| Fred Zaplitny | 10-01-2002 08:53 AM |
Bernie's tired of boring races too: Look for a new Formula in F-1 soon
Check it out. I hope he does something.
[url]http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/021001081956.shtml[/url]
[url]http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/021001081956.shtml[/url]
| Idjiit | 10-01-2002 09:14 AM |
Seems like a mixture of gravel, tarmac and snow would do the trick. ;)
| Fred Zaplitny | 10-01-2002 09:44 AM |
I think they will end up something like they had in the early 90's when they did away with active suspensions and traction control and went strictly N/A. They have to get rid of the fully automatic transmissions too. Paddle shifters are okay though.
| Orion | 10-01-2002 10:13 AM |
I say ditch the paddle shifters too. I've tried hard to like F1 theses days, but it's too boring now. It's nothing but a parade.
I started watching in the early 80's when the Detroit GP was still around. Those cars were sweet and were a handful to drive.
I was away from it from the early 90's until '98-99 when I first got Speedvision and it's just not the same.
I started watching in the early 80's when the Detroit GP was still around. Those cars were sweet and were a handful to drive.
I was away from it from the early 90's until '98-99 when I first got Speedvision and it's just not the same.
| gtguy | 10-01-2002 10:34 AM |
Let's not forget that when they banned driver aids (after the time of ABS, traction control, drive by wire, etc) last time, Schumacher stomped on everybody. They had to suspend him for five races just to get Damon Hill close! :lol:
Everybody worries about how the cars are so "easy" to drive. If you watch those guys live, those cars are most emphatically not at all easy to drive. I think that Schumacher said it best, when he said something to the effect of "driver aids allow us to get close to the edge." Then again, he doesn't much care, because he's going to be the best driver, no matter what.
Fans aren't watching because Ferrari is kicking the crap out of everybody. That's not their fault. They still aren't whomping everyone as badly as McLaren was during the Senna years. :D
They do things to enable drivers to pass, but without doing something drastic, like banning carbon fiber brakes, which would increase stopping distances and bring the return of real outbraking passes, they're just whistling dixie.
F1 is the technological pinnacle of motorsports. That's how it should be. If you turn it into a spec racing series, what's the point of that? Now, I do think that steps should be taken to make the lesser teams more competitive. For instance, not only do the best teams have the most money, but they also get the most travel money from the FIA, based on the fact that people want to see the best teams. But Minardi, whose budget is less than what Ferrari pays Schumacher, needs help to develop a competitive car. Why not help that team somehow?
I feel like this happens every time a team is dominant. They change things, some teams figure out a way to cheat (hence the return of traction control...they couldn't police it), and things begin to be allowed again.
If Bernie wants to worry about something, there are plenty of other things to worry about. To me, that would have been like the NBA making the Bulls play with a smaller diameter basket to shoot at, during their championship runs. It isn't their fault that they're good, just as it isn't Ferrari's fault that everything has come together. This will change, either when Schumacher retires, or when the other teams catch up to their moving target.
Tracks can be re-designed, with funding assistance from the FIA, to create more passing zones. Take away those silly chicanes and put in wider, medium-speed corners that facilitate passing...there are a great many things that can be done. But if you take away downforce (tried it...) the engineers will just figure out other ways to generate the same speed. That's what they are paid to do. Put grooves in the tires, and they run faster than they were on slicks...change engine displacement, the cars get faster still. It's really cool, I think.
Kevin
Everybody worries about how the cars are so "easy" to drive. If you watch those guys live, those cars are most emphatically not at all easy to drive. I think that Schumacher said it best, when he said something to the effect of "driver aids allow us to get close to the edge." Then again, he doesn't much care, because he's going to be the best driver, no matter what.
Fans aren't watching because Ferrari is kicking the crap out of everybody. That's not their fault. They still aren't whomping everyone as badly as McLaren was during the Senna years. :D
They do things to enable drivers to pass, but without doing something drastic, like banning carbon fiber brakes, which would increase stopping distances and bring the return of real outbraking passes, they're just whistling dixie.
F1 is the technological pinnacle of motorsports. That's how it should be. If you turn it into a spec racing series, what's the point of that? Now, I do think that steps should be taken to make the lesser teams more competitive. For instance, not only do the best teams have the most money, but they also get the most travel money from the FIA, based on the fact that people want to see the best teams. But Minardi, whose budget is less than what Ferrari pays Schumacher, needs help to develop a competitive car. Why not help that team somehow?
I feel like this happens every time a team is dominant. They change things, some teams figure out a way to cheat (hence the return of traction control...they couldn't police it), and things begin to be allowed again.
If Bernie wants to worry about something, there are plenty of other things to worry about. To me, that would have been like the NBA making the Bulls play with a smaller diameter basket to shoot at, during their championship runs. It isn't their fault that they're good, just as it isn't Ferrari's fault that everything has come together. This will change, either when Schumacher retires, or when the other teams catch up to their moving target.
Tracks can be re-designed, with funding assistance from the FIA, to create more passing zones. Take away those silly chicanes and put in wider, medium-speed corners that facilitate passing...there are a great many things that can be done. But if you take away downforce (tried it...) the engineers will just figure out other ways to generate the same speed. That's what they are paid to do. Put grooves in the tires, and they run faster than they were on slicks...change engine displacement, the cars get faster still. It's really cool, I think.
Kevin
| Chromer | 10-01-2002 10:44 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Fred Zaplitny [/i]
[B]I think they will end up something like they had in the early 90's when they did away with active suspensions and traction control and went strictly N/A. They have to get rid of the fully automatic transmissions too. Paddle shifters are okay though. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you want to outlaw driver aids, you have to outlaw clutchless (automatic) paddle shifters. The main reason traction control was re-allowed is that it was impossible to police -- the programming was part and parcel of the TCM.
[B]I think they will end up something like they had in the early 90's when they did away with active suspensions and traction control and went strictly N/A. They have to get rid of the fully automatic transmissions too. Paddle shifters are okay though. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you want to outlaw driver aids, you have to outlaw clutchless (automatic) paddle shifters. The main reason traction control was re-allowed is that it was impossible to police -- the programming was part and parcel of the TCM.
| Jon Bogert | 10-01-2002 11:16 AM |
[QUOTE]F1 is the technological pinnacle of motorsports.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure that motorsports needs a technological pinnacle at least if "sport" is still a part of the concept.
Do you want to see which individual has the best video game skills and the highest G-tolerance, or see which one is the best driver? You can go too far in the other direction, too, and I don't think anyone wants to see F1 become NASCAR.
In my opinion, F1 should have the following restrictions:
1) H-gate gearchange which is not connected to the engine management or clutch.
2) Throttle controlled by mechanical means only by the driver's foot.
3) Clutch controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
4) Brakes controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
And I do think that less downforce would improve competition--not because it makes them slower but because driving in clean air wouldn't be more important than getting close to the guy in front of you.
I'm not sure that motorsports needs a technological pinnacle at least if "sport" is still a part of the concept.
Do you want to see which individual has the best video game skills and the highest G-tolerance, or see which one is the best driver? You can go too far in the other direction, too, and I don't think anyone wants to see F1 become NASCAR.
In my opinion, F1 should have the following restrictions:
1) H-gate gearchange which is not connected to the engine management or clutch.
2) Throttle controlled by mechanical means only by the driver's foot.
3) Clutch controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
4) Brakes controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
And I do think that less downforce would improve competition--not because it makes them slower but because driving in clean air wouldn't be more important than getting close to the guy in front of you.
| gtguy | 10-01-2002 11:40 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jon Bogert [/i]
[B]
I'm not sure that motorsports needs a technological pinnacle at least if "sport" is still a part of the concept.
Do you want to see which individual has the best video game skills and the highest G-tolerance, or see which one is the best driver? You can go too far in the other direction, too, and I don't think anyone wants to see F1 become NASCAR.
In my opinion, F1 should have the following restrictions:
1) H-gate gearchange which is not connected to the engine management or clutch.
2) Throttle controlled by mechanical means only by the driver's foot.
3) Clutch controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
4) Brakes controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
And I do think that less downforce would improve competition--not because it makes them slower but because driving in clean air wouldn't be more important than getting close to the guy in front of you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I think that everything needs a "best," technologically. I think it's cool that F1 has all the "gee whiz" stuff that it does. Mind you, simpler F1 cars can still be really cool. I think that simpler cars would also bring the drivers closer together. A talented driver working for a team with no dough wouldn't be as constrained by his car. It's why rain races decrease the differences between cars, and surprises always occur.
I agree on the restrictions, though sequential shifters would be fine, as long as they hew to the stated caveat of not being connected to the engine management or clutch.
I'd do away with launch and traction control, too.
Less downforce would improve competition, but I think that teams would just find a way around it. You could restrict wing size or elements, but in looking at that Williams up close and personal, that car is one giant airfoil. Awesome stuff, that.
I think the debate will be a curious one, because you know that teams will see this, as will Max Mosely, and Bernie's wishes will become so. :lol:
Kevin
[B]
I'm not sure that motorsports needs a technological pinnacle at least if "sport" is still a part of the concept.
Do you want to see which individual has the best video game skills and the highest G-tolerance, or see which one is the best driver? You can go too far in the other direction, too, and I don't think anyone wants to see F1 become NASCAR.
In my opinion, F1 should have the following restrictions:
1) H-gate gearchange which is not connected to the engine management or clutch.
2) Throttle controlled by mechanical means only by the driver's foot.
3) Clutch controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
4) Brakes controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
And I do think that less downforce would improve competition--not because it makes them slower but because driving in clean air wouldn't be more important than getting close to the guy in front of you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I think that everything needs a "best," technologically. I think it's cool that F1 has all the "gee whiz" stuff that it does. Mind you, simpler F1 cars can still be really cool. I think that simpler cars would also bring the drivers closer together. A talented driver working for a team with no dough wouldn't be as constrained by his car. It's why rain races decrease the differences between cars, and surprises always occur.
I agree on the restrictions, though sequential shifters would be fine, as long as they hew to the stated caveat of not being connected to the engine management or clutch.
I'd do away with launch and traction control, too.
Less downforce would improve competition, but I think that teams would just find a way around it. You could restrict wing size or elements, but in looking at that Williams up close and personal, that car is one giant airfoil. Awesome stuff, that.
I think the debate will be a curious one, because you know that teams will see this, as will Max Mosely, and Bernie's wishes will become so. :lol:
Kevin
| TyrannoSullyRex | 10-01-2002 11:59 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jon Bogert [/i]
[B]
In my opinion, F1 should have the following restrictions:
1) H-gate gearchange which is not connected to the engine management or clutch.
2) Throttle controlled by mechanical means only by the driver's foot.
3) Clutch controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
4) Brakes controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
And I do think that less downforce would improve competition--not because it makes them slower but because driving in clean air wouldn't be more important than getting close to the guy in front of you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Seeing the in-car side-view of MS it definitely looks like he's "just going to the shops". Putting in mechanical means of changing gears, brakes, etc. introduce "driver error" and more opportunities for passing because of those things.
[B]
In my opinion, F1 should have the following restrictions:
1) H-gate gearchange which is not connected to the engine management or clutch.
2) Throttle controlled by mechanical means only by the driver's foot.
3) Clutch controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
4) Brakes controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
And I do think that less downforce would improve competition--not because it makes them slower but because driving in clean air wouldn't be more important than getting close to the guy in front of you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Seeing the in-car side-view of MS it definitely looks like he's "just going to the shops". Putting in mechanical means of changing gears, brakes, etc. introduce "driver error" and more opportunities for passing because of those things.
| Coati | 10-01-2002 12:13 PM |
I haven't noticed paddle-shifters/traction control impinging on my enjoyment of WRC, so I don't know that that is the first thing I'd want changed with F1.
Besides, this is one area of technology that I'd like to see creep into the affordable automotive mainstream a little faster.
Make them all race on Falken Azenis:D
Besides, this is one area of technology that I'd like to see creep into the affordable automotive mainstream a little faster.
Make them all race on Falken Azenis:D
| Jon Bogert | 10-01-2002 12:25 PM |
Hmm. A strictly mechanical sequential shifter might not be so bad. A paddle shifter generally has a whole bunch of electronics associated with it--solonoids to actually move the metal, a link to the engine management to cut the spark, etc.
And I do think that technology is having a bad effect on rally, too. Tell me you wouldn't rather see Walter Roerhl's three pedal dance than Richard Burns go click, click, click through the gears without ever touching the clutch pedal, much less blipping the throttle on downshifts?
It really IS about giving the drivers as many opportunities as possible to make mistakes. :lol:
And I do think that technology is having a bad effect on rally, too. Tell me you wouldn't rather see Walter Roerhl's three pedal dance than Richard Burns go click, click, click through the gears without ever touching the clutch pedal, much less blipping the throttle on downshifts?
It really IS about giving the drivers as many opportunities as possible to make mistakes. :lol:
| Surly | 10-01-2002 12:37 PM |
I'm no expert but here are some of my thoughts of what they could try
- go back to slicks and bigger tires
- drastically reduce wing size
I agree that getting rid of all the electronic aids would help bring driver skill back into the equation. However I don't think companies like BMW and Mercedes would be too interested in buiding race cars that make use of older technology than in their road cars.
Call me crazy but I thought the USGP was a pretty good race, there were quite a few people battling for position and some daring passing attempts. If anyone thinks that those cars are easy to drive they obviously didn't see any of Panis' in car video.
My one hope is that whatever new formula they come up with they stick to it. I think that given time the back markers will close
the distance on ferrari.
- go back to slicks and bigger tires
- drastically reduce wing size
I agree that getting rid of all the electronic aids would help bring driver skill back into the equation. However I don't think companies like BMW and Mercedes would be too interested in buiding race cars that make use of older technology than in their road cars.
Call me crazy but I thought the USGP was a pretty good race, there were quite a few people battling for position and some daring passing attempts. If anyone thinks that those cars are easy to drive they obviously didn't see any of Panis' in car video.
My one hope is that whatever new formula they come up with they stick to it. I think that given time the back markers will close
the distance on ferrari.
| Lou | 10-01-2002 03:23 PM |
I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest something totally crazy: I think all of the driving aids actually expose more of who is the superior driver. Allow me to explain. ALL of the teams have paddle shifters, ALL of the teams have traction control, ALL of the teams have down force. Because of this the drivers skill must be used to place the car on the track, hit the apex's perfect, brake at just the right time. In others words, feel and finesse become a bigger part of driving than who can move their feet faster to shift.
Also, all of these components must be adjusted and changed by the millimeter of millisecond for each track and weather conditions the day of the race. A driver must therefor have a better understanding of the effects of downforce, gear ratios, and infinite other points on the car. He must also be able to feel where these minute adjustments (with the substantial aid of telemetrey) must be made. This cannot be taught.
All in all I guess what I am saying is that electronic aids, once the race begins, allow the driver to concentrate on driving the car. After all if they really made it that much easier wouldnt there be more than say 20 or 30 people in the whole world capable of doing it?
Also, all of these components must be adjusted and changed by the millimeter of millisecond for each track and weather conditions the day of the race. A driver must therefor have a better understanding of the effects of downforce, gear ratios, and infinite other points on the car. He must also be able to feel where these minute adjustments (with the substantial aid of telemetrey) must be made. This cannot be taught.
All in all I guess what I am saying is that electronic aids, once the race begins, allow the driver to concentrate on driving the car. After all if they really made it that much easier wouldnt there be more than say 20 or 30 people in the whole world capable of doing it?
| TyrannoSullyRex | 10-01-2002 03:37 PM |
The problem with the electronic aids becomes a battle of software designers (traction and launch control) instead of the finesse of the driver. The driver doesn't really have to worry if in the heat of battle he gives it too much gas coming out of a corner and spins the tires and allows the other driver to pass on exit, all of that is taken care of in software.
| Lou | 10-01-2002 03:41 PM |
From what I understand though the traction control isnt really that intrusive and mostly for the launch during the standing start. You still see plenty of spins and offs. But then again I could be wrong. Last time I drove an F1 car was umm, never.
| TyrannoSullyRex | 10-01-2002 03:45 PM |
The spins and offs are when they go beyond what can be accomplished with the software. When they are coming out of corners (almost every corner) you can hear the very audible "ratcheting" combination of cutting power and/or moving the differential around (settings-wise) to achieve maximum traction.
| gtguy | 10-01-2002 04:04 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lou [/i]
[B]I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest something totally crazy: I think all of the driving aids actually expose more of who is the superior driver. Allow me to explain. ALL of the teams have paddle shifters, ALL of the teams have traction control, ALL of the teams have down force. Because of this the drivers skill must be used to place the car on the track, hit the apex's perfect, brake at just the right time. In others words, feel and finesse become a bigger part of driving than who can move their feet faster to shift.
Also, all of these components must be adjusted and changed by the millimeter of millisecond for each track and weather conditions the day of the race. A driver must therefor have a better understanding of the effects of downforce, gear ratios, and infinite other points on the car. He must also be able to feel where these minute adjustments (with the substantial aid of telemetrey) must be made. This cannot be taught.
All in all I guess what I am saying is that electronic aids, once the race begins, allow the driver to concentrate on driving the car. After all if they really made it that much easier wouldnt there be more than say 20 or 30 people in the whole world capable of doing it? [/B][/QUOTE]
You're right, Lou. This is why the removal of driver aids would actually increase the margin by which Schumacher (M, not R) would win races. It wouild also increase the amount of destroyed carbon fibre generated by certain other drivers.
Part of why Schumacher looked so composed in the car, was setup. Ferrari have done the work in practice and testing, so that Schumacher doesn't have to work the car as hard. Panis looked like he was sawing wood, he was working his hands so much.
Now, if F1 is indeed going to go with minimizing driver aids, they'd better go all the way, or someone will find a way to cheat. But let's not forget that those driver aid-less years didn't have racing that was that much more exciting, unless seeing Schumacher lap people was anyone's idea of fun. :lol:
I'm not sure that there's a real answer for more exciting racing, as long as the immense gap between the haves and the have nots exists.
Kevin
[B]I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest something totally crazy: I think all of the driving aids actually expose more of who is the superior driver. Allow me to explain. ALL of the teams have paddle shifters, ALL of the teams have traction control, ALL of the teams have down force. Because of this the drivers skill must be used to place the car on the track, hit the apex's perfect, brake at just the right time. In others words, feel and finesse become a bigger part of driving than who can move their feet faster to shift.
Also, all of these components must be adjusted and changed by the millimeter of millisecond for each track and weather conditions the day of the race. A driver must therefor have a better understanding of the effects of downforce, gear ratios, and infinite other points on the car. He must also be able to feel where these minute adjustments (with the substantial aid of telemetrey) must be made. This cannot be taught.
All in all I guess what I am saying is that electronic aids, once the race begins, allow the driver to concentrate on driving the car. After all if they really made it that much easier wouldnt there be more than say 20 or 30 people in the whole world capable of doing it? [/B][/QUOTE]
You're right, Lou. This is why the removal of driver aids would actually increase the margin by which Schumacher (M, not R) would win races. It wouild also increase the amount of destroyed carbon fibre generated by certain other drivers.
Part of why Schumacher looked so composed in the car, was setup. Ferrari have done the work in practice and testing, so that Schumacher doesn't have to work the car as hard. Panis looked like he was sawing wood, he was working his hands so much.
Now, if F1 is indeed going to go with minimizing driver aids, they'd better go all the way, or someone will find a way to cheat. But let's not forget that those driver aid-less years didn't have racing that was that much more exciting, unless seeing Schumacher lap people was anyone's idea of fun. :lol:
I'm not sure that there's a real answer for more exciting racing, as long as the immense gap between the haves and the have nots exists.
Kevin
| GarySheehan | 10-01-2002 04:45 PM |
GTGUY,
The goal isn't to equalize driver performance on the track. The goal is to put more of the race in the drivers' hands and allow close quarters racing in F1 to be a reality.
I don't want to see close racing because driver skill has become less important than a software engineers development prowess. I want to see close racing because it is physically possible due to changes in aerodynamic downforce and tire grip.
There will still be opportunities for driver's to win because of superior cars. We saw this all through the 80's and early 90's. If we are so hellbent on not watching a vastly superior driver win what is rightfully his, then perhaps F1 should establish a rewards weight system to equalize driver skill and chassis advantage. THAT would for sure generate closer racing.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
The goal isn't to equalize driver performance on the track. The goal is to put more of the race in the drivers' hands and allow close quarters racing in F1 to be a reality.
I don't want to see close racing because driver skill has become less important than a software engineers development prowess. I want to see close racing because it is physically possible due to changes in aerodynamic downforce and tire grip.
There will still be opportunities for driver's to win because of superior cars. We saw this all through the 80's and early 90's. If we are so hellbent on not watching a vastly superior driver win what is rightfully his, then perhaps F1 should establish a rewards weight system to equalize driver skill and chassis advantage. THAT would for sure generate closer racing.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| Jon Bogert | 10-01-2002 04:46 PM |
Exactly which skills are we trying to test, here?
Back in the 1920s, a racer might have to adjust the ignition timing or fuel mixture manually during a race. We've moved beyond that now, and no one would suggest that it would make racing any better if the drivers spent more time worrying about combustion.
But where does it end? Would F1 be diminished if the steering rack was controlled by servos connected to the driver's cortex? If "drive by wire" doesn't bother you, how about "steer by sight"? You don't mind telemetry, so why not have the throttle controlled from the pits? The computer knows what throttle positon and gear choice will result in the best lap time. Is this where you want F1 to end up, 'cause that's sure where it's headed?
Back in the 1920s, a racer might have to adjust the ignition timing or fuel mixture manually during a race. We've moved beyond that now, and no one would suggest that it would make racing any better if the drivers spent more time worrying about combustion.
But where does it end? Would F1 be diminished if the steering rack was controlled by servos connected to the driver's cortex? If "drive by wire" doesn't bother you, how about "steer by sight"? You don't mind telemetry, so why not have the throttle controlled from the pits? The computer knows what throttle positon and gear choice will result in the best lap time. Is this where you want F1 to end up, 'cause that's sure where it's headed?
| gtguy | 10-01-2002 05:51 PM |
I don't know that close racing, given how the cars have developed, is ever going to happen in F1. Team budgets are too disparate, and with money comes the development programs that are necessary to make a car go fast. Sure, Schumacher is quite a bit faster than Yoong, but I'd be willing to bet that if you put Schumacher in the Minardi, he'd be a lot closer to Yoong than Yoong has been getting to the Ferrari.
Schumacher has said, and I agree, that driver aids allow the driver to concentrate more on the act of driving. Give the driver more to do, and speeds go down, as does the actual act of pushing the envelope, IMHO. I don't know that all of those driver aids made Senna any less brilliant.
The issue is passing and close racing, which I don't know would be at all enhanced by the removal of driver aids, really. Putting more of the race in the driver's hands would almost certainly result in even bigger gaps than we see now. Instead of Panis successfully fighting the car with the assistance of traction control, he'd do the dervish thing into the grass, or have to go slowly enough that he wouldn't spin, given the skill set disparity between he and a better driver.
I don't know that the reason people can't catch the Ferraris, or that the gaps are as they are have to do with aerodynamics. We've been seeing guys tuck up under someone's wing all season, and there were quite a few draft passes on the front straight at Indy.
The real thing is that with the carbon fibre brakes, braking distances are so short that it's exceedingly difficult for a driver to outbrake another one, without putting both into the weeds, or straight-lining the corner. And it seems that whatever they do to the tires, grip is going to be hellacious, short of wetting down every track. :lol:
There were vast differences in driver skill that I saw at Indy, during the GP. You could physically see why a guy was faster than another guy. You could also see how some guys would have been fast, had they had the car.
Even if they ban driver's aids, Ferrari is still going to spend $300 million, and the resultant car will still reflect that, and the can of whoopass will continue to rain down from the skies. Hence, my idea that something be done to narrow the fiscal gaps, or perhaps have an FIA-supplied testing facility that can be used by the lesser teams for their development.
But there are only two tires, even though the Bridgestone is being developed with the Ferrari in mind. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses. And I think that, from what I've seen, the aero packages are such that there can be close racing when the cars are close in ability levels. Therein lies the rub...how can the cars become more equal, without making F1 spec racing, because as we all know, it's all about the Benjamins in F1.
I ultimately think that whatever is taken away, the gaps are going to remain constant in the dry, because those gaps are reflective of the complete package: driver, tires, testing and car development. Those who have more, go faster (except for BAR! :lol: )
Kevin
Schumacher has said, and I agree, that driver aids allow the driver to concentrate more on the act of driving. Give the driver more to do, and speeds go down, as does the actual act of pushing the envelope, IMHO. I don't know that all of those driver aids made Senna any less brilliant.
The issue is passing and close racing, which I don't know would be at all enhanced by the removal of driver aids, really. Putting more of the race in the driver's hands would almost certainly result in even bigger gaps than we see now. Instead of Panis successfully fighting the car with the assistance of traction control, he'd do the dervish thing into the grass, or have to go slowly enough that he wouldn't spin, given the skill set disparity between he and a better driver.
I don't know that the reason people can't catch the Ferraris, or that the gaps are as they are have to do with aerodynamics. We've been seeing guys tuck up under someone's wing all season, and there were quite a few draft passes on the front straight at Indy.
The real thing is that with the carbon fibre brakes, braking distances are so short that it's exceedingly difficult for a driver to outbrake another one, without putting both into the weeds, or straight-lining the corner. And it seems that whatever they do to the tires, grip is going to be hellacious, short of wetting down every track. :lol:
There were vast differences in driver skill that I saw at Indy, during the GP. You could physically see why a guy was faster than another guy. You could also see how some guys would have been fast, had they had the car.
Even if they ban driver's aids, Ferrari is still going to spend $300 million, and the resultant car will still reflect that, and the can of whoopass will continue to rain down from the skies. Hence, my idea that something be done to narrow the fiscal gaps, or perhaps have an FIA-supplied testing facility that can be used by the lesser teams for their development.
But there are only two tires, even though the Bridgestone is being developed with the Ferrari in mind. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses. And I think that, from what I've seen, the aero packages are such that there can be close racing when the cars are close in ability levels. Therein lies the rub...how can the cars become more equal, without making F1 spec racing, because as we all know, it's all about the Benjamins in F1.
I ultimately think that whatever is taken away, the gaps are going to remain constant in the dry, because those gaps are reflective of the complete package: driver, tires, testing and car development. Those who have more, go faster (except for BAR! :lol: )
Kevin
| HoRo1 | 10-01-2002 06:20 PM |
Just a thought
F1 is a team event. Anyway, hasn't Montoya's throttle been controlled from the pits :lol:
Designers, engineers, drivers and mechanics must produce the fastest, most reliable piece of equipment on the track. I don't blame the vehicle designers and engineers, I blame those who have designed/redesigned the tracks for producing soulless slot-car like circuits.
If you must mess with the cars then why not just legislate a minimum weight, the minimum safety features, tyre size and number, the area of wing and then limit the amount of fuel to some value based upon the previous season/seasons consumption level minus say 10 or 15% and decreasing the amount of fuel allowed each season thereafter. Everything else would be free, driver (in car) must control steering and shifting and throttle - but can be aided by traction control etc.
Designers, engineers, drivers and mechanics must produce the fastest, most reliable piece of equipment on the track. I don't blame the vehicle designers and engineers, I blame those who have designed/redesigned the tracks for producing soulless slot-car like circuits.
If you must mess with the cars then why not just legislate a minimum weight, the minimum safety features, tyre size and number, the area of wing and then limit the amount of fuel to some value based upon the previous season/seasons consumption level minus say 10 or 15% and decreasing the amount of fuel allowed each season thereafter. Everything else would be free, driver (in car) must control steering and shifting and throttle - but can be aided by traction control etc.
| johnfelstead | 10-01-2002 06:44 PM |
Lets destroy this myth that carbon brakes are the problem with regards stopping distance.
When they banned all the driver aids in the early 90's, one kneejerk reaction was a dictate from teh FIA that carbon brakes would be banned in a couple of races.
So Williams took their car to Donington after installing some cast iron brakes with Carbon metalic pads and it braked ever quicker! The only downside to the install was weight and safety. When a carbon brake fails it just turns to dust, when a cast iron one fails it becomes a deadly missile.
You will not see Carbon Carbon brakes banned.
Semi automatic gearboxes will not be banned either, they contribuet masively to the reliability of the cars, engine blow ups would increase masively if they went back to manula shifters, the teams wont wear it, especially so with the introduction of teh one engine per weekend rule coming soon.
The problem isnt the technology, it sthe fact that you can be driving a car 5 seconds a lap faster yet you cant pass because of a combination of mikey mouse circuits and massive reliance on Aero grip.
The only way to get around this problem is give the cars massively more mechanical grip and get rid of the Aero balance being the overiding handling charicteristic.
We need to lose all the wings, make the floors flat bottom including removing difusers and give them 1990 size sticky slicks. That way when a driver catches a car they can sit in their dirty air and make a move rather than just having to sit there because the car is understeering its ass off.
Lets have grown up Formual Fords with all the technology, but bugger all Aero grip, it would be awesome to watch! They would have to drop engine size for this to work though, otherwise top speed would be mental after removing all that drag! Braking distances would also increase from this, as the amount of retardation is to a large extent limited by downforce, take the downforce away, even with sticky slicks and you have bigger braking zones where finesse on the pedal counts.
There is of course a problem with this, where do all the sponsors stickers go? :lol:
When they banned all the driver aids in the early 90's, one kneejerk reaction was a dictate from teh FIA that carbon brakes would be banned in a couple of races.
So Williams took their car to Donington after installing some cast iron brakes with Carbon metalic pads and it braked ever quicker! The only downside to the install was weight and safety. When a carbon brake fails it just turns to dust, when a cast iron one fails it becomes a deadly missile.
You will not see Carbon Carbon brakes banned.
Semi automatic gearboxes will not be banned either, they contribuet masively to the reliability of the cars, engine blow ups would increase masively if they went back to manula shifters, the teams wont wear it, especially so with the introduction of teh one engine per weekend rule coming soon.
The problem isnt the technology, it sthe fact that you can be driving a car 5 seconds a lap faster yet you cant pass because of a combination of mikey mouse circuits and massive reliance on Aero grip.
The only way to get around this problem is give the cars massively more mechanical grip and get rid of the Aero balance being the overiding handling charicteristic.
We need to lose all the wings, make the floors flat bottom including removing difusers and give them 1990 size sticky slicks. That way when a driver catches a car they can sit in their dirty air and make a move rather than just having to sit there because the car is understeering its ass off.
Lets have grown up Formual Fords with all the technology, but bugger all Aero grip, it would be awesome to watch! They would have to drop engine size for this to work though, otherwise top speed would be mental after removing all that drag! Braking distances would also increase from this, as the amount of retardation is to a large extent limited by downforce, take the downforce away, even with sticky slicks and you have bigger braking zones where finesse on the pedal counts.
There is of course a problem with this, where do all the sponsors stickers go? :lol:
| gtguy | 10-01-2002 06:56 PM |
Interesting, John...
Kevin
Kevin
| Jaxx | 10-01-2002 09:16 PM |
[quote]
1) H-gate gearchange which is not connected to the engine management or clutch.
2) Throttle controlled by mechanical means only by the driver's foot.
3) Clutch controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
4) Brakes controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
[/quote]
ya know if you add carboretors to that list.. you'd have nascar...
1) H-gate gearchange which is not connected to the engine management or clutch.
2) Throttle controlled by mechanical means only by the driver's foot.
3) Clutch controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
4) Brakes controlled by mechanical/hydraulic means only by the driver's foot.
[/quote]
ya know if you add carboretors to that list.. you'd have nascar...
| meebs | 10-01-2002 10:00 PM |
[quote]If we are so hellbent on not watching a vastly superior driver win what is rightfully his, then perhaps F1 should establish a rewards weight system to equalize driver skill and chassis advantage. THAT would for sure generate closer racing.
[/quote]
Yes! I suggested this on the last big, "what's wrong with F1" thread. Back when the FIA were taking suggestions. My idea was, instead of weighting the faster drivers down, base it on the constructors points. As you go down the order, the guys at the bottom at the end of the year would be able to develop a lighter car than Ferrari.
John great idea, but how many years would such a drastic change take to be realized? I know it sounds kind stupid, but part of what makes F1, F1, is the current look of the cars. Their shape is a world wide icon... maybe gradual changes over 5 - 10 years?? :D
[/quote]
Yes! I suggested this on the last big, "what's wrong with F1" thread. Back when the FIA were taking suggestions. My idea was, instead of weighting the faster drivers down, base it on the constructors points. As you go down the order, the guys at the bottom at the end of the year would be able to develop a lighter car than Ferrari.
John great idea, but how many years would such a drastic change take to be realized? I know it sounds kind stupid, but part of what makes F1, F1, is the current look of the cars. Their shape is a world wide icon... maybe gradual changes over 5 - 10 years?? :D
| AndyRoo | 10-01-2002 10:13 PM |
Haha...nascar.
Interesting that one engine per weekend rule. Would that mean that Montoya would not pole every race?
My take on the deal:
Something should be done, but I dont think anything drastic is necessary. I hate the idea of removing technology from a car, it would cause me great discomfort to see the cars sophistication be reduced. I wouldn't mind some of the electronic aids be taken out, and it would make it a little "purer", but im not an expert on the topic so I wont say what must go. But the reduction of aero grip and increase in mechanical grip would make this CART (with paddles). F1 should not be CART. On the CART topic, is there a lot of passing and are the races close? I've only seen half of one race.
A single tire manufacturer for everyone might level the field a little.
What about a salary or budget cap? Look at the NFL, different teams every year do well, and its always interesting. I realize comparing F1 to (american) football is not really a good idea, but its worth a shot. There are no Yankees/Ferrari/Peuguot in the NFL.
Still, there have been periods of domination throughout F1 history, and it will pass. Maybe.
Interesting that one engine per weekend rule. Would that mean that Montoya would not pole every race?
My take on the deal:
Something should be done, but I dont think anything drastic is necessary. I hate the idea of removing technology from a car, it would cause me great discomfort to see the cars sophistication be reduced. I wouldn't mind some of the electronic aids be taken out, and it would make it a little "purer", but im not an expert on the topic so I wont say what must go. But the reduction of aero grip and increase in mechanical grip would make this CART (with paddles). F1 should not be CART. On the CART topic, is there a lot of passing and are the races close? I've only seen half of one race.
A single tire manufacturer for everyone might level the field a little.
What about a salary or budget cap? Look at the NFL, different teams every year do well, and its always interesting. I realize comparing F1 to (american) football is not really a good idea, but its worth a shot. There are no Yankees/Ferrari/Peuguot in the NFL.
Still, there have been periods of domination throughout F1 history, and it will pass. Maybe.
| gtguy | 10-02-2002 09:00 AM |
I don't think that a budget cap is going to happen. That would harm the image of F1, which I do believe is part of the grand marketing design. Many F1 fans feel snooty, for some reason.
I keep coming back to some way for the FIA to help fund the lesser teams, so that they can develop a competitive car. We always think of taking things away from the drivers. CART is like watching paint dry, and those cars are, compared to F1 cars, relatively stone age. But CART cars do have big ol' slicks, and not as much downforce as the F1 cars do.
I'm not sure what the answer is to this quandary, but whatever one it is, I'm sure it will generate even more fun debate/speculation.
Kevin
I keep coming back to some way for the FIA to help fund the lesser teams, so that they can develop a competitive car. We always think of taking things away from the drivers. CART is like watching paint dry, and those cars are, compared to F1 cars, relatively stone age. But CART cars do have big ol' slicks, and not as much downforce as the F1 cars do.
I'm not sure what the answer is to this quandary, but whatever one it is, I'm sure it will generate even more fun debate/speculation.
Kevin
| GarySheehan | 10-02-2002 12:59 PM |
Johnfelstead,
I, too, have often thought about F1 cars with no wings. It certainly would fix the problem. But, as you pointed out, there would be a big loss of sponsor space, and, they would look damned ugly. I still think FF's look naked.
Make wings that do much less by specifying surface area, camber, chord length, etc. Essentially, make a spec wing that drastically reduces downforce. This way, sponsorship real estate survives, the cars still look like F1 cars, they still have some aero downforce (which nearly ALL racecars have) and the racing can be closer.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
I, too, have often thought about F1 cars with no wings. It certainly would fix the problem. But, as you pointed out, there would be a big loss of sponsor space, and, they would look damned ugly. I still think FF's look naked.
Make wings that do much less by specifying surface area, camber, chord length, etc. Essentially, make a spec wing that drastically reduces downforce. This way, sponsorship real estate survives, the cars still look like F1 cars, they still have some aero downforce (which nearly ALL racecars have) and the racing can be closer.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| donjuan | 10-02-2002 01:14 PM |
I also love the technology thats involved in F1. I know that the current aero setups as well as the track designs make passing difficult, but I also love watching those cars whip through a fast chicane and stick when they look like they should slide off the edge of the earth. It's one of the things I love about it. To take that away and watch them crawl through corners like a champ car, regardless if there's 5 cars close together, would be less interesting to me at least.
Technology is part of what it is, and I think it should stay. I tune in just as much to see what the engineers have come up with as I do to see what the drivers are doing. I think others do as well, remember the big stir after Arrows' gunsight wing at Monaco...
I think a big part of the gap to Ferrari right now is the tires. Ferrari and Bridgestone are essentially one when it comes to their tire development, that tire is built FOR Ferrari. The rest use leftover Ferrari tires or Michelins, who seem to be trying to please 3 teams. Some regulation in the tire dept might just make a vast improvement....
Technology is part of what it is, and I think it should stay. I tune in just as much to see what the engineers have come up with as I do to see what the drivers are doing. I think others do as well, remember the big stir after Arrows' gunsight wing at Monaco...
I think a big part of the gap to Ferrari right now is the tires. Ferrari and Bridgestone are essentially one when it comes to their tire development, that tire is built FOR Ferrari. The rest use leftover Ferrari tires or Michelins, who seem to be trying to please 3 teams. Some regulation in the tire dept might just make a vast improvement....
| Al | 10-03-2002 10:05 AM |
The goal of F1 Teams is to lap as quickly as possible. Engineers and drivers work together to achieve that goal. Contrived "close racing" and rule changes to bunch the grid are the antithesis of F1.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét