19 replies to this topic

[Pit Babe]

I have heard much about how "boring" F1 has become in the interest of safety. While I agree with much of it, I am at a loss of how to remedy the situation. Too many precautionary measures, and the races turn into parades; too few, and the sport becomes a bloodbath. What changes would you propose to the cars and/or tracks?

PB is looking for something outside the universal cry for a return to slicks. Maybe we can come up with something that hasn't been tried before, or a way to remove things like chicanes without reintroducing the element they were designed to take away.

(As an aside, I am a member of FOSA and thus hope to take suggestions made here to the board, which in turn will take them to the F1 Powers That Be. So this is not a "wishful thinking" thread...at least I hope not...)

------------------
PB ;-)

"Sensuality is the most glorious gift a woman has. And I think that's something to be celebrated." -Faith Hill

[SlowDrivr]

Another possibility for improving safety without slowing cars down or making the tracks dull is to improve the runoffs and/or barriers. I've seen a few kinds of alternative barriers in magazines; one is sort of like the sled that football (USA style football) players use with each of them connected to the ones next to it. When a car hits them they slide on the ground, gradually slowing the car.

As was discussed somewhere else in this BB, I would like some investigation into having paved runoff areas; this would help driver slow down once off course instead of skipping over gravel. I'm not sure that this is the best idea though for all accidents; the flip-over this last weekend I would think would be safer on gravel than on asphault.

Briefly:
1) Remove all or most of the wings, and underbody downforce
2) Improve the runoff areas
3) Develop better barriers
4) Get the tracks back to how they were before '9 (get rid of the evil chicanes!)
5) Bring back slicks (crying universally )

This should make for slower corning speeds, 'safer' crashes, more exciting tracks for drivers and spectators, and allow for easier passing.

The only problem I can see is that the straightline speed is likely to go up (since there's less drag due to smaller or no wings) (but they'd be coming out of the corners slower, so...?) I don't know if that's ok or not safety wise.

[Christiaan]

If you look at history there has never really been that much passing in F1. In the 50s up to the 80s F1 was definately more spectacular with much much slower cars. As cars got faster they became more dangerous and consequently the administrative bodies decided that to increase safety was to decrease speed. This was probably a short term solution to return to 60s style racing. What was not considered was the increasing gap between cars. This meant that there would be more domination (not unlike Ferrari in post war days) from one or two teams and that two horse races would become increasingly common. The gap between teams, this is where the problem lies.

You see, if you get rid of chicanes the Mac will shred everybody to bits because of its vastly superior Ilmor engine. Maybe the Peogot will have more presence in tracks like Hockenheim. If you bring back turbos you will have cars with excessive amounts of power (ca 1500Hp with current technology) thus lots of wheelspin and generally undrivable engines. If you get rid of wings and aerodynamic bits you will have cars which are unstable at high speeds. That is certainly not desirable.

Only the return of slicks seem feasible, because it will facilitate better handling and allow drivers freedom to do killer Alesi-type moves.

I think we have all been looking at the problem from the wrong angle. The Minardi is slower than the Mac, why? Principally because of the badget difference? Then why is Minardi ahead of BAR? Its not that simple you see.

Why was this season really exciting? Well, principally because we were expecting a MS, MH battle but instead we got a MS MH DC EI HHF battle and earlier on in the season RB seemed to be in the picture. So what changed? Well the cars got closer, Ferrari, Mac, Jordan and earlier Stewart.

Close Racing! This is what will make F1 more exciting. Faster racing only means more domination and possibly more danger. The only overtaking you will see is a Minardi being lapped. In truth, fans can't tell the difference between a 250km/h race and a 320km/h race because its all faster than road cars.

How to level the playing field? Well I think the whole F1 sponsorship/funding system could be remodelled but it would probably make F1 advertising far too expensive. Its a way out, because Minardi cannot attract sponsorship so FIA should give them a helping hand. The other way is to change the way they cover F1, so that a champion and an also ran get almost equal coverage. That way sponsors who only look for airtime (mostly cigarrette sponsors) would be indifferent to the team they picked.

Thats my take

[SlowDrivr]

Those are good points, and its often forgotten that many times theres not a lot of passing because the faster car starts in front of a slower car and pulls away, which of course has nothing to do with passing being 'hard'.

I've wondered at what a solution would be for this, to make the playing field more level, and I haven't found any good ones. One thing that would work would be to require spec engines (or require air restrictors), but I'm sure no one in F1 wants that! Certainly not me. Even a rev limit seems antithetical to the spirit of F1 (so does a cylinder limit).

[MPH]

How 'bout 1.5L non-turbo engines?

[Pit Babe]

For what reason, MPH?

(In edit: Let me clarify that question - are you suggesting that from the standpoint of excitement only, safety only or a combination of both? If a combo, how so?)

[This message has been edited by Pit Babe (edited 09-30-1999).]

[tak]

For what it's worth, the passing problem in F1 is a result of teams able to optimize their car for qualifying. The fastest car is in front, and pulls away as someone else said. The best 'races' this year occured when qualifying was in conditions different from the race.
A simple way to incure a difference between qualifying and race is to bring back 3 features from the past.

1) No fuel stops (tire stops ok). A car will qualify light, and will start the race heavy. We would see a LOT of strategy, and might actually get to see some racing if the leader goes too fast too soon and hurts his tires...

2) Bring back qualifying tires. By the very nature of having to set a car up very differently to qualify and race, there will be grid variation. Cars that are fast in race trim, may not be as good in qualifying trim, and vice versa. Again, this will create grid inversions, that will result in actual racing.

3) Bring back the manual transmissions. This will help break up the processions we watch today, as a slower driver (or car) holder up people will be more likely to make a shifting error--an error that is most likely to slow him down for one corner, or straight, but not put him out of the race.
I have no problem with teams implementing a "smart" clutch that automatically disengages to prevent an over-rev, or "smart" shift gates that would lock out the wrong transmission gears--as long as the driver (and the driver alone) is responsible for pulling the car out of one gear and putting into the next.

One other item that seems a little backwards, is to mandate a higher rear wing. Raising the rear wing will have a couple of effects: it will increase drag; it will punch a bigger hole in the air for better drafting; it will work better in traffic; and it will make the careful streamlining of the cars less important, shrinking the gap between high budget and lower budget teams.

Oh, and require engine manufacturers that power cars onto the podium to supply two teams equally the following season. (the podium requirement is to allow new engine manufacturers to develop a competitive engine without having to supply two teams.

[Yelnats]

TAK, A well thought out reply and one I almost complely agree with. Particularly the refueling/tire stratagey points. Races are run at almost qualifying speeds today due to the hard compounds of the one manufacturer tires and the frquency of their replacement with multiple stops. Make them run the whole race with one set of tires and we'll see passing galore nearer the end of the race when wiser heads and better driving styles pay off in better tire preservation.

[Jonathan]

F1 compared to restrictive "Formula" racing here in the US is concidered boring to some extent because there is too great an allowance for expensive technology "tricks". The better run teams run away and hide from the not so well run teams.
Also changes ment to slow the cars down (groved tires (tyres) and reduced aerodynamic aids) have only made the cars LESS stable and not as capable of running close together.
Another key factor is that the circuts themselves deteriorate and the off-line "Marbles" reduce the races to little more than a procession at times...
Solutions: 1) Slow down the cars (reduced displacement and REQUIRE the use of aerodynamic devices). 2) BAN TIRE CHANGES (this will require a harder compond that will last and wont generate the cornering capablities capable of eating up asphalt).

One more thing: to limit the technology of F1 is to remove what makes F1 seperate from US "CART" formula racing where standardized engines & chassis make for 1/2 dozen teams all racing the same cars. While this makes for much closer racing it isn't what a true F1 fan wants to have happen. Half of what makes F1 so exciting is the technology that differing teams come up with.

[This message has been edited by Jonathan (edited 10-12-1999).]

[MPH]

PB, my comments about engine displacement were meant as a way to decrease HP.

Several people have commented about not allowing tire changes. I live in NASCAR country and I heard something interesting yesterday that I did not know. In the NASCAR Truck series you can only change two tires during a pitstop. Such a rule is probably more suited to oval racing but would make F1 quite exciting.

[Christiaan]

MPH, such a rule is would increase the number of pitstops wouldn't it.

[SlowDrivr]

Regarding harder tires to get rid of marbles to make passing easier: We've already got harder tires due to the grooves! I've read that at some tracks the tires are as hard or harder than what is used on street cars. Even harder tires would make for less mechanical grip and make the cars even harder to control. Which may make passing harder. I don't know if that's the way to go.

How about this: if the car wanting to pass flashes its high beam's then the car in front must move over and let him by

[Jonathan]

SlowDrvr - Point taken on the grooved tyres - I hadnt known that they were all that hard.

I would still like to be stuburn and disagree with you on this, however:
I dont think reducing the level of grip makes the cars "unstable". What makes the current cars so unstable is the "knife edge" break-away characteristics between in control & out of control. Very few people (besides the Schumacher brothers) can actually recover these cars after they have started sliding...
I am not sure what is required to make a car "stable". Winter 'Ice Racing' cars appear to be very stable (or atleast "predictable") although they gernerate very little mechanical grip.

Perhaps a better solution might be to focus on a more stable track surface ?

With regards to Flashing high-beams: Isn't that what BTCC and WRC racing were developed for ? :-)

[Martin]

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but I’ve been away for a month. But don’t worry when I last suggested the following idea at the beginning of the year it killed the thread stone dead. Never having been one to let a crap idea die, here goes:
I think everyone here has so far agreed that an increase in mechanical grip and a decrease in aerodynamic grip would be a bonus. The cars might go faster down the straights but they would go slower round the corners. Added to this longer braking distances (quicker acceleration out of corners?) and less wake turbulence, there would be more opportunities for overtaking. So at the moment there are loads of rules determining wing sizes and the shape of the underside etc etc which can be bent, broken and "interpreted" and which, as the recent Ferrari fiasco shows, just make F1 a laughing stock.
So why not create a more holistic rule for aerodynamic aids? Design how you like but have an ultimate limit on aerodynamic performance. My idea is that downforce should be limited so that at a constant speed (say 200kph) the car’s weight can only increase by a certain factor (say 3). You techies can argue about the actual figures.
There is of course a problem of scrutineering, but with its vast wealth surely the F1 establishment could come up with a device that fitted into a couple of crates for shipment to each race. It doesn’t have to be superbly hi-tech - in effect just a weighbridge with a bloody great fan in front of it (I know it’s not quite so simple, but surely do-able). Some details would have to be worked out - possibly it would include a rolling road so that the car is powered to the speed in top gear so that wheel and exhaust factors are included. The machine could be available to the teams all the time during practice so they can check their own legality.
All sorts of benefits are now opened up. There would be more emphasis on mechanical grip, chassis and suspension design. The aerodynamics would still be most important, but for making the car slippery and by adjusting the downforce balance between the front and the back. There would no longer be any tape measure and 5mm leeways and "it didn’t give us any advantage" excuses.
So what sort of cars would be produced? I suspect that wings would go altogether (maybe not good for sponsorship) - all downforce would be ground effect. I’m just guessing - anyone any ideas?
So is this idea a radical way to breathe new life into a tired and cynical formula or just more of the same old boring rubbish you’re used to me posting? OK, OK, I’m going.

Martin

[PDA]

martin - ingenious, but I can't see it working. To measure downforce at a certain air speed, one needs a wind tunnel, and they are not very portable.

BTW, your suggestion of downforce being limited to 3 times car weight would not help, as that is the current order of magnitude. I think we need downforce to be reduced drastically, to maybe one third or less than current levels. That means no diffusers, reduced size and complexity of wings etc. This would reduce cornering speeds, so there would be less need for chicanes. Straight line speed would be up (as drag yould be reduced).

Everybody says that slicks are the only way to improve passing ability. Remember there was once a time (pre 1971) when nobody had slicks, all tyres were treaded, and they were able to overtake relatively easily. The most important factor was not the tyres, but no wings.

[Christiaan]

Martin, thats one of the best ideas I have ever heard. Checking it is quite simple, but expensive. Most teams test on quater scale models and only Ferrari on a 3/4 model and Mac the real thing. What if a team was required to provide a 1/4 scale model say two days before the race. Then the stewards would check using accurately mounted equipment whether the model and the car actually are the same. If not, DQ or penalty ..whatever. The models will be then taken to France, and it will only be a half hour check per car to determine its downforce.

[PDA]

Christiaan - I don;t think that a 1/4 scale model would be satisfactory. Look how much controversy we have had over a small part of an aerodynamic device being 10 mm (or 5) out. The tests would have to be made on the actual car, to take account of variance due to manufacturing tolerances. Also, downforce can be varied quite considerably during practice by making slight alterations to the size and attitude of the wings (adding or removing a Gurney strip, changing the angle of incidence). I think what they would have to do is decide what would be the order of magbitude of downforce to be allowed, and then set the size parameters for aerodynamic devices so that they would not exceed thta limit (or not by much).

[MattC]

PDA:
I'm pretty sure you are right. The tyres probably play a part, but reducing aero would be far more significant. It's obvious (even without a background in fluid dynamics) that aero-derived grip is more sensitive to factors outside the driver's control than tyre-derived grip. This is made worse by downforce being so much more effective than mechanical grip.
Your idea for limiting downforce also sounds like the most practical approach. In a perfect world, a mobile FIA wind tunnel sounds great, but....


------------------
MattC

[Martin]

Well I'm glad this hasn't been compltetly pilloried.
I'm not sure that the mobile windtunnel is such a problem. From what I understand modern wind tunnels are packed with tons of monitoring equipment, cameras, smoke dischargers etc. But this test rig only needs to measure one thing -weight. We couldn't give a fig about drag - that's the teams' problem.
I suppose generating clean (non-turbulent air) is quite tricky in a small light air-transportable form - but surely it's do-able - it's not as if Bernie's short of a few bob. And remember, even if it's not fantastically accurate everyone will use the same machine over the race weekend for checking their car to ensure it is compliant. One of the key aspects of the system is that teams have allocated exclusive unmonitored use of the tunnel during free practice. They should not be penalized for not being compliant until they enter timed practice and the race itself.
It also occurs to me that the air speed need not be that great - maybe you could check at just 100kph or even less with a suitably adjusted weight factor.
The beauty of the idea is that there would be no arguments about barge boards, stepped undertrays, wing sizes/heights, Gurney strips (what are they when they're at home?)- hell they could revert to sliding skirts if they wanted to!! Either the car passes or fails at the end of the race.
PDA - thanks for the factor info - I had no idea how much downforce is generated, I just guessed

[PDA]

Gurney strip

If you look closely at the rear wing, you willl see that on the trailing edge, there is usually a small vertical strip. It acts as a trim tab and its precence or absence makes a big difference in downforce. This strip can be varied in width in small increments, allowing downforce to be varied in small increments.

JV ran into the pits at Barcelona to have such a strip removed, as it was loose and flapping. In the end, they pulled off the whole wing element.

It is called a Gurney strip after Dan Gurney, the American GP driver and constructor who was the first to use this technique on his Eagle Indy cars.