How to fix F1?

[Adam43]

I thought the wood for the trees was that they don’t realise that the awful car design played a larger part in that situation.

[bjohnsonsmith]

A combination of both.

[S griffin]

Yeah, they couldn’t be bothered to try and reduce downforce further, so they went the lazy way and bought in DRS, which is basically the same as a putting a sticky plaster on a gaping wound

Although I too wasn’t exactly thrilled with the location they held for the season finale that day, with a circuit and venue that makes the Caesars Palace Car Park look like one of the best ideas ever

[Peter Mallett]

I spotted a tweet from Karun Chandok which if to scale demonstrates the size difference between 60s, 90s and current F1 cars. These things are enormous! No wonder you can't pass or get close without assistance.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I spotted a tweet from Karun Chandok which if to scale demonstrates the size difference between 60s, 90s and current F1 cars. These things are enormous! No wonder you can't pass or get close without assistance.

I heard them talking about that during practice.

In terms of width there was a movement that demanded we went back to 2m wide cars. Max made them narrower and we all complained. Eventually they went bigger again.

I believe that The width rule was introduced in 1976. Basically set to the widest car on the grid. McLaren were caught out later in the year and was one of the disqualification wrangles during the year. I think that was probably the widest the cars have ever been (?).

The length in Karun’s post, if correct is mad, if real. Even if slightly exaggerated there is something in it. Such a shame too as the packaging of the rear is unbelievable now. See of tight it is. I believe one of the reasons for this is for the aero. A longer car allows the aero to be worked better, with less steep changes that cause stalling and inefficiencies.

[Adam43]

A slightly esoteric article, or perhaps just off topic, but are all F1 fans French? I liked the it’s just what they do, the thought that it appear intellectual and that it may be healthy.

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/2020...www.bbc.com%2F

(I’m not being too serious with this, just thought it was a fun article that has a certain je ne sais quoi, but I did think of F1 while reading it!)

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I spotted a tweet from Karun Chandok which if to scale demonstrates the size difference between 60s, 90s and current F1 cars. These things are enormous! No wonder you can't pass or get close without assistance.

First time I saw a modern F1 car was Goodwood last year. I was just staggered by the scale of them now. They look simultaneously amazing and stupid.

Obviously some of that size is safety measures, but the pre-2017 cars were fairly dinky with much of the same stuff on them.

[Peter Mallett]

I know I'll be accused of being old fashioned but I do really miss the cars from the late 70s to early 90s. These so called floors, which are really balconies (no ceiling above them) are ridiculous. Put that together with the need to package all that hardware and it all just makes my eyes bleed. Oh for simpler times when the racing was the reason for entering.

[Knowlesy]

I don't think many would disagree those cars were the absolute peak.

I like them better as scale models too as less parts fall off them.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I know I'll be accused of being old fashioned but I do really miss the cars from the late 70s to early 90s. These so called floors, which are really balconies (no ceiling above them) are ridiculous. Put that together with the need to package all that hardware and it all just makes my eyes bleed. Oh for simpler times when the racing was the reason for entering.

Time for a maximum length rule? I don't believe there is one - and they must be that length because it is better.

There is plenty of space to put all the stuff - just sacrifice the super slender coke bottle shape at the rear.

I agree they were great cars.

[Casper]

I think the best thing they could do to limit the size is a dimension to the front wing from the front axle centre line and stop the huge cantilever effect the teams are using to apply down force to the front axle. Get the front wing back close to the front axle and it will kill two birds with one stone. They will then be forced to reduce the rear DF to balance the car taking away the DF for the entire vehicle.

[hondafan37]

10 seconds stop and go penalty for Lewis Hamilton for all races and the Formula One is the paradise like today!!!!!!

[seanyb505]

Was discussing the race with a coworker today and we both agreed a poor showing from Bottas/Bottas's car and a Hamilton penalty make a race interesting, but it's not really any indication of a direction that would increase the quality of F1 races.

Reverse grid races isn't really it either. Did Gasly really drive a 25pt race? Was the Alpha Tauri strategy really on point simply by guessing there would be an eventual car stranded in front of pit lane, no pitting under yellow, and then a red flag?

The path to improvement I feel does bring teams closer together on track and closes the gaps in development. I'll leave closing the development gap up to people much smarter than I. But for the on track aspect, what if we use the reverse grid idea, but only for qualifying where no points are on offer? Basically qualifying becomes a 50% distance race using the reverse of the grid from the previous race? Qualifying race sets the grid for the actual race.

I think the ultimate results wouldn't change, but it would give us the shake up we clearly enjoy on a routine basis. Or is that what everyone already means when they say reverse grid race? I haven't read all 103 pages of this thread.

[Armco Bender]

Don't worry next race will be a Mercedes shut out and we can all get back to normal whinging and whining about how bad F1 is....

[Aysedasi]

Thank goodness........

[Taxi645]

I understand the FIA desire to reduce downforce levels and improve following other cars each year a bit, but I suspect that a side effect of the way it was implemented the past 2 years has strongly increased the complexity/difficulty for Red Bull to match the Mercedes downforce levels from it's aero approach and to do it in a predictable and efficient manner.


I hope next years downgrade in downforce doesn't increase this side effect else we'll have another boring year at the front.

[chillibowl]

as an aside to the reverse grids idea...

after the restart the top 5 runners stayed the same i believe (with the exception of Kimi who was massively out of place and went backwards). so other than Kimi, and with Bottas (presumably in the 2nd fastest car even though its not set up to follow) there was no overtaking at the sharp end for the final stint of the race.

i found this unusual as there is often a lot of passing, particularity in the dying moments of GP among the midfield runners this year. one would have expected Mclaren to be able to easily pass an AT or RP as we have seen them do it this year already. Norris has cleaned Strolls clock a few times already in the waning stages of races this year.

on the opposite end of the spectrum was Hamilton at the back and with a 1.5-2sec a lap advantage over those in front of him (he someone managed to make up an 8sec interval on Ocon in one lap i think i read on the timing screen) was moving like a freight train. in 20odd laps he covered half the grid...imagine what he could do if he had all 50 laps to make it up with?

so LH made a great case for reverse grids specifically with him and his mercedes starting last.

on the other hand...

im not sure what we can glean here, other than the obvious 'you need a major speed advantage to over take', but more subtly for the midfield cars (with less of a speed advantage over each other) can only overtake when one of those midfield cars is caught up in traffic and slowed down by said traffic.

on their own, on natural pace and in cleaner air the Mclaren still lacked the pace advantage to effect a pass. add to that everyone had on fresh rubber so one less performance differentiator in play.

if i am drawing the correct conclusions from those 20odd laps, then what happens when/if the budget caps deliver on the promise of greater equality between the teams and there are no more fast teams but rather just a bunch of teams with equal performance levels?

is it possible that if these large speed differences are eroded, then we will actually see less passing/overtakes across the entire field?

i know some are going to hate this, but DRS may become even more important in the future.

[gert]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

after the restart the top 5 runners stayed the same i believe (with the exception of Kimi who was massively out of place and went backwards). so other than Kimi, and with Bottas (presumably in the 2nd fastest car even though its not set up to follow) there was no overtaking at the sharp end for the final stint of the race.

Sainz restarted 6th and had to overtake Raikkonen and Stroll to get to 2nd. (Not Giovinazzi and Hamilton as they had to take a drive-through).
Gasly got off the line better than Stroll so he didn't have to overtake anyone.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

one would have expected Mclaren to be able to easily pass an AT or RP as we have seen them do it this year already. Norris has cleaned Strolls clock a few times already in the waning stages of races this year.

I think Sainz would have overtaken Gasly eventually but he ran out of time. By the time he got by Raikkonenen and Stroll he was more than 4 seconds behind.
He was consistently faster than Gasly, but not massively faster.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

on the opposite end of the spectrum was Hamilton at the back and with a 1.5-2sec a lap advantage over those in front of him (he someone managed to make up an 8sec interval on Ocon in one lap i think i read on the timing screen) was moving like a freight train. in 20odd laps he covered half the grid...imagine what he could do if he had all 50 laps to make it up with?

I had the feeling not everybody was putting upa big fight against Hamilton, notably the Williams guys were pretty easy on him IMO.
Maybe it was a fight they thought (or were advised) wasn't worth fighting?
Sometimes drivers get told not to lose tim fighting wit a faster car.

Grosjean on the other hand didn't seem to make it easy for Hamilton.
Maybe he enjoyed keeping him behind as long as he could and felt it wouldn't make any difference if he let him by or not?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by gert

Sainz restarted 6th and had to overtake Raikkonen and Stroll to get to 2nd. (Not Giovinazzi and Hamilton as they had to take a drive-through).
Gasly got off the line better than Stroll so he didn't have to overtake anyone.

thats right Sainz had a bit more work to do..my bad.

hopefully that doesnt destabilize the point i was trying to make.

Originally Posted by gert

He was consistently faster than Gasly, but not massively faster.

that was sort of the point i was trying to make.

for me there is a performance gap between the Mclarens and the ATs which is in and of itself still not enough of a gap to effect an overtake...i guess in under 25 laps that is.

i cant recall but he was in DRS for the last couple of laps?

[Richard C]

Great post, but I wanted to focus on one thing

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so LH made a great case for reverse grids specifically with him and his mercedes starting last.

Lewis was a freight train on his charge through the back of the field. But it was somewhat variable as to who he passed easily vs. hard. For example (from memory) I think he had a harder time passing Albon than some others that were further up the grid. In the end, I don't think he would have fought his way to the front. Issues being impact on longevity of the engine, not to mention tire wear. He would have run into a wall at some point before P1 and had to pit for tires. And the races don't last forever. He did run out of laps.

Put in place refueling and no mechanical breakdowns and infinite laps, I am generally confident that eventually Lewis would get into P1 and probably doing so in fewer laps than any other driver put into that position. Sure a lot of it being the car, but as much if not more him.

I also feel (and I think you make this point) that it was also hard for many of the other drivers to pass those in front of them. Lewis somewhat made it look easy as he is extraordinary. A field full of "good" but not "great" drivers would probably be boring even with a reverse grid because the performance is (relatively) on par and for whatever reason (insert various arguments here) hard to pass.

In the end, I would be very curious to see another reverse grid experiment, but over an entire race distance. I don't think this one example is enough to say what would happen.

Richard

[gert]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

thats right Sainz had a bit more work to do..my bad.
hopefully that doesnt destabilize the point i was trying to make.

No it doesn't.
It was just not statistically right

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i cant recall but he was in DRS for the last couple of laps?

Only on the last lap.

He spent a lot of laps to bring the gap back from 4+ seconds to 1.5 and then got stuck in dirty air.
At a few tenths a lap it takes a while to close a gap.

He had to use overtake setting or hybrid harvested power or something like that to get within DRS range but then couldn't use that anymore to try to make a pass.
He basically just had one chance at an overtake.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

In the end, I would be very curious to see another reverse grid experiment, but over an entire race distance. I don't think this one example is enough to say what would happen.

i would as well and it should it be on a high speed low downforce track right?

somebody needs to make a reverse grids call for this Bahrain variant.

Originally Posted by gert

He spent a lot of laps to bring the gap back from 4+ seconds to 1.5 and then got stuck in dirty air.

he did spend a lot of laps there and the dirty air probably affected his tires, but again at this track, high speed low downforce, is the dirty air problem as much of a problem here as it is at other venues?

or apparently maybe it is.

obviously i am just speculating and these cars are just so damn dynamic in so many ways in which i will never understand.

[VIVA GT]

One of the arguments I remember being used in favour of reverse grid race was that the normally front running manufacturers would have to design their cars so that they were capable of running in close proximity of others in order to make their overtakes through the field. This should then have the beneficial effect of closing up the pack and would create closer racing all through the field.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

One of the arguments I remember being used in favour of reverse grid race was that the normally front running manufacturers would have to design their cars so that they were capable of running in close proximity of others in order to make their overtakes through the field. This should then have the beneficial effect of closing up the pack and would create closer racing all through the field.

Yes the Merc has certainly been far less effective when running behind other cars on similar tyres/fuel loads.

I read a quote from Marko or Prost earlier suggesting Merc should be handicapped permanently!

[S griffin]

I think Monza showed, despite what was quite an upset, that reverse grids aren’t really going to solve the problem. In fact Alonso being stuck behind Petrov in Abu Dhabi pretty much confirmed that for me. It’s the aero that’s the problem

Yes Monza was a nice break from the norm, but that’s the thing. Races like these when a freak occurrence turns things upside down are fun because they don’t happen all the time. If they happened all the time, they would lose that novelty factor. Of course if the field was closer front to back, that would be different