much as he pleases, or at least tries.

[Dave Brand]

Originally posted by StephenRae
I think a lot can be learned from the bike organisers and rule makers. They seem to cram in numerous races,and in my limited experience there are very few gaps between them.
I anticipate the arguement that broken cars take longer to move than bikes...but why?

The argument that broken cars take longer to move than bikes is a valid one. If a bike ends up in a gravel trap it can easily be dragged out - in extreme cases, cars have to be winched out by a recovery vehicle. No matter how badly damaged a bike may be, it can just be lifted into a van, & a transit-size van can carry two or three bikes, so any recovery is just a couple of minutes' work. Because there's a lot less weight in a bike, it's much less likely that a bike hitting a tyre wall will cause enough damage to necessitate a rebuild.

As Ian has said, bike races do tend to be shorter than cars, which helps fit more races in. Practice sessions are also shorter & often combine two or more classes which, again, saves time. It's also my experience that bike race organisers are much better at keeping things moving than their car counterparts.

I seem to have "lost the thread"

Getting back to the thread subject, I agree! Maybe wings are to blame - but then I 've always believed that racing cars should have more grunt than grip!

[StephenRae]

Dave,you make some good points. Damage to the armco etc.can cause delays,but is fortunately rare. For the rest of the time if the stranded vehicle was picked up and removed it should take no longer than putting a bike in the back of a van.

Regretably I speak from considerable experience, having been dragged out of many of the gravel traps in the country.The proceedure is always the same. The breakdown is quickly on hand but there then follows a discussion with race control,then one with the driver,then another with race control then a lesson in towing etiquet and eventually some action. This is not a critiscism of the breakdown folk who definitely have the drivers' interest at heart, but of the lack of urgency that permeates throughout club racing.

I remember spectating at the festival when two cars had gone off at Paddock, one was able to drive away, this left SIX breakdown trucks. Someone asked why SIX for one car, and the answer came "cos' they've only got SIX"

[Stephen Green]

Good old D+G Recovery

Of course the big difference between cars and bikes comes when there is suspension damage. As Dave rightly says, if it happens to a bike, the bike can quite easily be lifted clear, whilst the car takes considerably more work which often leads to the delays you mentioned earlier.

[John Clucas]

Originally posted by Russfeld
I think its because as the cars change, the tracks dont, so they end up too fast for the circuits they're on. Snetterton is great for Formula Fords. Could you imagine an F1 race around there?

The main "problem" is grip. High grip means short braking distances (both because of high cornering speeds and high deceleration) - and hence fewer overtaking opportunities. Add aerodynamics which interfere with the car behind and, with top class drivers, overtaking becomes difficult or impossible.

Bikes are little affected by aerodynamics and can't use their slick tyres to best effect in braking (their wheelbase is too short). Couple that with much less width and it is inevitable that better racing will result.

The solution for cars - ban slick tyres and downforce (effectively) and make cars much narrower.

And pigs will fly.... But I do sympathise with the FF1600/Caterham supporters.

[Bob Pearson]

MIRRORS, we should all race without mirrors, blocking would be a thong of the past and consequently a lot more overtaking. It may be a bit messy while we are getting the hang of it.

[kickstart]

Bob Pearson, I am not the fastest racer out there but I pride myself on driving fairly and looking in my mirrors for faster/lapping cars, without mirrors it would be a nightmare as once a blue flag had been waved you would have no idea when and on what side someone was going to overtake.

[StephenRae]

Bob...not a bad point about mirrors, if I've got someone hustling me for position I make a conscious decision not to look in my mirrors, stick to the preferred line and leave it to him to either pass me or not. It's usually easier if the driver you are lapping doesn't try to help.

[ss_collins]

I think the higher cost the more serious its taken, 750mc members compete for fun.. and nowt more - this will induce fierce battling - cos its fun trying to beat your mates...

[Bob Pearson]

I don't seriously believe the "no mirrors" policy is a starter. It's always in the back of my mind that we all raced without mirrors when I used to race sidecars ( not sure if that is still the case)and, strange as it may seem collisions were far rarer than they are in cars. I think that when we overtook or lapped another sidecar we all new that unless we were alongside he couldn't see us and drove accordingly. I think we as car racers have all sunk into the belief that the guy has seen us in his mirrors and so all will be well.

[blossy]

in the words of john mc enroe Bob "you cannot be serious"
remember oulton park last year we would still be picking pieces of each others car out of the scenery if i hadnt been using my mirrors.......

[Bob Pearson]

Martin, that particular incident fits nicely into my last sentance of my previous posting. Of course it would never work, nothing ever goes backwards successfully. I just wonder how we all managed to make it work in my sidecar days.

[blossy]

i should think you were too busy hanging on for dear life rather than looking behind you Bob. I am just thinking about some of the other guys we race with and wondering if there is a case for bigger mirrors

[jackaroo]

"the highter you get the more personal money you need"