How to fix F1?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by chunterer

It's funny, I watched the '79 British GP recently and I'm not sure i've seen a performance that dominant by a team. '92 Mansell/Fw14b would be the only other one.

The racing behind was furious though and up until Silverstone there had been multiple winners. The cars could follow each other in corners much easier than today though which is what we need.
On the other hand reliability was poor compared to now.

Others have said it many a time but rose tintedness always creeps into these discussions when we say it was much better in the old days.

What is clear from the previous eras is there will always be technical ingenuity, but aero performance is the main area needing addressing.

IIRC Jones retired and Clay Regazzoni went on to win so not that dominant really. It was Williams' first win too. Also i believe the Arrows ran with no front wing.

[Sodemo]

If you watch footage from the early 90s, cars can follow closer there than they can now.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It's true cars could follow closer, that was helped by the ground effect at the time, even if it did get a bit dangerous in the end. And as for the unreliability at the time, that helped make things less predictable. Prost once said you had to expect at least a couple of DNFs a season.

IF those factors (following closely and unreliability) are the requirements to make F1 more enjoyable, then the solutions may also be relatively simple.

Before answering though - do cars that follow each other closely make a better spectacle? Or is it cars that can overtake?

Taking the assumption that following closely is important, then the easiest solution to this would be to allow more ground effect.
Taking the assumption that unreliability is important, then the cars have to conform to designs that are sub optimal. This is harder to achieve, and any effort from the organisers to make teams run at the edge of performance only results in the teams taking a conservative race strategy.

Looking at tyres for example, the aspiration in the tyre concept at the moment is that teams will opt for the fastest compound and then see their performance plummet at the end of the tyre life. Teams avoid this though, and we end up with a situation like in France where a driver is preserving his tyres rather than pushing them hard.

Engineering standards and understanding have moved on so far in F1 from the days of engines unexpectedly going bang, that they usually back off before a failure happens. Hamilton may have only had one DNF in two years, but I also expect he has only driven his car at its maximum performance for about 15% of the race distance covered in that period too.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

And as for the unreliability at the time, that helped make things less predictable.

Unreliability can come from things being sub standard. Mercedes appear to have eliminated that from their products - which poses the question, do we want a sub standard product?

Originally Posted by S griffin

there's something not right about deliberately building a sub standard product. Not exactly the pinnacle of technology is it?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

IIRC Jones retired and Clay Regazzoni went on to win so not that dominant really. It was Williams' first win too. Also i believe the Arrows ran with no front wing.

The first Grand Prix I visited and I think this is why I've been a big fan of Williams ever since (and so sad to see where they are now). I seem to remember that all of the mechanics Snap On tool boxes (which were only available red in those days) were painted British Racing Green!

[gert]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

which poses the question, do we want a sub standard product?

There is a least one, the black things Pirelli brings to every race.

[Akrapovic]

It's ok, they bring sub-standard ones to Blancpain too.

[S griffin]

It’s the fact Pirelli deliberately make it bad that is the problem. If they were in competition then it would be a lot more unpredictable without trying to manipulate it

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by gert

There is a least one, the black things Pirelli brings to every race.

And Pirelli are regularly criticised for it, yet they are designed in an attempt to give unpredictability. The teams are just too good at understanding them.

Originally Posted by S griffin

It’s the fact Pirelli deliberately make it bad that is the problem. If they were in competition then it would be a lot more unpredictable without trying to manipulate it

Mercedes are in competition - but their results are fairly predictable. Should Mercedes deliberately build a bad car to give unpredictable results?

The competition between tyre manufacturers did not lead to much unpredictability in the early 2000's.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

.




Mercedes are in competition - but their results are fairly predictable. Should Mercedes deliberately build a bad car to give unpredictable results?



The competition between tyre manufacturers did not lead to much unpredictability in the early 2000's.

You are missing the point. The fact that Pirelli are the sole supplier means that they have been asked to produce less than perfect tyres instead of building the best they can. You are not comparing like from like with Mercedes because they are in competition so they have to produce the best car, this is not a one make championship

And to say tyre wars don’t lead to unpredictability, you only need to look at 1997 to show it can

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

You are missing the point. The fact that Pirelli are the sole supplier means that they have been asked to produce less than perfect tyres instead of building the best they can. You are not comparing like from like with Mercedes because they are in competition so they have to produce the best car, this is not a one make championship

And to say tyre wars don’t lead to unpredictability, you only need to look at 1997 to show it can

I don't feel I am missing the point. Pirelli are making a sub standard product because it is felt that this will lead to better racing.
The same desire for a sub standard product has been made on many occasions in this thread when people want a return to unreliability, and elements of F1 manufacturing that fail more often.

What about the introduction of a second tyre manufacturer in 1997 led to unpredictability?

[Adam43]

I guess he's referring to Damon's drive at Hungary and other occasional top qualifying positions.

[Adam43]

Here's an article on the demand for unpredictability (and other things).
https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature...fans-asked-for

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I guess he's referring to Damon's drive at Hungary and other occasional top qualifying positions.

Looking at the 1997 Hungarian GP - is there really any evidence that competition between tyre makers contributed in any way to making that result unpredictable?

The Wikipedia article on the event essentially reads like the event was a memorable occasion because of sub standard build.

'[Hill had] a bad year in the back runner Arrows-Yamaha
[…]just a single flying lap, after sitting for 55 minutes in the garage while his mechanics tore the gearbox off the car, looking for an electronic sensor problem.
[…]
with three laps left, the hydraulic pump failed on Hill's car, causing it to become stuck in third gear and have an intermittent throttle.
[…]
throttle linkage failure, caused by a broken washer worth 50 pence.'

[Akrapovic]

Whilst I don't agree with how the point is being put accross, I do believe multiple tyre manufacturers add another variable, which is how you get unpredictability.

2003 was a good example. Schumacher won and Ferrari had the best car, but often didn't win because of the tyre situation. When Bridgestone were having a good day, Ferrari won. When Michelin were having a good day, Schumacher struggled to podium and the results were spread across the multiple Michelin runners.

I do believe that 2 competent tyre manufacturers will produce better racing. Also see VLN/N24 and LMP2 with Michelin v Dunlop.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Whilst I don't agree with how the point is being put accross, I do believe multiple tyre manufacturers add another variable, which is how you get unpredictability.

2003 was a good example. Schumacher won and Ferrari had the best car, but often didn't win because of the tyre situation. When Bridgestone were having a good day, Ferrari won. When Michelin were having a good day, Schumacher struggled to podium and the results were spread across the multiple Michelin runners.

I do believe that 2 competent tyre manufacturers will produce better racing. Also see VLN/N24 and LMP2 with Michelin v Dunlop.

IMO, I'm yet to be convinced that multiple tyre manufacturers will produce better racing. In the past, that may have been the case as everything (including tyres) was pushed to the limit and sometimes beyond.

With the current F1 development status, I fear that results will converge towards the optimal design of tyre. Once the best design has been reached, the 'Bridgestone good day' will become as common an occurrence as the 'Mercedes good day' is now.

[Akrapovic]

LMP2 improves racing when some teams bring Michelins along to what is generally a Dunlop party. VLN is certainly more interesting with the tyre battle. Teams even switching tyres mid-weekend added a lot more fun and variety to events. I certainly believe that adding multiple tyre manufacturers improves things.

I don't see Pirelli suddenly producing Mercedes quality tyres. The Blancpain tyres have had a long time to get good and still haven't. They get away with it more because of the extreme levels of BoP in SRO events, but that still doesn't stop drivers dropping the occasional note that the Pirellis are often not up to the task - especially for the Am drivers.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Looking at the 1997 Hungarian GP - is there really any evidence that competition between tyre makers contributed in any way to making that result unpredictable?

Yes. Hill qualified 3rd in an Arrows, overtook Schumacher and nearly won. Surely you can see what is trying to be said here! Clearly it wasn’t a reference to unpredictability in a single race, rather unpredictability from one race to another.

It’s not the greatest point ever made, but it is quite clear.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes. Hill qualified 3rd in an Arrows, overtook Schumacher and nearly won. Surely you can see what is trying to be said here! Clearly it wasn’t a reference to unpredictability in a single race, rather unpredictability from one race to another.

It’s not the greatest point ever made, but it is quite clear.

I still don't think it is clear.

1997, the top 8 drivers all used Goodyear.
Bridgestone drivers only took 4 of the 51 podiums.

It was pretty predictable all season that Goodyear tyres on the car gave good results, and the occasional performance from a Bridgestone runner does not give evidence that competition between tyre manufacturers contributed to unpredictable results.

[S griffin]

Other examples of tyre war spicing it up in 97. Panis' early season form in the Prost before his leg breaking crash in Canada. Podium in Brazil, chasing JV in Argentina before his car broke, and catching him in Spain before getting stuck in traffic and having to settle for second, and he qualified about 13th too.

Barrichello splitting the Ferraris in the wet at Monaco to take 2nd for Stewart. Then there was Trulli leading at Austria in the Prost and looking good till his car broke. Certainly it was the Bridgestone tyres that helped them. All in all we had 14 different drivers on the podium that season

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I still don't think it is clear.

1997, the top 8 drivers all used Goodyear.
Bridgestone drivers only took 4 of the 51 podiums.

It was pretty predictable all season that Goodyear tyres on the car gave good results, and the occasional performance from a Bridgestone runner does not give evidence that competition between tyre manufacturers contributed to unpredictable results.

We’ve tended towards saying the same thing.

Generally, in any competition, one competitor will be better than another. Goodyear was generally better. It should be remembered that Goodyear supplied the best teams. So the tyre war introduced an element of unpredictability that meant occasionally a lesser team could do much better than normal.

If the required standard of unpredictability is much greater that that, say a different winner each time from many different teams then a tyre war is unlikely to provide this. Nothing short of a lottery can constantly do that. F1 has never consistently done that.

[chillibowl]

Im scared to think how much money Merc and/or Ferrari would spend on development of a bespoke set of tires.

But out of curiosity what would be considered a good set of tires?

Pirelli brought arguably their most durable set of hards to France and the race was a dreadful procession.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Im scared to think how much money Merc and/or Ferrari would spend on development of a bespoke set of tires.

That is not how it worked, the tyres were given to teams that gave the companies the best exposure. Other lesser teams paid but not the Mercedes of this world.

[chillibowl]

Sorry didnt mean on paying for the supply necessarily but the money spent on windtunnel and track testing... surely the tire supplier would not foot that bill?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes. Hill qualified 3rd in an Arrows, overtook Schumacher and nearly won. Surely you can see what is trying to be said here! Clearly it wasn’t a reference to unpredictability in a single race, rather unpredictability from one race to another.

It’s not the greatest point ever made, but it is quite clear.

Indeed, the point is pretty clear. And 2003 is a good example of that - winning one weekend and then being off the podium the next was not unusual and that was purely tyres.

Another example is the Bridgestone v Michelin intermediate tyres. One was a lightly treaded tyre whilst the other was softer but heavily treaded. They had different characteristics and gave them different strengths. Wet races were even more unpredictable due to the difference in the wets and inters.

F1 is trying to get the best of both worlds. A single supplier, but with different types of tyre. You can achive this with multiple tyre manufacturers.